Which Newspaper Will Buy Robert Murat’s Story?
MADELEINE McCann aguido Robert Murat has accepted £600,000 in libel damages over claims that he was involved in her abduction.
Outside court Mr Murat says: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress.”
Round up here.
Mr Murat, his friend Michaela Walczuch and IT consultant Sergey Malinka had all brought proceedings against Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers over nearly 100 “seriously defamatory” articles.
Murat’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous, says:
“In particular, the defendants accept that none of the claimants had any involvement whatever in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.
“They accept that none of the claimants has any paedophile tendencies or connection with paedophiles or paedophile websites and that none of them lied to the police or obstructed the investigations.
“They accept that Mr Murat’s actions after the abduction were entirely proper and were motivated by a desire to help find Madeleine McCann. He became a volunteer translator for the Portuguese police and did everything he could to assist the investigation.
“Ms Walczuch was never suspected or accused of any involvement in the abduction of Madeleine McCann. Mr Malinka was not guilty of any sexual misconduct and has no criminal convictions.”
Now which paper will buy the rights to his story and try to earn back some of their losses?
Posted: 17th, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (499) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Paul Wainwright on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity Watch: Katie Price Is More Hated Than Baby P’s Mum
July 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
June, were they selling it?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
191
Carmen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
189
chenier Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm e
***************************
As I said, the red wig didn’a fool me………
——————————–
Bugger; I was hoping that no-one noticed it falling off as I legged it….
July 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
sorry, i felt the need to sing…
it was either that or
watch out watch out there’s a monster about.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
LP lets not talk about speed please, have met many a nice man in uniform because of it….
July 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Quite a good coverage of the Statement’s near the Court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511274.stm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
the wheels of justice go round and round
round and round, round and round
The wheels of justice go round and round
all very slowly…
July 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
188
Julie Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
That’s one heck of a load of money to pay out !! There’ll be no chinaware left in the mansion after this …. all smashed!!
———————————————–
Is this why Clarrie was considering his options, do you think?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
189
chenier Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm e
***************************
As I said, the red wig didn’a fool me………
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
175
JuneJohnson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
LP I do need it NOW!!! Hairdressers appt, vets and bank
Here you are then. Careful tho it’s set on full speed still hee hee
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
180
Carmen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Thank you Carmen.
For obvious reasons I did not hang around outside waiting for the claimants to emerge…
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
That’s one heck of a load of money to pay out !! There’ll be no chinaware left in the mansion after this …. all smashed!!
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Maria
Ah, well. Hope you find something more interesting.
I might make a daisy chain out of paper clips. Or rifle through all the promotional freebies from such exciting organisations as - the fire brigade and the NHS.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
172
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Chernier …
‘Of course I am prejudiced against women who take part in oral sex competitions’.
Eh???????????? Did I miss something??
—————
You missed the Mezes 9!
I’m waiting for one of the tabloids to set up a Fund to rescue the Mezes 9 from durance vile in Greece.
‘Nine British women were facing prostitution charges after being arrested at the weekend for taking part in an oral sex competition in the Greek holiday island of Zakynthos’.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Carmen
That cost the press a lot.
Nearly as much as Elton John.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
June…. (from further back in threads) I’m another good convent girl. having been a rootless ex-pat kid from birth, I went to many both abroad and here. Some good, some bad. I still keep in touch with one of the few nuns still standing from my time.
M and A
Sadly two who had a real influence on me have since died, they were both in their 50’s back in the 60’s. June
July 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
177
coolandcalm Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Karen 170…. Maria wasn’t being rude, she was responding in kind.
It does get slightly boring having the self-proclaimed oracle calling everyone who doesn’t worship at the altar of the great one, a liar.
————————————————–
C&C
Thank you!
OMG! yaaaaawwwwnnnn! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Gone
July 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Carmen, WOW, Bloody good work by Simons Muirhead & Burton then!
July 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Julie, sarcastically saying is not the same as saying. Maria is right.
Inference is one thing. What you have discovered there is what Maria has just accused Chenier of (at least as I understand it); that is being deliberate in your words but hoping the inference is being picked up.
” you sometimes allow impressions to be given which you want to be given, even if you manage a form of words which allows you to say later that that wasn’t what you meant at all!”
Touche!
I think it is like watching Tommy Cooper. One person, two costumes.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Finally I have a definitive statement from Simons, Muirhead, Burton.
It would appear that the £600,000 is for Robert alone, since the other parties ‘have also’ secured a six figure sum in damages.
*********************
Statement Issued By Simons Muirhead & Burton, Solicitors Acting For Robert Murat - Thursday 17 July 2008
Eleven national newspapers today made apologies to Robert Murat for the defamatory allegations made against him in relation to the abduction and disappearance of Madeleine McCann and agreed to pay him substantial libel damages.
Mr Murat’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous, Media Litigation Partner at Simons Muirhead and Burton, told Mr Justice Eady in the High Court hearing that Associated Newspapers Limited, Express Newspapers, MGN Limited, and News Group Newspapers Limited, the publishers of 11 different daily and Sunday newspapers, had acknowledged the falsity of the allegations in question which were contained in over 100 articles which appeared between May 2007 and January 2008.
Michaela Walczuch and Sergey Malinka, brought separate libel actions. They also received apologies in the High Court in London today and secured their own substantial six figure settlements. Many of these articles were published on the front pages of the newspapers and on their websites, accompanied by sensationalist headlines and striking photographs.
