Madeleine McCann: Robert Murat’s Relief
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “Murat: It’s big relief”
Madeleine McCann suspect Robert Murat, 34, last night spoke of his joy that he looks likely to be officially cleared in days.
After having his computers returned, he said at his Praia da Luz home last night: “I’m so relieved.”
No mention of the Mirror’s super sleuth Lori Campbell who fingered “weird” Murat.
DAILY MAIL: “Murat could soon be cleared as Madeleine suspect after police return his possessions”
Even his computer - with the Sun’s “kid porn”.
His lawyer Francisco Pagarete said: “The police received an order from the public prosecutor to give everything back to Robert. All his items have been returned. We believe it is another step towards his clearance as a suspect. It’s a good sign.
“But we will have to wait and see. There is nothing official saying his status as an arguido is being revoked.”
Even if yesterday the Sunday People had “CLEARED” him.
No word from the The Mail’s Neil Sears, who told us: “There was something more to the friendly expat who called himself ‘Rob’ than met the eye.” Murat made Sears “feel slightly uncomfortable”.
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Robert Murat close to being cleared over Madeleine McCann disappearance”
Robert Murat has moved a step closer to being cleared as a suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance after police returned possessions seized from him 10 months ago.
Says hi mother, Jenny Murat, 74: “Every single item that the police took has been returned to us. Of course we hope it means Robert’s arguido status will be lifted shortly. But we’ve had no official confirmation that that is the case and we’re not getting too excited.”
Madeleine McCann: Speculation and survival
Posted: 24th, March 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (978) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
March 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
403
coolandcalm
Well, if that’s the case then each and every headline can be used against Team McCann if the PJ come up with hard evidence that shows the Express’ stories were in fact true.
This could be Mr Archer all over again…or Burrell…or Heather “Pornochio” Mills.
Remember as well that the Express published a book. Why wasn’t the book mentioned in the libel? Did anyone out there buy a copy? I bet that book will become very sought after depending how this case pans out. Is it on Ebay yet?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
OK, the PJ can draft as many questions as they like, do we know if any one has been contacted about questioning, or indeed agreed to even have a voluntary interview.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
399…Denzylle
Parlous state of Dr G P’s Personal Fund…seems to have caused dive into
Libel suit.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
399
Denzylle
The Mc’s haven’t learned the most basic of litigation. You keep your mouth firmly shut and say nothing.
Instead, they employ a pink mouthpiece who can’t sit still for a moment without manufacturing and spinning stories.
O’Brien and the Oldfields have gone the right way - we’ve not heard a peep from them. Even O’Brien’s missus couldn’t keep her mouth shut.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Stevo… I understood that the ‘100+’ stories were listed in the court docs as headlines from both papers?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
393 brief encounter
Yes, I know. There will be nothing sweeter than catching a liar in the act. If Murat is totally innocent then I hope he profits more than anyone on this case. What they did to him is despicable and that journalist who dobbed him in to the police should get her come uppance if he is innocent.
394
annie123
Thanks but I still don’t know what you’re on about. Who sued the Express and then who did the Express sue in return?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
coolandcalm,388.
“I have…two cats, four laptops, two sheds and three cars.”
So what is your personality disorder? Kleptomania, or Inferiority Complex?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
398…Stevo
Revenge is best served cold.
They will be very alert to anything untoward.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Stevo
390
I would dearly love to think the PJ are sitting down right now to redraft all their questions in line with the ‘false stories’.
No wonder they might need two months here!
And if that’s so, the McCanns couldnt have timed it better. I wonder if they thought about all the implications of bringing this defamation suit at this particular point in time?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
387 Matt
If someone came forward with evidence of swinging, it would blow the libel case wide open. Imagine other stories being corroborated with proper evidence?
My point is that if you’re going to go as far as sue for libel it has to be 1000000% cast iron. If not and evidence comes up to show the libel was in fact true, then the whole case will fall apart like a house of cards. I wonder if the Express have some hidden evidence?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
383…annie123
Yes….J Archer got well and truly whacked financially after it was proved
14 years later that he had committed Perjury in the earlier Libel Case.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Apologies Duncan R 379.
Posted my last little snipe at Ian before seeing your post.
It’s because I’m a libran I stick my nose in!
March 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
391 matt
He did, always so annoying as the “pros” start these things, load the guns so to speak and then sitt back and watch the fireworks.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
386
Stevo Says:
…………………………………………
Sorry will try again
The express group was sued for libel and paid out. It later transpired they had in fact reported the truth and sued the ‘victim’, resulting in them gaining far more money than they initially paid out?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Stevo, 378.
“Robert Murat was accused of lying by a friend of her parents in a finger-pointing outburst…”
Memory Lane, it is today. I remember the finger-pointing report, it was in a PJ interview room. By more than just one of the pack. The Man With The Lazy Eye, Murat was, lurking about, recognized in the dark, because of his lazy eye. Dead giveaway.
