Robert Murat wins libel case against national daily Correio da Manhã

[icabodcrane]

Here is another article which I came across this evening referring to the successful libel action.  There can be no doubt that the writing is well and truly on the wall for Mr Amaral.

I cannot understand how a detective with such experience could have made such a bad error of judgment.  Can anyone suggest a motive for putting his whole life's work in jeopardy for the sake of a stupid hunch?

http://algarvedailynews.com/news/9710-correio-da-manha-pays-robert-murat-damages

I really don't understand  ...  in what way, specifically,  will Murat winning a libel case against a Portuguese newspaper,  affect the McCann's libel case against  Amaral  ?

I never mentioned the McCanns Icabodcrane?   This win for Robert will not do Mr Amaral any favours in the long run and adds to his already damaged credibility.

Didn't some of the tapas 9 put Mr Murat in the frame too?  They might be next?

But you quoted an article about Murat winning a libel action against a Portuguese newspaper,  and followed with the conclusion that  there was no doubt that the writing is well and truely on the wall for Amaral 

In what way does this libel award affect Amaral at all  ?  ...  let alone to the extent where  'the writing is on the wall'  for him  ?

[ferryman]

Here is another article which I came across this evening referring to the successful libel action.  There can be no doubt that the writing is well and truly on the wall for Mr Amaral.

I cannot understand how a detective with such experience could have made such a bad error of judgment.  Can anyone suggest a motive for putting his whole life's work in jeopardy for the sake of a stupid hunch?

http://algarvedailynews.com/news/9710-correio-da-manha-pays-robert-murat-damages

I really don't understand  ...  in what way, specifically,  will Murat winning a libel case against a Portuguese newspaper,  affect the McCann's libel case against  Amaral  ?

I never mentioned the McCanns Icabodcrane?   This win for Robert will not do Mr Amaral any favours in the long run and adds to his already damaged credibility.

Didn't some of the tapas 9 put Mr Murat in the frame too?  They might be next?

But you quoted an article about Murat winning a libel action against a Portuguese newspaper,  and followed with the conclusion that  there was no doubt that the writing is well and truely on the wall for Amaral 

In what way does this libel award affect Amaral at all  ?  ...  let alone to the extent where  'the writing is on the wall'  for him  ?

There's no doubt Madeleine was abducted.

The question at issue is who abducted her (obviously not Murat) ...

[AnneGuedes]

Why do you think Mr Amaral put his neck on the line Anne?

I think it's related to marialvism.

Is that the Portuguese equivalent to what we in the UK refer to as elitism?

Not at all, John. If you're interested in History and have a bit of time, I can pm you a link.

[icabodcrane]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

[ferryman]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

It establishes the point that Madeleine was abducted but leaves open the question of who abducted her.  (Obviously not Murat)

Amaral claims Madeleine was not abducted; rather that her parents (and their friends) simulated an abduction ...

[icabodcrane]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

It establishes the point that Madeleine was abducted but leaves open the question of who abducted her.  (Obviously not Murat)

Amaral claims Madeleine was not abducted; rather that her parents (and their friends) simulated an abduction ...

The libel action Murat won against a Portuguese newspaper established that Madeleine was  'abducted'  ?

In what way did it do that  ? 

[ferryman]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

It establishes the point that Madeleine was abducted but leaves open the question of who abducted her.  (Obviously not Murat)

Amaral claims Madeleine was not abducted; rather that her parents (and their friends) simulated an abduction ...

The libel action Murat won against a Portuguese newspaper established that Madeleine was  'abducted'  ?

In what way did it do that  ?

Read my earlier post.

[AnneGuedes]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

I wish I knew, Icabodcrane. There's an impassable gap between Robert M and Gonçalo A. Can't posters see how the MC case destroyed totally RM's private life for many months ? A guy like you and me, may be not the nice kind, but with no idea of abducting little girls !
A convict, possibly trying to clean his name, told disgusting things against him, GA mentions it as r... that fed the UK profilers. I'm glad Robert M for whom I neither felt sympathy nor antipathy managed to have those journalists condemned. But I think this case isn't similar to the MC libel action against GA. The MC, for example, never appeared in the street in disguise or did they ?

