TVI ordered to pay 20 thousand euros to Robert Murat for calling him "pedophile"
Murat has already received compensation in excess of € 700,000 from various British media outlets
DN
22 July 2018
he Supreme Court of Justice ordered TVI to pay 20,000 euros in compensation to Robert Murat for referring to the Briton as "pedophile" and Murat attending "pedophile sites".
Murat was accused in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCan, the four-year-old English girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, while vacationing with her parents, but for a short time.
The Supreme Court notes the "seriousness of the non-pecuniary damage caused", considering that "the fact that they are not exclusively attributable to the defendants does not exempt them from their liability, only referring to the quantification of compensation" - this is because in some situations the references were made in press magazines.
The judges found that the Briton, who lived in the Algarve, "was jobless and economically dependent on his mother" and "was pointed and bothered every time he went out" and even received "threats addressed to himself and his family ".
Murat has already received compensation of more than 700 thousand euros from various British media.
https://www.dn.pt/pais/interior/tvi-condenada-a-pagar-20-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-por-lhe-chamar-pedofilo-9622847.html
TVI ordered to pay 20 thousand euros to Robert Murat for calling him "pedophile"I wonder what the future will bring for Robert Murat ?
Murat has already received compensation in excess of € 700,000 from various British media outlets
DN
22 July 2018
he Supreme Court of Justice ordered TVI to pay 20,000 euros in compensation to Robert Murat for referring to the Briton as "pedophile" and Murat attending "pedophile sites".
Murat was accused in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCan, the four-year-old English girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, while vacationing with her parents, but for a short time.
The Supreme Court notes the "seriousness of the non-pecuniary damage caused", considering that "the fact that they are not exclusively attributable to the defendants does not exempt them from their liability, only referring to the quantification of compensation" - this is because in some situations the references were made in press magazines.
The judges found that the Briton, who lived in the Algarve, "was jobless and economically dependent on his mother" and "was pointed and bothered every time he went out" and even received "threats addressed to himself and his family ".
Murat has already received compensation of more than 700 thousand euros from various British media.
https://www.dn.pt/pais/interior/tvi-condenada-a-pagar-20-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-por-lhe-chamar-pedofilo-9622847.html
The ruling judges, under Fernanda Isabel Pereira, unanimously rejected the appeal that was lodged by the TV station and which helped drag the case on for ten years.
Seems as if it was an appeal ruling which took ten years to sort.
https://algarvedailynews.com/news/14714-maddeleine-case-robert-murat-waits-10-years-for-tvi-peadophile-compensation
The difference being that Murat cooperated fully with the police and wasn't involved in a campaign to destroy Goncalo Amaral.
The difference being that Murat cooperated fully with the police and wasn't involved in a campaign to destroy Goncalo Amaral.IMO neither of those two factors make me think a person should be cleared. I have generally found a confirmed alibi is the best way of clearing a person.
IMO neither of those two factors make me think a person should be cleared. I have generally found a confirmed alibi is the best way of clearing a person.
IMO neither of those two factors make me think a person should be cleared. I have generally found a confirmed alibi is the best way of clearing a person.
Murat had one. Home all evening.When I looked into alibis having a family member giving you support would only result in a weak alibi.
When I looked into alibis having a family member giving you support would only result in a weak alibi.
"Weak (2) None Easily Fabricated Computer file showing creation time
Store receipt for cash purchase
Motivated Other None "I was home with Mom"
"My best friend and I were playing video games""
https://public.psych.iastate.edu/glwells/alibiwebhtml.htm
What seems important is having a way to prove your claim of an alibi.
When I looked into alibis having a family member giving you support would only result in a weak alibi.
"Weak (2) None Easily Fabricated Computer file showing creation time
Store receipt for cash purchase
Motivated Other None "I was home with Mom"
"My best friend and I were playing video games""
https://public.psych.iastate.edu/glwells/alibiwebhtml.htm
What seems important is having a way to prove your claim of an alibi.
