Larry, on what you've said I doubt it too. If her translator is getting instructions from the terrorist but she's not in on it, she should be OK.

Your example is incredible - who'd let themselves go down for that? If the ppl concerned knew they hadn't gone round saying that, why didn't they get the evidence checked? I mean, anyone half awake could sort that out - translators aren't that expensive to hire, the tapes are freely available to the defence and the ppl on trial know they didn't say that so the original translation must be an error. Either the lawyer or the ppl convicted or both must have been utter cretins.

Graham.