Published by newspapers which included The Daily Express, The Sunday Express, The Daily Star, The Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Metro, The Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror, The News of the World, The Sun and The Daily Record, the articles strongly suggested that Mr Murat had abducted or been party to the abduction of Madeleine McCann, had lied to the Portuguese police about his involvement, and had otherwise obstructed the police investigation into her disappearance including giving false details of his whereabouts on the evening of 3 May 2007. Some of the newspapers suggested that Mr Murat had paedophile tendencies. Others stated that Mr Murat’s behaviour was similar to that of Soham murder Ian Huntley. A false claim that DNA evidence had shown that Madeleine had been in Mr Murat’s Villa was also published.
Mr Charalambous of Simons, Muirhead and Burton, said:
“Until now Robert Murat has had to watch silently as the worst elements of the British media have gone about destroying his good name and reputation.
The behaviour of the tabloid journalists and their editors has been grossly irresponsible demonstrating a reckless disregard for truth. Using conditional fee agreements we pursued these 11 national newspapers for numerous articles which carried false and defamatory claims about Robert and his family. This record settlement in the sum of £600,000 in damages for Robert Murat will help him and his family rebuild their lives”.
“Let’s not forget Mr Malinka’s and Ms Walczuch’s lives have also been devastated by the baseless, inaccurate media coverage that has proliferated about them through swathes of the British press over the last year. Today’s public apology and the six figure sum in damages that each of these parties have also secured will go some way to compensating for the distress they have suffered and restoring their good names. It will bury the lies published about them which included made up allegations of sexual perversion and, in Mr Malinka’s case, of a criminal record.”
The newspapers confirmed to the Court that the defamatory allegations against Mr Murat should never have been made and are unreservedly withdrawn. In addition to apologising, the newspapers have also agreed to pay libel damages of £600,000 to Mr Murat. The newspapers will also be paying the legal costs of bringing the complaints.
Reacting to today’s judgment, Robert Murat said:
“The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress. I am pleased that the publications concerned have today admitted the falsity of all their allegations and I can now start to rebuild my life. Today’s statement of full apology in open Court means I can emerge from this action vindicated and with the recognition and acknowledgement that what was said against me was wholly untrue”.
“I also wish to pay tribute to my legal team at Simons Muirhead & Burton, led by Louis Charalambous. It is due to their professionalism, dedication and assistance that I am able to be here today. I would also like to thank all those who have personally contacted me to offer their support throughout the last year”.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
168
Maria Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
chenier
“Perhaps provide some evidence as to why you claim the report was untruthful?”
————————-
I did not say the report in The People was untruthful, although I admit to a prejudice against it and other such rags as readily as you admit to yours against women who indulge in oral sex competitions. It does cross my mind now and then, I have to confess, that some of these tabloids may not always report things 100% accurately. Nasty and suspicious of me, I know.
I wondered if the implication you may have been drawing from it might have been that the Mcs told the twins that Madeleine had been taken by a monster.
I asked you if that was the implication you were drawing. You have now, several posts later, made it clear that it wasn’t.
So that’s OK then.
Trouble is, you sometimes allow impressions to be given which you want to be given, even if you manage a form of words which allows you to say later that that wasn’t what you meant at all!
Yummy yummy ketchup.
So this time, I just wanted to be sure.
———————————
No, you didn’t want to be sure.
You were so eaten up with bile that you didn’t even stop to think before you started screeching.
And, in your usual fashion, you lie. You probably don’t think of them as lies, but they are lies nevertheless. Or, as the Statement in open Court this morning put it ‘false allegations’.
You are doing it again in this post.
And I have to say that it is deeply, deeply boring…
July 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
170
Karen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Maria
You’re not like yourself today - you’re not usually rude (I am )
——————————-
I was only a little bit rude, Karen! And only to someone who is habitually rude to me….and others.
However, I actually don’t like being rude to anyone, even an ex”investigator”, and there have got to be better things to do than this on a day off!
Byeeeee!!
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Karen 170…. Maria wasn’t being rude, she was responding in kind.
It does get slightly boring having the self-proclaimed oracle calling everyone who doesn’t worship at the altar of the great one, a liar.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Melanie
Opportunist.
They were only there a week. Even if he stalked them - you still couldn’t call it a plan.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
LP I do need it NOW!!! Hairdressers appt, vets and bank
July 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
168
Maria Says:
I did not say the report in The People was untruthful ……. :
********
128
Maria Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
chenier
Ah. The People. I thought so. I remember the “report”.
Fine. No probs. Why didn’t you say so at once? Whew! That fine journal!
Mind you, even that does NOT report that K and G had told the twins that a monster had taken Madeleine. The twins are still tots. They play games. Even if there’s a word of truth in it (in The People, for God’s sake?)…….
________________________
Well now Maria, if that is not sarcastically saying that the report is untruthful, then I seriously need to go back to school and try and learn to speak English again
July 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
June
I’ve finsished now - any time you want it just ask
July 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Chernier …
‘Of course I am prejudiced against women who take part in oral sex competitions’.
Eh???????????? Did I miss something??
July 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Karen, assuming there was a kidnapper then was he just an opportunist or was it planned?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Maria
You’re not like yourself today - you’re not usually rude (I am
)
July 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Melanie
Alright - left them alone with the door unlocked - thereby contributing to the disappearance of their kid by making it easy for a kidnapper to get in and out.
Assuming there was a kidnapper - I think that’s a fair assessment.