Madeleine McCann: Scotsman Apologises To Robert Murat
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
ROBERT Murat is involved in legal action against 11 British newspapers and Sky New.
THE Scotsman has apologised to Robert Murat and admitted publishing defamatory allegations about him.
Says the paper:
“On 15 May an article about Robert Murat headed ‘Madeleine: He jokes of being ‘No.1 suspect’’ was published in which we reported a number of defamatory allegations about Mr Murat in connection with the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
“The article wrongly accused him of ‘hanging around’ the scene in a manner which recalled the Soham murders.
“Likening his behaviour in this way to that of Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, suggested that he was involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann. It was a seriously defamatory allegation and wholly untrue.”
The apology continued: “We also wrongly implied that he had been unfeeling and insensitive about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance and had lied about his role in the police investigation. That was not our intention.
“We accept that Mr Murat was assisting the police investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance and that his behaviour was entirely proper throughout, and we are happy to make that clear.
“We apologise to Mr Murat for the hurt, distress and damage to his reputation caused by the article.”
No damages have been paid to Murat. Not yet…
Posted: 17th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (442) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
- Clive on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- yampster on Jamie Cullum Sings The Persuit, In Pictures
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
May 17th, 2008 at 11:12 am
MAT ADE
but i thought all they wanted to do was to help find Madeleine ? or not ?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am
71
i-dont-believe-them
i agree with your point but it seems from the legal point of view, saying “untrue” is a safe option at this point.
ironically, safe but can still be untrue as you point out
such fun
i presume r murat will be claiming damages as well as the “retraction”
let’s hope this charade ends up bankrupting and finishing off the gutter press once and for all…
May 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am
75
Matt. Says:
yes.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
There is a glossy magazine, dare not mention it’s name-but, time and time again it has to issue apologies for stuff it has printed which is usually totally untrue and outrageous too.
The newspapers have been printing stuff that has been wrong for yonks. Look at what was printed about Diana for instance.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
hi bounty
May 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
any news of amber alert lately?
or have the wretches given up on that as well as looking for family members.
great sport
May 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
70…sam
Very apt, I think, in the present circumstances.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
62
coolandcalm Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
‘Even the McCanns cannot be summoned just for a reconstruction.’
didn’t they have to agree to return if needed ? or did they do a flit like that other couple recently, do you know ?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Cheer up, Garth.
…………………
Who said it was time for an oxymoron?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
MODS & ADMIN
May I change my handle to JUSTLURKING ? Such a nice handle, don’t you think ?? hehe he he…………………….
or has it been taken ?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Likening his behaviour in this way to that of Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, suggested that he was involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann. It was a seriously defamatory allegation and wholly untrue.”
——————–
“wholly untrue”? What is it with the press in the UK? They printed that Murat was involved in the abduction and now they printed that he wasn’t involved in the abduction. Neither has been proven.
Personally, I don’t think Mr. Murat had anything to do with it and was trying to help, but the press cannot be completely sure he wasn’t involved. The press should state the facts and saying that Murat is innocent is as unproven as saying he is guilty.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am
60
Matt. Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:53 am
forgot to add, is a good word.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am
justr looked at the side advertisements:
“Bullet proof your vehicle
Unique lightweight armouring system In car personal protection
http://www.armourcar-lite.com”
any applicants from orchard house?
makes the frequent runs to the creche a bit safer, perhaps
such fun
May 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
62
coolandcalm Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
——————————
As Carmen has noted, no reconstruction = potentially never ending period of secrecy.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
56 Carmen
Having never been defamed I wouldn’t know how it feels. But, having seen other people defamed it is awful, i.e. supposed affair or involved in marriage break-up, etc. When newspapers retract or apologize it is usually page 6 they put the notice on, usually where people don’t read much. Such are the papers. At least it is in there. As for publicly apologizing, well, if it caused a lot of grief, I would accept. Get at the papers straight away though, not a few months later! It does seem to me that the Mccanns were probably pt up to it to get cash IMHO!