I guess having an alibi from close friends would also be weak.The word of 8 close friends would be stronger than your "Mum" IMO.
The word of 8 close friends would be stronger than your "Mum" IMO.It also presupposes that the PJ were stupid and unable to analyse the evidence presented to them by dining companions and others present in the restaurant.
The word of 8 close friends would be stronger than your "Mum" IMO.
Having an alibi saying you were in one place all evening when a child disappeared probably trump partial alibis at various points of time the same evening.They were certainly within a kilometre of where the child went missing from.
They were certainly within a kilometre of where the child went missing from.
Actually The Murat villa is just 150 metres, crow flies, from 5A. Just a hop, skip and a jump.
Or walking about 150 metres with possibly an extra 10 metres to go around a wire net barrier that I seem to remember was on the triangular island immediately across from the Murat Villa, Casa Liliana
No distance at all ... but doesn't mean anything on its own, does it?
I thought the post was about the McCanns and their friends not about Murat.
By the way you must have very long legs I can't do 150 metres in a hop, skip and a jump @)(++(* But I know what you mean of course.
I thought the post was about the McCanns and their friends not about Murat.
By the way you must have very long legs I can't do 150 metres in a hop, skip and a jump @)(++(* But I know what you mean of course.
I don't know why Rob mentioned a kilometre in answer to Slartibartfast's post, which was about alibis, not distance.I've been looking at many YouTubes on the topic of actual murder investigations. OK the 1 km reference was a stab in the dark, but if Robert Murat or Gerry McCann were to explain where they were at 10:00 PM that night, whether you believe them or not they are likely to be within 1 km of where they said they were.
I've been looking at many YouTubes on the topic of actual murder investigations. OK the 1 km reference was a stab in the dark, but if Robert Murat or Gerry McCann were to explain where they were at 10:00 PM that night, whether you believe them or not they are likely to be within 1 km of where they said they were.
It is not like they were saying they were a 100 kms away in some other town, as the case often is in the murder investigations. The perpetrator will often use an alibi that puts considerable distance between them and the crime scene.
Thanks for the explanation, I wondered what you meant.It basically becomes impossible to use alibis to prove they were not involved. The distances of 150 meters or so can be covered by walking in a minute or so, and the timing of the events can't be accurately determined.
It basically becomes impossible to use alibis to prove they were not involved. The distances of 150 meters or so can be covered by walking in a minute or so, and the timing of the events can't be accurately determined.
I think that was the main reason I said 1 km for to go 1 km out and back would take even the fittest of us the best part of 10 minutes. And then you would have to add some minutes for the actual commission of the crime. There goes 15 minutes.
Gerry and Kate seem to be under some sort of observation at least every 15 minutes or so, so you would wonder how they could ever have committed a crime beyond 1 km of the apartment.
Yet the searches went to (was it?) 7 km out from the apartment!
Why does the distance covered by the searches surprise you?How was Madeleine ever going to get that far out, if not due to an 3rd party abductor? I doubt if a child without shoes would walk that distance.
How was Madeleine ever going to get that far out, if not due to an 3rd party abductor? I doubt if a child without shoes would walk that distance.
If she was placed in a house within the township - searches in the open country are pointless.
If she was abducted by someone with a car they were just about in Spain before the GNR were called.
How was Madeleine ever going to get that far out, if not due to an 3rd party abductor? I doubt if a child without shoes would walk that distance.
If she was placed in a house within the township - searches in the open country are pointless.
If she was abducted by someone with a car they were just about in Spain before the GNR were called.
The initial searches were for a child who had wandered. That changed to looking for a discarded body. Perfectly normal police responses.Who was doing the crime in that situation? Was that someone in the community would turn into a child abductor if they saw a child on their own? I thought it was generally thought the Tapas group were telling a badly told story.