[icabodcrane]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

It establishes the point that Madeleine was abducted but leaves open the question of who abducted her.  (Obviously not Murat)

Amaral claims Madeleine was not abducted; rather that her parents (and their friends) simulated an abduction ...

The libel action Murat won against a Portuguese newspaper established that Madeleine was  'abducted'  ?

In what way did it do that  ?

Read my earlier post.

I don't need to read your earlier posts

There is no way a libel trial could  'establish'  whether  Madeleine was abducted or not  ...  not even the libel trial against Amaral will be able to do that

[ferryman]

It is your prerogative to ignore the evidence that the court was satisfied Madeleine was abducted if that is what you choose to do ...

[icabodcrane]

It is your prerogative to ignore the evidence that the court was satisfied Madeleine was abducted if that is what you choose to do ...

What are you talking about ?  ...  this court was tasked with judging whether or not a newspaper had libelled Robert Murat, and nothing more

It certainly wasn't asked to ... and nor would it dare ....  proclaim a legal  judgement that Madeleine had been  'abducted'

[AnneGuedes]

In what way is the libel award made to Murat this week  detrimental to Amaral  ?

It establishes the point that Madeleine was abducted but leaves open the question of who abducted her.  (Obviously not Murat)

Amaral claims Madeleine was not abducted; rather that her parents (and their friends) simulated an abduction ...

The libel action Murat won against a Portuguese newspaper established that Madeleine was  'abducted'  ?

In what way did it do that  ?

Read my earlier post.

I don't need to read your earlier posts

There is no way a libel trial could  'establish'  whether  Madeleine was abducted or not  ...  not even the libel trial against Amaral will be able to do that

The "RM" ruling takes good care not to mention any name. RM is A. Madeleine is herself in one occurrence (quotation of an article), otherwise she's the British girl who disappeared.

[ferryman]

It is your prerogative to ignore the evidence that the court was satisfied Madeleine was abducted if that is what you choose to do ...

What are you talking about ?  ...  this court was tasked with judging whether or not a newspaper had libelled Robert Murat, and nothing more

It certainly wasn't asked to ... and nor would it dare ....  proclaim a legal  judgement that Madeleine had been  'abducted'

" N "insists the" NEWSPAPER 1 "in the" professional relationship "with" A ", but called her home at 23:30 the night of the murder, two hours after the abduction of Madeleine.

There is clear disassociation, there, between the action of Murat and the (separate and distinct) assertion (the court's assertion) of Madeleine's abduction.

[AnneGuedes]

It is your prerogative to ignore the evidence that the court was satisfied Madeleine was abducted if that is what you choose to do ...

What are you talking about ?  ...  this court was tasked with judging whether or not a newspaper had libelled Robert Murat, and nothing more

It certainly wasn't asked to ... and nor would it dare ....  proclaim a legal  judgement that Madeleine had been  'abducted'

" N "insists the" NEWSPAPER 1 "in the" professional relationship "with" A ", but called her home at 23:30 the night of the murder, two hours after the abduction of Madeleine.

There is clear disassociation, there, between the action of Murat and the (separate and distinct) assertion (the court's assertion) of Madeleine's abduction.

Ferryman, a bit of rigour, please. Teach yourself Portuguese or pay a professional to translate and then come back !

[icabodcrane]

It is your prerogative to ignore the evidence that the court was satisfied Madeleine was abducted if that is what you choose to do ...

What are you talking about ?  ...  this court was tasked with judging whether or not a newspaper had libelled Robert Murat, and nothing more

It certainly wasn't asked to ... and nor would it dare ....  proclaim a legal  judgement that Madeleine had been  'abducted'

" N "insists the" NEWSPAPER 1 "in the" professional relationship "with" A ", but called her home at 23:30 the night of the murder, two hours after the abduction of Madeleine.

There is clear disassociation, there, between the action of Murat and the (separate and distinct) assertion (the court's assertion) of Madeleine's abduction.

Well that's fair enough  ( I hadn't read that previously  )  ...  I can see where your arguement is grounded, and I apologise for assuming you were  jumping to conclusions

I still feel, though,  that a libel trial  cannot legally or authoratively conclude what happened to the missing child, given that it is not, and should not,  be within it's remit to do so