Robert Murat Damages, McCanns Cleared And Bungling Cops
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
ROBERT Murat has been awarded damages for being libelled by 11 British publications in the matter of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
When they were libelled, Kate and Gerry McCann got a front-page “wholehearted apology” from the Daily Star and a “donation”. The Express did similar.
Today the papers treat the matter as follows:
DAILY EXPRESS (Page 5 side column): “Robert Murat, Micahela Walczuch and Sergey Malinka”
Yesterday the Daily Express and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested in a number of articles that Mr Murat, Ms Walczuch and Mr Malinka were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann and had told lies about their involvement and/or obstruction [in] the police investigation”
DAILY STAR (page 2): “Robert Murat, Micahela Walczuch and Sergey Malinka”
DAILY MAIL (page 6, side column): “Murat wins Madeleine court action.”
“In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to the claimants, plus their legal costs”.
Legal costs kept low thank to an out-of-court settlement.
DAILY MIRROR (Page 6, side column): “ROBERT MURAT, MICHAELA WALCZUCH & SERGEY MALINKA”
We had wrongly suggested in a number of articles that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann; that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch had lied to the police and obstructed their investigation; that Mr Murat was a paedophile who used his computer to access depraved sexual material; that Mr Murat and Ms Walczuch might be part of a paedophile ring; and that Mr Malinka had convictions for sex offences and had lied about his acquaintance with Mr Murat.
SKY NEWS: “Murat Accepts £600,000 Damages”
Says Murat:
“The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter devastation of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress. I’m pleased they have admitted the falsity of their allegations and I can start to rebuild my life. I can emerge from this action vindicated with the recognition and acknowledgement that what was said against me was wholly untrue.”
Mr Murat, whose action was against 10 newspaper titles for more than 100 articles, has repeatedly denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Wasn’t Sky challenged as well?
THE SUN (page six, side column): “ROBERT MURAT – MICHAEL WALCZUCH”
“In various articles we wrongly suggested that they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, that they had lied about their involvement, that they might have been part of a paedophile ring and that Mr Murat had used his computer to access depraved sexual material”
There is no word from Murat in any of the papers.
But compare that to this:
THE SUN (front page): “THE HUNT FOR MADDIE – McCANNS IN CLEAR. Suspect status lifted this Monday”
Says a “source”.
Page11: “McCanns cleared, but after 441 days…IT’S BACK TO SQUARE ONE”
The Sun gets rent-a-copper John O’Connor to say that the McCanns were “VICTIMS OF THE COPS”.
The Portuguese police took Madeleine?
O’Connor says the “response of the Portuguese police was to make them [McCanns] arguidos and conduct a vicious sniping campaign by leaking apocryphal stories to the Portuguese media”.
You know, those stories that were taken up by the British media and passed off as news.
“How completely wrong they were,” says O’Connor.
Tsk! A pox on those “bungling” coppers.
It’s not like a newspaper would get it so wrong and point the finger at an innocent man and woman. As if. (See above).
July 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Frist
July 18th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Whithout numbers showing, anyone can claim to be first…
July 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
and no random characters, well done!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Rasputin
Thank you for the article.
It certainly needs an explanation.
What do you think they are trying to suppress? Incriminatiing evidence against the McCanns?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Interesting that no comment has been made by Team McCann re: the payout to Mr Murat. There must be a little jealousy with them over the amount he got and the fact that he is free to spend it as he wishes! It looks as if the end of the story is nearing and they will be let off for neglect charges and anything else they may be responsible for according to the papers today. Where on earth is Madeleine it seems incredible that there has been absolutely no sign of her or clues to what took place that evening!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:42 am
jo
Thanks for the article. (I’d just read it through the link given earlier by Rasputin, hence my post.)
Definitely interesting. More will emerge, no doubt, but I’ll probably miss it as I have to go work later.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Rasputin and jo
The article mentions the genetic markers but that was already known. No mention of anyting as yet undisclosed which the Brits might wish to remain secret.
In any case, would the Portuguese police comply with such a request from the UK police?
Could the paper’s interpretation of what is happening be incorrect?
I can imagine many things which it would be better not to be in the public domain, IF there are any leads which could still be followed, but why the the lab’s results? are they too uncertain?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Would it be possible to print the link again, I am interested in what you are all talking about. Thank you.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Erm……….not aware I’d pressed any “send” button!
Is this a new trick to cut down my over-long posts, Anorak?! Is that the improvement now being built into the system?
(No good. I’ll simply send another!)
Anyway, is it suggested that the UK police suppressed vital evidence in the lab results? If so, from whom exactly is it supposed that they suppressed them? Rasputin, you mention a “judge”????
Say more please, monk!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Jay
The link was given first by Rasputin but jo then posted the translation anyway.