And while all the finger-pointing was going on, the PJ were taping it all in the next room, and sniggering, no doubt.
Sue the bastards, Robert.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Actually, thinking about it, they just can’t have identified which of all the Express Newspapers articles were ‘false’ because inferences would have been drawn from the articles which didnt make their list as ‘false’.
Or perhaps they did. And perhaps the Express has drawn inferences from the omissions and is saving them up for a later date.
A nice thought.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
388…coolandcalm
I thought Duncan had said “Curb it”…or suchlike wording.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
381
Denzylle
Ok, the fact remains that 100 or more stories are regarded as lies by Team McCann. IF those stories are identified then it becomes a potentially HUGE perjury situation because the PJ can then ask questions which are linked to those Express stories.
As you say, without reading the actual complaint it’s hard to say which of the stories they complained about. We know at least some of them though don’t we? The swinger story and the “sold their daughter” story. Those 2 stories were mentioned specifically.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
385…Denzylle
No prob, Denzylle….just think of it as Great Minds etc.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
373 Mr L.. Personal info is personal on an anonymous site however as my personna is public anyway so is this info; I have two children, two step-children and a foster son. (and two cats, four laptops, two sheds and three cars)
You may cast aspersions as often as you like, but its water off a ducks back to me having worked for so long with clients with personalilty disorders.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
384…Stevo
depends on what the Express Group accepted under those terms.
They should indicate what the alleged libels were, each and every one.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
383
annie123
Annie…the way you wrote your post, you make out I said that stuff - I didn’t!
I’m not sure I understand your post either. Can you elucidate?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Matt
372
Sorry, I seem to have repeated more or less what you said.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
377 Ian & Matt 372
I can’t recall seeing which of the 100+ stories were deemed to be defamatory. Because it was only mentioned as 100+ stories, I wonder if that was a blanket statement meaning “all of the Express stories that we didn’t like”?
But this has enormous implications. It means that by accepting a settlement because Team McCann are claiming the stories to be lies, it means the McCann/T9 answers to those questions HAVE to be contradictory to the stories published or else it can’t be defamatory.
The McCanns can’t have this both ways…can they?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
366
Stevo Says:
I was informed last night (don’t know if it’s true?) But the express group have gained financially when after the case (after payed out for lible) it was proven the express had in fact reported the truth, they received almost double what they paid out in settlement and legal fees. If they had reported the truth re McCann’s, they could potentially wipe out what’s left in the fund (it was mentioned the fund would be used towards any of their legal costs?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
If the McCanns were ‘completely innocent’ they would have ended this with a court case and not what is effectively a back hander.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Stevo
366
Doesn’t it depend whether they cited exact dates for each fo the ‘100 false stories’, thereby identifying the actual stories they regard as ‘false’?
Might it not be that they only cited a few actual dates (maybe one per newspaper) and added in numerous other stories unidentified by actual dates? After all, their suit would stand with even one ‘false story’ per newspaper title.
I wish we could see the document which was filed.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
342 Garth
I know you think they are innocent of any “direct involvement to do with the disappearance of their own daughter”, and if it suits you, why not? I personnally don’t know, so I don’t say one way or the other.
What I don’t agree with is saying “both are completely different issues”. What I mean is the first one (indirect involvement as you call it), isn’t an issue at all as regards the investigation. It is just a fact. A fact that allowed the second issue (abduction or disappearance with parents’involvement).
So of course, like you I think it is totally different if the girl was abducted or not.
But, as I see it, the sequence of events as regards the parents’involvement which you can oppose is :
- indirect+ direct,
- or just indirect
and not “indirect” versus “direct”.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
346 - coolandcalm Says:
So what happened to Anoraks oft repeated mantra of ‘attack the posts not the posters’?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have been watching the comments posted here for the last couple of hours. It is clear the posts of a number of contributors have been mainly addressed to Garth and the general tone of these comments has been ‘less than complimentary’. Garth, however, seems well capable of defending himself regardless of the number of his attackers.
However, you make a valid point. Vigorous ‘debate’ is allowed on Anorak. Yet, at times today I have been reminded of a bunch of schoolkids gaining strength and courage from being part of a ‘gang’ to attack another kid.
So, come on boys and girls, no more name calling please. Try to act like adults and engage in intelligent debate. Remember the important issue is not the personality of other posters but the fate of a young girl !!!
March 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
For instance:
The Express wrote on Friday July 27, 2007:
Maddy: Chief suspect accused of lying
Madeleine McCann suspect Robert Murat was accused of lying by a friend of her parents in a finger-pointing outburst, it was alleged yesterday.
dailyexpress 10:37:00 AM CEST
_________________________________
So, is this one of the 100+ articles where the McCanns are saying the Express lied?
If so, does this mean Murat did or didn’t lie? Which way do the McCanns want to play it with all those “defamatory” stories?