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 4:13 pm
Stevo
Surely “absent fathers” is the point? These woman and children wouldn’t be on benefits if the men ( I use that term loosely ) in their lives, paid for their offspring, instead of being able to pro-create as many times as they like.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
462
Abraham Zapruder
I’m totally amazed that the essence of the lawsuit last week was that Team McCann were complaining about being suspected of covering up the death of their daughter.
I’m amazed because I thought this was a “given” since last September when they fled PDL. If not then what on earth have we all been debating? That would mean they were named arguidos for some other reason. This now makes no sense at all.
Yes, the taxi story is interesting. It seemed too detailed to be something to throw away without investigation. Didn’t the cabbie also have a son in the GNR?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Me!
459
459
Denzylle Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
AZ
Stevo
This would seem to be the key para.:
‘ In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up, and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise. Equally, the allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann may have “sold” Madeleine, and that they are involved in “swinging” or wife-swapping, were entirely baseless.’
It seems to me that the statement draws a distinction between:
i) saying the swinging and selling allegations are baseless = (to me) no foundation at all; and
ii) saying ‘there is no evidence […] to suggest’ they ‘were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up’ = (to me) that there is no evidence YET, ie. yet in the public domain or yet until the PJ disclose it, perhaps.
——————————————————————————————————-
Try putting it the other way around.
It doesn’t say ii) is ‘baseless’ and it doesn’t say there is ‘no evidence’ for i).
March 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Stevo
454
Could it be that the PJ has information known only to them which they felt was sufficient evidence to declare the McCs arguidos, but that Express Newspapers are not party to this information which the PJ has (yet) and, therefore, despite the fact that the McCs are arguidos, the Express stories remain (for the time being, until the information is public), ‘false’.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
451 coolandcalm
Thanks! It looks worth buying as you can get it for 4 quid new.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Stevo
The statement does require some dissection - I’m sure you’ll oblige! My recollection is that when GM came out of Portimao nick in September his lawyer said “GM is now arguido in the disappearance of MM” or similar.
As Gandolf has pointed out many times, this has never been a homicide (that to include manslaughter as well as murder) enquiry.
As I said yesterday, if there is any truth in the taxi driver story then MM was in Vila Real just after 8 on 3 May which means she would have left PDL in broad daylight (say 6.45) and over two hours before the GM “proud father” check.
Round and round we go!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
459…Denzylle
Yes….the future could well alter the assumptions made in that ruling.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
455
Stevo
Surely it’s not just the woman’s responsability though Stevo? “can’t keep her legs together long enough” is a bit harsh. Education, contraception, responsability. That’s the answer.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
AZ
Stevo
This would seem to be the key para.:
‘ In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up, and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise. Equally, the allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann may have “sold” Madeleine, and that they are involved in “swinging” or wife-swapping, were entirely baseless.’
It seems to me that the statement draws a distinction between:
i) saying the swinging and selling allegations are baseless = (to me) no foundation at all; and
ii) saying ‘there is no evidence [...] to suggest’ they ‘were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up’ = (to me) that there is no evidence YET, ie. yet in the public domain or yet until the PJ disclose it, perhaps.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
453
Annie_M
And Annie…having 2 kids is fine. A lot of us like to have one of each so try for 2. Maybe 3 is a reasonable limit. But why 7? Who needs that number of children and especially people who haven’t got two sticks to rub together?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
451…coolandcalm
http://tinyurl.com/
Handy link to have.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Does anyone know what this post meant last night?
>>>>>>>>>>
• 259
yampster Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 12:56 am
258
val
‘WE’ have been fooled?? Speak for yourself
Has anyone checked that old deserted fairground yet? The caretaker looks a bit shifty to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone heard anything about an old deserted fairground with a shifty caretaker? Sounds like a Stephen King novel?!?!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
453
Annie_M
That’s not what I said. I said that above 2 or 3 kids, why should a government collect money from other people to pay for other people’s children when they have more than they can afford?