TVI ordered to pay 20 thousand euros to Robert Murat for calling him "pedophile"
Murat has already received compensation in excess of € 700,000 from various British media outlets
DN
22 July 2018
he Supreme Court of Justice ordered TVI to pay 20,000 euros in compensation to Robert Murat for referring to the Briton as "pedophile" and Murat attending "pedophile sites".
Murat was accused in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCan, the four-year-old English girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, while vacationing with her parents, but for a short time.
The Supreme Court notes the "seriousness of the non-pecuniary damage caused", considering that "the fact that they are not exclusively attributable to the defendants does not exempt them from their liability, only referring to the quantification of compensation" - this is because in some situations the references were made in press magazines.
The judges found that the Briton, who lived in the Algarve, "was jobless and economically dependent on his mother" and "was pointed and bothered every time he went out" and even received "threats addressed to himself and his family ".
Murat has already received compensation of more than 700 thousand euros from various British media.
https://www.dn.pt/pais/interior/tvi-condenada-a-pagar-20-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-por-lhe-chamar-pedofilo-9622847.html
How the hell can someone who has already received more than €700,000 in tax free compo be deemed 'economically dependent on his mother'? Anyone answer this?
Wonder if it shouldn't read,he lives with his mother who is economically dependant on him.
Wonder if it shouldn't read,he lives with his mother who is economically dependant on him.
Actually no, the Portuguese version is clear in that he is economically dependent on mummy.The Portuguese is clear that he WAS without work etc.
"...ficou sem trabalho e dependente economicamente da sua mãe"
https://www.cmjornal.pt/tv-media/detalhe/supremo-condena-tvi-a-pagar-indemnizacao-a-robert-murat-por-lhe-chamar-pedofilo
Actually no, the Portuguese version is clear in that he is economically dependent on mummy.
"...ficou sem trabalho e dependente economicamente da sua mãe"
https://www.cmjornal.pt/tv-media/detalhe/supremo-condena-tvi-a-pagar-indemnizacao-a-robert-murat-por-lhe-chamar-pedofilo
How the hell can someone who has already received more than €700,000 in tax free compo be deemed 'economically dependent on his mother'? Anyone answer this?
This case gets more bizarre by the day!
There is no evidence against arguido #1
There is no evidence against arguido #2
There is no evidence against arguido #3
Why would arguido #2 be considered to be in the clear on that basis and not #3 and #1 ~ or any combination ~ not also be considered to be in the clear given all three meet the same criteria?
There's a difference if you read the full archiving document. There were no outstanding questions about Murat in the report, but, as the SC judges pointed out, there were about the McCanns.How does that affect their right to the presumption of innocence......so you regard Murat as cleared by the archiving report
How does that affect their right to the presumption of innocence......so you regard Murat as cleared by the archiving report
How does that affect their right to the presumption of innocence......so you regard Murat as cleared by the archiving report
It doesn't affect their right to the presumption of innocence. It does, however, affect their claim that they are innocent and to offer the archiving dispatch as proof thereof.
There is no proof Murat was at home all evening with his mother other than her word.
There is no proof the McCanns' timeline of events that evening was correct, other than the word of their friends.
What's the difference in the respective legal positions of the 3 arguidos when it came to the filing order 277/1 as the nature of any crime had not been verified? Why did 2 have to physically demonstrate their innocence when the 3rd didn't have to demonstrate anything, let alone that he wasn't a pedophile as accused by TVI?
There is no proof Murat was at home all evening with his mother other than her word.
There is no proof the McCanns' timeline of events that evening was correct, other than the word of their friends.
What's the difference in the respective legal positions of the 3 arguidos when it came to the filing order 277/1 as the nature of any crime had not been verified? Why did 2 have to physically demonstrate their innocence when the 3rd didn't have to demonstrate anything, let alone that he wasn't a pedophile as accused by TVI?
It doesn't affect their right to the presumption of innocence. It does, however, affect their claim that they are innocent and to offer the archiving dispatch as proof thereof.