I think it’s near the end of the previous thread.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Maria
OK thanks.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Come now, Anorak; you didn’t really think that the gutter press was going to stop frequenting the gutter for a mere 600k, did you?
Over trifling details like a gross and reckless disregard for the truth?
The editors of 11 papers were perfectly happy to destroy the lives of anyone in, or out, of the firing line if they thought it would sell a few more papers.
The Press Complaints Commission is an ongoing farce.
As agw put it, a festering sore.
And you are guilty of persistent belief in the 4th estate, with multiple offences of accurate journalism to be taken into account…
July 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
test
July 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Jay
If the wee thing is dead she could be buried anywhere and no one would see her.
What the PJs would need is an informant who thinks they know who did it or for someone to dig up a garden or a field or lift some floorboards.
If she’s alive - then she’ll be in some basement and someone needs to find out and snitch or she needs to escape or the kidnapper needs to give up.
Horrible really.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Maria!
Error 204
Error 403
Error 406
July 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Ferdi
Indeed! All sorts of errors from day one.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Error 200!
Error 410…
July 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Jay
I don’t think the Mcs ever really thought RM was involved, in which case they won’t begrudge him the settlement. jo thinks they may resent the fact that he can spend it as he wishes whereas their money is only for the campaign to look for Madeleine. If they are innocent, they’ll only be concerned about continuing that campaign anyway.
I wouldn’t trust a word the papers say today. The Sun has been known to make the occasional error in the past! We don’t know what will be said on Monday. It’s all, as ever, leaks. Some have been correct in the past but some have been incredibly wrong. Whoever has leaked this info to the Sun, especially, may know nothing or enjoy misleading a British paper. Egg on face next week! The other UK papers seem to have been more guarded in interpreting the leaks over the last few days. “Guarded” is not really understood by the Sun.
If, indeed, there have been leaks at all. May be just good old-fashioned speculation…..erm…….lies! How likely is it that the police would allow this information into the hands of those willing to leak for bribes?
July 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Mccanns CLEARED on Monday???? Please, this is so pathetic, I cant even read it any more - puts me in an instant BAD mood! I cant beleive the way the press twists stories - maybe the PJ can also sue the UK papers for damages relating to their investigation
July 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Saw the apology in Metro-not exactly fulsome and wholehearted
July 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Meanwhile I’m holding my breath: who, what and why…???!
I hope our PT “allies” can give more info soon as to what to think of the court case yesterday in Portimao!
July 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Morning Chatelaine.
Do you remember Guilhem Battut’s piece in France Soir?
http://tinyurl.com/67zkp6
He was adamant that he had seen a copy of the original forensics stating that Maddie’s had ingested a large amount of sleeping pills, evidenced by the hair found in the boot? He stood by his story - but later it is alleged that the FSS were saying that their reports were inconclusive.
I wonder, is it the original report that they would not like to see released?
Could this be embarrassing to the UK?
If Battut’s story is upheld when the files are opened he will be cock a hoop.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Morning
Could someone please help me out with this (from previous thread): “One of the things that the British claim that it is not known is the report of the laboratory in Birmingham, which states that “15 of the 19 genetic markers found traces collected in a bag in the car the couple coincide [with the child disappeared].The claim was denied”
Coincide with what? Does it mean a car available to the T9 on 3 May 07? And if so, why is it significant? Maddie would have been in the car anyway that week. And is this the famous blue tennis bag?
PS Anorak, please could I have a “Miss Scarlet” avatar?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Carmen Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Could this be embarrassing to the UK?
—————
Does the Pope wear white?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Scarlett Says:
” And is this the famous blue tennis bag? ”
It’s the boot, not a bag.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Carmen Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Morning Chatelaine.
Do you remember Guilhem Battut’s piece in France Soir?
[...]
He was adamant that he had seen a copy of the original forensics stating that Maddie’s had ingested a large amount of sleeping pills, evidenced by the hair found in the boot? He stood by his story - but later it is alleged that the FSS were saying that their reports were inconclusive.
I wonder, is it the original report that they would not like to see released?
Could this be embarrassing to the UK? [...]
*****
Good morning, Carmen. Thank you for this link. It’s from September 07, which is before I started being interested in the case in more “detail”. So this was new to me.
Yes, I guess it must be this, or something like this, or perhaps more things like this…
It looks like the McCs on one hand try to get as much information as possible, if not all, yet that going public with such info seems to have to be prevented.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Carmen,
Are the Kennedy’s gun shy?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
hannasus Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am edit
Carmen,
Are the Kennedy’s gun shy?
************************
I can’t follow your thinking - why do you ask?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Sorry mods about double post.
Came up on my screen error so i reposted.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Carmen,
Someone questioned whether the forensic reports could embarrass the UK government.
You responded with “does the pope wear white”
mine was merely a continuation along the lines of obvious.
Humour I think it is called.