May 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
60
Matt. Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:53 am
ah, i can’t play chess.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
CHENIER
You are a star !! Keep it up. squared up with sars tax man, free to help with baricade defencing next week.
goodmorning to all,
ps has El Torro’s contract been renewed for another 6 months ? we should be told !!
May 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
54
Garth Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
————————————–
Cheer up, Garth.
The sky is grey overhead, but the other Sky is counting its pennies and rueing the day it ever provided a waiting world with Loricisms…
May 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
excellent stuff
the taparratti are too scared to set foot in portugal
kinda smells of guilty bastards with something to hide
totally innocent explanation?
what fun the pj are having by toying with them
i really like to watch the squirming
May 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
sadly Jo has the legal situation re: the witnesses completely arse about face.
If the witnesses were Portuguese / in Portugal then the PJ could insist on them doing whatever. All the PJ can do (either verbally or via the oft-reported letters) is request them to go back for a reconstruction.
They are Brits living in Britain so can respond however they like. They are accused of nothing and are not suspects or Arguidos.
Maybe they will go… but it will definitely be their decision.
Even the McCanns cannot be summoned just for a reconstruction.
(info courtesy of a Portugese lawyer in PDL)
May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
56
Carmen Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
….I would want the public apology myself!
———————————-
And so would I!
‘Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.’
Othello, Shakespeare, William, before the M&A leap upon me.
Pity about the source, though…
May 17th, 2008 at 10:53 am
57…sam
T’was I.
Been in that position several times myself.
At a chessboard, I must add hastily.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Bye everybody
Real life is calling
Have agood day…..
xxx
May 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
46
Carmen Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I had to look it up - the equivalent of check, rather than check-mate. I learn something every day on Anorak.
someone else said it though yesterday. so it’s check, thanks.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
zugzwang = DOOM
It means whatever way you intend to move you are cornered and “invited” to provok a disaster in chess playing.
Are the Portuguese good chess players???
May 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
53
lyn Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am e
44 Carmen
What I would do if wrongly accused in the newspapers of something, would be to make a legal statement stating “innocent”, please do not publish anything more as you are upsetting me! Mr Murat to my knowledge has not done that in the first place, via his lawyers, which is rather surprising. There are often bits in the newspapers, towards the back I might say, written by the same paper retracting the statements/s made, etc. Why has Mr Murat waited until recently. A good point you have re he could have a whole lot more to worry about if guilty.
*********************
You’re sure are you? It would be enough for you that the paper didn’t publish anything more because it was upsetting you?
You wouldn’t want to force the paper to issue a retraction so that all their readers were aware that they had defamed you?
I would want the public apology myself!
May 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Morning all……….. cold wet and horrible her in the South East.
Lyn…….. we really don’t know if Murat is innocent or guilty. He is still an arguido as are the McCanns who we also don’t know if they are innocent or guilty.
The McCanns and now Robert Murat sued over headlines / stories that were patently untrue and proven to be untrue regardless of ultimate guilt or innocence in Madeleine’s disappearance.
If all the rumours about all them were true then the three of them would have been banged up forever last year along with Malinka, Luis and his wife!
All is not as it seems in PDL and Arguidoland.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
51.
51
jo Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
42
Garth Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think Amaral is more involved than the mccanns
***************
Absolutely!
He is very involved in making the truth and justice to a CHILD ,much more than their own progenitors,I agree totally with you
———————
I would say he is more involved in bending the truth or even ignoring it. This case had to be resolved and quickly. Too much bad publicity surrounding the quiet little sea resort of PDL. Not good for tourism or his reputation (which is a joke in itself).
Unfortunately the ’standins’ havent progressed much either imo.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
44 Carmen
What I would do if wrongly accused in the newspapers of something, would be to make a legal statement stating “innocent”, please do not publish anything more as you are upsetting me! Mr Murat to my knowledge has not done that in the first place, via his lawyers, which is rather surprising. There are often bits in the newspapers, towards the back I might say, written by the same paper retracting the statements/s made, etc. Why has Mr Murat waited until recently. A good point you have re he could have a whole lot more to worry about if guilty.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
45
chenier
You are soooo funny!!