I agree with you about absent fathers but that wasn’t my point. In Lincoln for example there’s a woman there on benefits who has had over 20 kids. She has had 2 council houses knocked into one and she earns a fortune because she can’t keep her legs together long enough. If people want this number of children - have them, but don’t expect others to have to pay for them.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
439 Abraham Zapruder
In that link (thanks):
“The general theme of the articles was to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of Madeleine or that there were strong or reasonable grounds for so suspecting and that they had then disposed of her body; and that they had then conspired to cover up their actions, including by creating “diversions” to divert the police’s attention away from evidence which would expose their guilt.”
___________________
This paragraph is amazingly crucial.
Irrespective of the actual articles, it is basically reaffirming why the McCanns were made arguido. I think we’ve all seen the PJ stories where they say they there were strong or reasonable grounds for suspecting they had disposed of her body.
I thought that the McCanns were made arguido because of the above theory. If not, why were they made arguidos? How could the Express have got this part wrong?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
438
Stevo
I have had to claim benefits in the past. My 1st husband has never supported 2 of my (his ) children. Not a penny. The CSA was beyond usless. I worked nights but claimed Tax Credits. My kids have gone without thank’s to the selfish so & so. What about their rights? When are the fathers going to be made to face their responsabilities?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
As it’s a public domain document I guess I’m allowed to paste it in full:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Statement in Open Court
Gerry McCann and Kate McCann and Express Newspapers
Solicitor-Advocate for the Claimant, Adam Tudor, Carter-Ruck
My Lord, in this action I appear for the Claimants, Gerry and Kate McCann.
Mr and Mrs McCann are the parents of three young children, the eldest of whom, Madeleine, was abducted from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. As the Court will be aware, Madeleine’s abduction has given rise to widespread media coverage both in this jurisdiction and worldwide.
My learned friend, Mr Bacon, appears for Express Newspapers, the Defendant in this matter, which is the publisher of the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Star Sunday. These newspapers have a combined circulation in the jurisdiction of several million copies, as well as a substantial on-line readership.
From the late summer of 2007 until February 2008, the Defendant newspapers published over one hundred articles which were seriously defamatory of Mr and Mrs McCann.
The general theme of the articles was to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of Madeleine or that there were strong or reasonable grounds for so suspecting and that they had then disposed of her body; and that they had then conspired to cover up their actions, including by creating “diversions” to divert the police’s attention away from evidence which would expose their guilt.
Many of these articles were published on the front pages of the newspapers and on their websites, accompanied by sensational headlines.
In addition to the allegations referred to above, the Daily Star published further articles (under the headlines “MADDIE MUM ‘SOLD’ HER” and “MADDIE ‘SOLD’ BY HARD-UP MCCANNS”) which sought to allege that Mr and Mrs McCann had sold their daughter in order to ease their financial burdens. A further article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in “swinging” or wife-swapping orgies.
As the Defendant now acknowledges, all of these allegations were, and remain, entirely untrue. In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up, and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise. Equally, the allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann may have “sold” Madeleine, and that they are involved in “swinging” or wife-swapping, were entirely baseless.
Naturally, the repeated publication of these utterly false and defamatory allegations has caused untold distress to Mr and Mrs McCann. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a more serious allegation than to be falsely accused of being responsible for the death of one’s own daughter.
In recognition of the falsity of the allegations made against Mr and Mrs McCann, Express Newspapers has agreed to publish full apologies on the front pages and on the websites of the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Star Sunday, and to join in the reading of this statement in open Court. Further, Express Newspapers has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs McCann substantial libel damages, all of which will be donated to the Fund established to assist with the search for Madeleine. Express Newspapers has also agreed to pay Mr and Mrs McCann’s reasonable legal costs.
Counsel for the Defendant, Stephen Bacon
My Lord, on behalf of the Defendant, I confirm all that my friend has said.
Express Newspapers regrets publishing these extremely serious, yet baseless, allegations concerning Mr and Mrs McCann over a sustained period of what will already have been an enormously distressing time for them, and at a time when they have been trying to focus on finding their daughter.
