Madeleine lost it, 0 x 7.

An other pathetic distortion of news and more lies….Esay to say “we are not to prejudice anything
What about the endless spins,sightings,denial,refusal to go for the reconstruction et…etc…??
and then….
“When questioned by the journalists about what solution will be announced concerning the “Maddie case”, the Attorney General refused to anticipate an answer, merely saying that it will be “the one that will be read out to you”.

THIS is not quiet the same as in the telegraph article is it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2304526/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-could-be-cleared-on-Monday.html

off ter bed - nite all

I can’t offer you a private jet , but I have an inflatable dingy-Voyager mark 2 from Argos-that you can have full use of.

There is a sweaty running vest in the laundry basket, so if you care to wash it at 90 degrees-or on a boil wash–(bold 3-Lavender and cammomile) -I’m sure the DNA will remain intact and you won’t lose any lingering memories of moi.

I want Chenier and C&C at the crime scene-(to add drama) -preferably having drunk 23 bottles of ouzo………….and let the story commence…………

——————————————–

That is a truly staggering series of speculative non-sequiturs, since we don’t know the terms of the reported settlement.

Why not address it to the Mccanns, since we know the terms of their settlement?

What would be the position say, if it transpired that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 had indeed been ’swingers’ as was alleged?

Would it make a difference if they were not swingers but had indeed been responsible for the death of their daughter?

What would be the case if the Mccanns were practising paedophiles but were not responsible for the death of their child?

What would be the case if the McCanns were negligently responsible for the death of their child, but were not paedophiles?

What would be the position if they had been responsible for the deliberate murder of their child but were not paedophiles or swingers?

I’m fairly sure that the papers would ask for their money back in just about all those cases, since they were required to publish denials of those allegations.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the most insidious allegations of all are the most difficult to refute; there is no way in which a legislature can define the offence of being creepy, or prescribe a penalty for being weird.

Judges can, however, recognise very easily the situation when a journalist uses terms like creepy and weird to justify the allegation that the aforementioned creepy and weird person is obviously a child abductor.

Equally, if a journalist claims that an individual reminds them of a known murderer a Judge will not have much difficulty in grasping that the journalist hopes that people will believe that this is because the individual is a murderer.

In the end the journalists responsible have their head on the block, not because they thought Robert Murat’s behaviour was suspicious, but because they smeared the allegations all over the press.

Had they confined themselves to speaking to the police about it they could not be criticised.

But they didn’t…

Which is why they are on the losing end in the High Court tomorrow…

In this case nothing would surprise me

Saul perhaps the announcement in 5 days time will be that there will be an announcement in 8 days time!

wishful thinking…

…In theory, Murat could remain a suspect, and also even be eventually convicted if evidence sufficient were produced, but his settlement would still stand……

————————————

No; that is not the case.

Try looking at the perjury trial of Jeffrey Archer; he was convicted of perjuring himself in his libel suit against the Star. As well as serving time for perjury he was forced to repay the libel damages he had been awarded…

“Madeleine es un ángel que enriquece no sólo a los arguidos sino también a los testigos”

Madeleine is an angel who makes rich not only the suspects but also the witnesses

http://www.esplendordelaforma.blogspot.com/

Murat didn’t “win” anything. He filed a lawsuit, and then the newspapers he filed suits against settled his claims. It isn’t a howlingly large amount, either. So yes, the court made NO FINDINGS of any kind. In theory, Murat could remain a suspect, and also even be eventually convicted if evidence sufficient were produced, but his settlement would still stand.

Trials are expensive and time-consuming, and it is likely that the newspapers’ lawyers made the decision to pay rather than go through litigation.

At least, Murat actually filed a lawsuit. I don’t think the McCanns ever did more than threaten to file. In neither case did the court make ANY findings whatsoever.