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?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
It runs to 3 A4 pages; the newspapers had to grovel very comprehensively…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Three pages of peoples lives being torn apart…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
But the youngsters in Court were obviously very impressed with Justice Eady!
July 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The newspapers which printed these stories have a combined circulation of 15,000,000 in the jurisdiction and a substantial presence online…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The defendents published almost 100 articles about the case which were seriously defamatory, most last year but up to and including January of this year…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“In particular, the defendants accept that none of the claimants had any involvement whatever in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.”
I wonder if the newspapers can make such a statement about someone who still has an arguido status…
July 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
or about anyone else as for that matter…
Just curious. Not formulating an opinion.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
There is 3 A4s of this; it covers every accusation which has ever been made in the English press and the defendants admitted that the allegations should never have been made, and are unreservedly withdrawn. The defendants wished to make an unreserved apology for the false defamatory allegations which they published.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
‘In recognition of the immense distress and damage which they have caused, all 10 newspapers represented in Court today have agreed not just to join in the reading of this statement but also publish reports of this statement and apologies. They have also agreed to pay very substanial libel damages to each of the claimants and to pay their legal costs.’
July 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
‘The defendants are here by their solicitor today to acknowledge that the allegations that they published about the claimants are entirely untrue’.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
11th!
July 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I hope Murat will get his money very soon.
How fast the news papers have to make the payment?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Congrats Chenier
I’m not a paranoid person, but I tend to be suspicious, especially when big things are at stake…
So I do wonder, why and how a newspaper can state that a person is not involved in something?
I would have expected that they would admit to libel as they have been writing nasty things, which could not be backed-up by any evidence or proper source.
In view of a case, cited here sometime before, in which libel money had to paid back, when the claimant proved to have been guilty after all , I get suspicious about a too generous text, if you see what I mean …
July 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hah! Found you
July 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
6
Châtelaine Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“In particular, the defendants accept that none of the claimants had any involvement whatever in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.”
I wonder if the newspapers can make such a statement about someone who still has an arguido status…
—————————-
Because if you make defamatory statements then the onus is on you to prove them.
If you cannot prove them then you are required to withdraw the allegations, and accept that there is no basis for what you have claimed.
Bear in mind that the level of proof in a libel trial is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
If they can’t even get anywhere near the balance of probabilities then they have no alternative but to withdraw.
And since M3 obligingly failed totally to come up with anything beyond fantasies, it seems reasonable to conclude that the newspapers finally recognised that they were up shit creek without a paddle…
July 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
For correct understanding: I am NOT implicating that anyone of them may have been involved.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
yeah you little buggers
July 17th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
lone
Hi lone, i think your it, your turn to hide
July 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
So if it wasn’t Murat who was it?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
15 Chenier
“If you cannot prove them then you are required to withdraw the allegations, and accept that there is no basis for what you have claimed.”
***
Withdrawing allegations is in my vocabulary different from stating someone’s innocence…
July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
18
wtf Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
lone
Hi lone, i think your it, your turn to hide
ok - turn round and count to 100
July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
lone
It wont hurt will it
July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Late for preparing lunch. BBL
July 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
bye chatelaine
July 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Chatelaine
Perhaps Monday is Murat’s day when he could be cleared of arguidoship.
Because others in unconnected cases have had to refund damages, it does not mean that is the rule of thumb for every libel case
July 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I dunno. Over in Portugal they are tying up threads and over here we keep creating more…
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
22
wtf Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
lone
It wont hurt will it
Only if you want it to hahahahah
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
June
I’m not giving the brush back until I have satisfied myself with it
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
lone
Oh, you are a naughty bird
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
wtf, it will be finished before you get to 25