Nothing to do with presumption of innocence.
according to the SC they were denied yej presumption of innocence becasue they were not cleared by the archiving report
Cite that they have claimed to be innocent and have offered the archiving despatch as proof
From the annulment request;I get the feeling we need to look at the SC issue fully again sometime.
the status of innocence that they enjoy........The documentary proof that supported the determination of this fact as proved...... is...... the order to file the aforementioned criminal investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I get the feeling we need to look at the SC issue fully again sometime.
How the hell can someone who has already received more than €700,000 in tax free compo be deemed 'economically dependent on his mother'? Anyone answer this?
This case gets more bizarre by the day!
From the annulment request;
the status of innocence that they enjoy........The documentary proof that supported the determination of this fact as proved...... is...... the order to file the aforementioned criminal investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
nowhere there do the mccanns claim to be innocent ...its a quote from the SC ...so no cite
It was a request from their lawyers for an annulment.
a request based on the presumption of innocence...not a claim they were innocent...gunit is mistaken
It says "the status of innocence that they enjoy" not the presumption, being court papers it would make a lot of difference I'd have thought.
It says "the status of innocence that they enjoy" not the presumption, being court papers it would make a lot of difference I'd have thought.
What was their status, if not innocent, given that the case had been shelved as no crime had been verified?Whatever the SC judgement says.
What was their status, if not innocent, given that the case had been shelved as no crime had been verified?Is there an answer?
Is there an answer?
it is a fallacy perpetuated by the sceptics taht the mccanns claimed to be innocent....no cite to support taht has been given...but i have provided a cite that it was merely the presumption of innocence that the mccanns requested
Maybe a bit peeved that Mr Murat's total pot was one of the biggest payouts in UK libel history.
Maybe a bit peeved that Mr Murat's total pot was one of the biggest payouts in UK libel history.
£600,000 plus legal cost's.
Brietta
I found that hard to read as it seemed more poetical rather than prose. Who would construct a sentence like "They were relieved with his departure, others."? To me that doesn't make sense.
I provided a link last night to show how much they received, but it was removed. The amount was £550,000.
Yes, and what did the McCans get from the express and others?
couple thoudsand was it, and that went to a charity did it?
I provided a link last night to show how much they received, but it was removed. The amount was £550,000.Was that the total of all their out of court settlements?
The question was, how can someone who was awarded £600,000 in damages in 2008, claim now to be depended economically on his 80-year-old mummy?
Am I missing something here?
The question was, how can someone who was awarded £600,000 in damages in 2008, claim now to be depended economically on his 80-year-old mummy?
Am I missing something here?
I found a quote in a Portuguese paper which said that it was as a result of what had happened to him at the time as a result of the media campaign.
I'll never find it again ... but I can see the force of it.
I don't imagine anyone would be too happy to use his services as an estate agent while he was a suspect in Madeleine's case and the leaks regarding allegations regarding his computers and their content must have put the tin hat on it.
Although he did make a killing from the British press in quite a reasonable space of time unlike with the Portuguese courts and TVI ... I think he must indeed have been financially embarrassed until his British libel damages came through and the papers laid off him.
I think the PJ really did muck up anything they might have had on him though by leaking information about him and then taking their eye off the ball to concentrate on Kate and Gerry.
If only half of what was recorded in the files about him had any substance I think he was certainly worthy of a much closer look than he was given.
But I can see why he could have become financially dependant on mum and why he wanted to make that part of his case against TVI ~ bearing in mind this has been dragging on in the background for years.
But exactly when did his dependency come into being ... he was living there with his mum at the time of Madeleine's disappearance ... or was he just visiting? and ended up having to remain there even once the case was archived due to financial constraints?
TVI did only repeat what was said in the Portuguese press. I know Sergey Malinka and Michaela Walczuch successfully sued them ... did Murat do likewise?
I found a quote in a Portuguese paper which said that it was as a result of what had happened to him at the time as a result of the media campaign.
I'll never find it again ... but I can see the force of it.