As an expression of its regret, Express Newspapers has agreed to publish front-page apologies, acknowledging the falsity of the allegations and reflecting the fact that they should never have been made. Through me, Express Newspapers wholeheartedly repeats that apology before the Court today. They profoundly regret the distress which these publications will have caused to Mr and Mrs McCann. I confirm that Express Newspapers has agreed to make a substantial contribution to the Madeleine Fund, which we hope will assist in continuing the search for her.
Solicitor-Advocate for the Claimant, Adam Tudor, Carter-Ruck
My Lord, in all the circumstances, Mr and Mrs McCann’s object in bringing these proceedings has been achieved.
Adam Tudor
Carter-Ruck
on behalf of the Claimants
Stephen Bacon
Express Newspapers
on behalf of the Defendant
19 March 2008
March 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Stevo
Madeleine: A Most Heartbreaking and Extraordinary Disappearance: 1 (Hardcover)
by Robert Downing (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madeleine-Most-Heartbreaking-Extraordinary-Disappearance/dp/0850793483/ref=pd_sbs_b?ie=UTF8&qid=1206373233&sr=1-1
sorry about long link.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
446
just_me
You’re welcome. The UK is known as a place to pursue libel. Out here in the US, you need to have bulletproof evidence to show you suffered a loss before you file libel/slander. It would be easily fixed if the government introduced legislation to tighten up the media and news industries. They won’t do it because they themselves manipulate the media to their own advantage.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
439…Abraham Zapruder
Thanks for the Link….helpful.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Matt - yes true, after reading Stevo’s reply to me, I guess that is the cheaper option, for now
March 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
440
coolandcalm
It may be worth ordering a copy. Do you have the full name of the book or a link?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Thanks Stevo for explaining that
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
437…just_me
The Express Group knew that they could not “prove” some of the claims
they made in certain Headlines.
At least not without supporting evidence from, say, the PJ, who would
not help out in such a way in any case.
They agreed terms as it would be the least expensive option in the
circumstances…..may be only money lent though.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
434
pat
Don’t get me started…..!
The government:
They should all have to survive on benefits for a month minimum before they can make decisions and decide people’s futures. Another month in a normal ( low-paid ) mind numbing job, dealing with the public. That would open their eyes.
They are earning so much money per day ( for doing what exactly? ) that they live in cloud cuckoo land. IMO
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
164
âde Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
153 jo
Will the mccanns make a comment over Ben Smythe “s disappearance?
they will find it difficult to resist
the drug of having to be on the front page of the gutter press is very addictive…
great fun
____________
REPLY: One would certainly expect them to make a phone call offering their sympathies and hope the child is found. They are going through it now so who best would know what the parents are going through and thus offer their support.
Guess it is time for you, Jo, to write a nasty letter or two or make a phone call to remind them who the McCanns are and they may want to think twice of any offers of help the McCanns may want to extend.
Sorry about that, Jo, but that has been your mo on here re the McCanns and denigrating any offers of help or sympathy they extend to others.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
437
just_me
No. Unfortunately, the UK law on libel and slander is messed up. Yes, if you are taken to court and accused of something the general principle is that the accuser has to prove guilt. Libel is different. The burden in this case was on the Express to prove they hadn’t committed libel. Without 100% evidence to the contrary, the Express had no choice. That doesn’t mean they haven’t got evidence….YET.
I think it’s a timing issue and the two agendas are different. The McCanns are desperate. The Express is here to stay. The evidence just isn’t available yet. It will be and then things can be fixed/amended.
If the Express are eventually vindicated, you can imagine their headlines as the case is tried. They will milk it to the hilt.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
That’s ok, I am just letting you know they wont, and quite possibly no one else will be “interviewed”.
And there will be no trial for no one will be charged, for there is no evidence to charge any one.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Stevo… found the book and its still available on Amazon. As is another one about her.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Stevo/Matt
Here is the statement in open court - or as you put it the filed document
http://www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/McCann_Statement_in_Open_Court.html
March 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
425
Annie_M
It’s an offensive thing for a responsible person like that to say but I do think that benefits should be stopped past 2 or 3 children. Why should taxpayers have to pay for irresponsible people? Nobody needs more than 2 or 3 kids. If you want more than that then you should pay for them yourself. Why should others have to pay?