Independent accountability project. Not affiliated with MCSO, McKinley County, James Maiorano III, or any political campaign.
Language / Translator
HE ASKED FOR A TRANSLATOR BEFORE THE SUBSTANTIVE INTERVIEW.
The issue is not whether Shubham understood some English. The recording shows that he did. The question is what established that he understood enough English for meaningful questioning about the allegation.
11:35
Shubham: “Again, I need a translator.”
11:43
Bittony: “I know. There’s no translator here, but I’m going to try. I’m going to talk to you.”
11:46
Bittony says Shubham must understand because he is “arguing.”
17:06
Shubham: “I’m not arguing. I respect you, sir... I speak little bit.”
17:11
Bittony: “We don’t have a translator.”
18:07
Bittony asks where they are coming from. Shubham answers, “India.” Bittony clarifies that he means where the bus came from.
18:42
Shubham: “I’m not speak proper English.”
19:03
Shubham says “What?” when asked what the female passenger said he was doing. The repeated answer describes what he says he himself was doing instead.
20:00
Shubham: “I’m not speak proper English, sir.”
Accountability question: If a rudimentary travel question was misunderstood, what established comprehension for the substantially more complicated allegation?