I don't imagine anyone would be too happy to use his services as an estate agent while he was a suspect in Madeleine's case and the leaks regarding allegations regarding his computers and their content must have put the tin hat on it.
Although he did make a killing from the British press in quite a reasonable space of time unlike with the Portuguese courts and TVI ... I think he must indeed have been financially embarrassed until his British libel damages came through and the papers laid off him.
I think the PJ really did muck up anything they might have had on him though by leaking information about him and then taking their eye off the ball to concentrate on Kate and Gerry.
If only half of what was recorded in the files about him had any substance I think he was certainly worthy of a much closer look than he was given.
But I can see why he could have become financially dependant on mum and why he wanted to make that part of his case against TVI ~ bearing in mind this has been dragging on in the background for years.
But exactly when did his dependency come into being ... he was living there with his mum at the time of Madeleine's disappearance ... or was he just visiting? and ended up having to remain there even once the case was archived due to financial constraints?
TVI did only repeat what was said in the Portuguese press. I know Sergey Malinka and Michaela Walczuch successfully sued them ... did Murat do likewise?
I’m sure the fact that the dogs didn’t alert to anything connected to Murat helped to refocus the investigation.As I see it GA was trying to get Jane to identify RM carrying Madeleine. If that was the case Madeleine was alive or only just deceased that moment he crossed the road. Cadaver odour is not going to set in (on average) for another 2 hours at the minimum. So why would there be cadaver odour at RM residence?
I think the story about the €20,000 is just a little short on facts and the crucial point is that the claim against TVI must be at least ten years old and part of the original actions against the various media which saw them settle to the tune of some £600,000.
On that basis Murat was dependent on his mother financially as the allegations against him left him without work and unable to go anywhere for fear of being assaulted.
I agree too that his public reputation has been inextricably damaged due to his link with the McCann case.
I’m sure the fact that the dogs didn’t alert to anything connected to Murat helped to refocus the investigation.
The question was, how can someone who was awarded £600,000 in damages in 2008, claim now to be depended economically on his 80-year-old mummy?
Am I missing something here?
Undoubtedly the misinterpretation of the significance of the dog alerts must surely have adversely affected the case for finding Madeline.
Madeline or Madeleine Brietta?
Supporters appear to think the case stopped when Goncalo Amaral was removed. Didn't it go on and weren't the McCanns friends asked to attend a reconstruction afterwards that they all appeared to refuse IMO.
Perhaps the PJ still thought the McCanns and friends had questions to answer even AFTER Goncalo Amaral left yet all I appear to see is dog alerts and DNA as reasons to bash the PJ.
I may be new but I have read a significant portion of this forum and others too some posts going back to 2007/8. This is all IMO but based on my own research.
I’m sure the fact that the dogs didn’t alert to anything connected to Murat helped to refocus the investigation.
Madeline or Madeleine Brietta?
Supporters appear to think the case stopped when Goncalo Amaral was removed. Didn't it go on and weren't the McCanns friends asked to attend a reconstruction afterwards that they all appeared to refuse IMO.
Perhaps the PJ still thought the McCanns and friends had questions to answer even AFTER Goncalo Amaral left yet all I appear to see is dog alerts and DNA as reasons to bash the PJ.
I may be new but I have read a significant portion of this forum and others too some posts going back to 2007/8. This is all IMO but based on my own research.
Everyone associated with Madeleine's case knows that the investigation continued under the guiding hand of Rebelo ... while the Portuguese press continued apace with the scandal and libel stories.
Sunday Herald
Sun October 14, 2007 01:00am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... public_rss
THE new head of the Madeleine McCann investigation is to bring in a team of murder specialists, he revealed yesterday.
Paulo Rebelo, Portugal's second most senior policeman, has summoned his men from Lisbon to double the size of the squad on the hunt for the four-year-old.
He wants a "root and branch" review of every aspect of the floundering five-month investigation.
Kate and Gerry McCann welcomed the move, which British experts said should have happened months ago.
