Were the translation errors of critical relevance?

[Mr Gray]

I am in a position to correct you about this "I doubt you have seen s transcript  too... Feel free to correct".. aimed at me in your post 134.
Unless of course you wish to go thro' a dodgy syntax cos I'm posting from mi phone while being mega busy doing other things and the usual slippery as a bucket of eels haraz.

So in what circumstances  have you seen a, transcript  of an interview  under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one

[slartibartfast]

So you agree, there is evidence

No, just finger trouble.

[G-Unit]

So in what circumstances  have you seen a, transcript  of an interview  under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one

Why under caution? The rog. interviews weren't under caution.

[Robittybob1]

How interesting. I wonder who the chap on the stairs was? I wonder when Jane was brought back at 3 in the morning? She kind of suggests it was 4th, but she went first in the morning and then Russell went later, presumably after she returned to see to the children. Did the PJ pick her up again after they brought him back? Why isn't any of this in the files?

The whole story is news to me as well.  You have obviously have done more research than me, been here longer etc.

[Mr Gray]

No, just finger trouble.

So you can see how easy it could be To say the wrong thing when being interviewed by the police... Very easy to get yourself locked up

[Robittybob1]

Jane says they couldn't do a face. I thought when the efit of Tannerman was released we were told it had no face because Jane hadn't seen it.

There are some people who look at a person and notice lots of detail about their clothing.  Jane is one of those persons, clothing is more important than the face.  But to me you can go home and change your clothes but a bit harder to change your face.
But I'm hopeless at that too. 

[Robittybob1]

No, just finger trouble.

Can you define for the forum what "finger trouble" is please?

[Alice Purjorick]

1), So in what circumstances  have you seen a, transcript  of an interview  under caution.... It's quite unusual to see one

Where did I say under caution?
Are you trying to imply the T7 interviews were under caution?
In asnwer to 1: very unusual ones

[Mr Gray]

Why under caution? The rog. interviews weren't under caution.

No they weren't... In the uk witness statements are often not taped.... But those under caution are
It's, interesting  they were taped and I suppose the pj wanted accuracy.. Not a non verbatim summary

[slartibartfast]

So you can see how easy it could be To say the wrong thing when being interviewed by the police... Very easy to get yourself locked up

I suppose if they had been writing their statements on there mobiles?

[Carana]

No they weren't... In the uk witness statements are often not taped.... But those under caution are
It's, interesting  they were taped and I suppose the pj wanted accuracy.. Not a non verbatim summary

I'm not certain if they were or not. They'd got a "letter", but I haven't found much more than allusions at the beginning of the interviews. That may not have been much more than an invitation to be interviews on behalf of the PT authorities and, possibly (and I'm speculating based on a few comments in the rogs) that they would be part of the PJ files and therefore could be made public.

I presume that some measures had to be taken as the rogs were, by definition, undertaken on behalf of a foreign authority and would have had to be legally viable as evidence if required.

As far as I can work out, at least some of the people that the UK wanted the PJ to interview had arguido status - yet I can't find any provision for that scenario in the legal code at the time. It's possible that some simply requested it in order to have a lawyer present in an advisory capacity and that the status ended (which isn't normally the case in a PT investigation).

[Mr Gray]

I suppose if they had been writing their statements on there mobiles?

I think the point has been made

[Carana]

Don't tempt me.....
But in the interests of furthering the debate [if that's the right word] I has two items.
Item 1
There are two types of transcripts from police tapes.
1 Verbatim where every utterance from either end of both interviewer and interviewee is recorded.
2 Semi-verbatim where every utterance from either end of the interviewee is transcribed then the transcriber tries to guess what the interviewer meant and writes down a precis of it that is supposed to make life easier for the reader.
Item 2
A little game that does have relevance.
Translator #1 wrote:
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso de guias judaicas
Translator #2 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é efetuada pelo uso deslizamentos de judeus
Translator #3 wrote
A padronização do comprimento é alcançada com o uso de botijo de jew

Q1 What did the speaker say in English?
Q2 Where did the speaker come from?

Not sure what you're getting at Alice.

The UK rogs were verbatim (both of interviewer and interviewee). Presumably some admin staff was tasked with wading through the recording and typing up every utterance.

The PT statements weren't verbatim at all (and therefore don't fit into your Item 1, point 2 category.)

My impression (not sure how often one has to repeat IMO) is that in the early days at least, it would have been the
interviewing officer typing up the report as the answers to his / her questions came through via the interpreter.

Many statements include phrases of the type (paraphrasing) "Questioned, the witness stated...".

[Alice Purjorick]

Not sure what you're getting at Alice.

The UK rogs were verbatim (both of interviewer and interviewee). Presumably some admin staff was tasked with wading through the recording and typing up every utterance.

The PT statements weren't verbatim at all (and therefore don't fit into your Item 1, point 2 category.)

My impression (not sure how often one has to repeat IMO) is that in the early days at least, it would have been the
interviewing officer typing up the report as the answers to his / her questions came through via the interpreter.

Many statements include phrases of the type (paraphrasing) "Questioned, the witness stated...".

I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.

The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]

In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.

Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.

[Carana]

I accept the bit about T7 interviews.
I was just delineating the two sorts of transcripts covered by the CPS. I wonder why they didn't just use a sealed security bag to send a copy of the recording rather than have a transcript?. PT law allows for that.

The other bit is about how confusion may be sown without really trying.
In my example what all three translators/interpreters should have written/said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slip gauges [block gauges would have been an acceptable alternative].
Slip gauges aka, block gauges, Johanssen's gauges, Jo-blocks and in the NE Jo-slips.
What the interviewee would have said is:
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jo-slips. [the use of the term makes him from the NE in all probablity]

In the NE when some one says "Jo" you hear something like "Jew".
So the interpreter hears: "The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jew-slips"....off it goes!
Then you need something like an 80 year old Geordie machine tool fitter to unravel it for you.

Googlish version of what the interpreter thought he heard.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of Jewish guides.
The standardisation of length is effected by the use of slips of Jews.
Standardisation of length is achieved with the use of jew bottle.

Whoever listens to the tapes in order to transcribe them may hesitate about what they'd actually heard, or thought they'd heard even after checking with someone else if necessary. No problem there. We're only human.

The PJ statements are, IMO, in a different category. They involve a three-way process and are just a summary... at the end of the day, of what the inspector writes downs, via what he/ she thinks they've understood via an "interpreter" in an emergency situation.

It wasn't a court-room setting, but trying to work out the basic facts to help the search.

I really think that context matters, even if no one else does. IMO.