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "If they are experts in homicides, then hopefully they can eliminate (the McCanns) as suspects."
But friends of the couple said they wanted to see the inquiry refocus as a search for a missing child, not as a murder hunt.
Mr Rebelo, 45, the deputy national director of the Policia Judiciaria, took over the investigation on Wednesday.
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 39, have been told that results of forensics tests could be handed to Portuguese police on Monday.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/new-team-takes-over-hunt-for-madeleine-mccann-14-1-t730.html
What I was trying to point out was that after Goncalo Amaral left the McCanns were still considered suspects yet on here and elsewhere on some forums. you wouldn't think so as it appears to be all about Goncalo Amaral and his supposed mistakes. All IMO
Just my thoughts on what I have read.
As I see it GA was trying to get Jane to identify RM carrying Madeleine. If that was the case Madeleine was alive or only just deceased that moment he crossed the road. Cadaver odour is not going to set in (on average) for another 2 hours at the minimum. So why would there be cadaver odour at RM residence?
i think you will find that posters here understand the landmarks in the case
I am sure they do Davel so why no criticism of Paulo Rebelo by name only Goncalo Amaral?
From my reading supporters posts on this forum so far you would think Goncalo Amaral was the only PJ officer involved in the case.
I am sure they do Davel so why no criticism of Paulo Rebelo by name only Goncalo Amaral?
From my reading supporters posts on this forum so far you would think Goncalo Amaral was the only PJ officer involved in the case.
I am sure they do Davel so why no criticism of Paulo Rebelo by name only Goncalo Amaral?
From my reading supporters posts on this forum so far you would think Goncalo Amaral was the only PJ officer involved in the case.
Possibly because he is as yet the only P J officer who was involved in the investigation who has turned his thoughts on the case into a source of income.
What's wrong with that ?
Because he's evil. Evil I tell you and must be made to suffer 8(0(*
A great deal IMO
But obviously not IYO.
Perhaps you could be a little more explicit
No.
So just a case of it's wrong because I think it's wrong. Mmm.
Possibly because he is as yet the only P J officer who was involved in the investigation who has turned his thoughts on the case into a source of income.
Yet I gather some of the PJ officers supported Goncalo Amaral in the Lisbon trial.
Also so the only reason that Goncalo Amaral is wrong in pretty much everything he did according to the supporters is because he wrote a book on the case. Is that really why he comes in for so much abuse here and mores so, elsewhere?
No..He's wrong because imo he mistunderdtood the evidence... There could be no complaint if his conclusion s were based on sound principles
No.. He's wrong because imo he mistunderdtood the evidence... There could be no complaint if his conclusion s were based on sound principles
Davel I was replying to Erngath's reasons not you. However I don't believe you when you say what you have above because it would appear to me that whatever Goncalo Amaral did he comes in from criticism from supporters of the McCanns and from my research has done for over a decade.
Yet I gather some of the PJ officers supported Goncalo Amaral in the Lisbon trial.
Also so the only reason that Goncalo Amaral is wrong in pretty much everything he did according to the supporters is because he wrote a book on the case. Is that really why he comes in for so much abuse here and mores so, elsewhere?
No.. He's wrong because imo he mistunderdtood the evidence... There could be no complaint if his conclusion s were based on sound principles
It's all because he dared to sully the name and reputation of the saintly couple.
Had he slunk away like a good little boy, we would have heard no more of him or his career.
IMO
Davel I was replying to Erngath's reasons not you. However I don't believe you when you say what you have above because it would appear to me that whatever Goncalo Amaral did he comes in from criticism from supporters of the McCanns and from my research has done for over a decade.
It's all because he dared to sully the name and reputation of the saintly couple.
Had he slunk away like a good little boy, we would have heard no more of him or his career.
IMO
when amaral won the supporters were beyond angry they were stunned too all along they thought the mcanns would wipe the floor with amaral but he wiped the floor with them @)(++(* davel has never forgiven amaral for beating the saintly couple he adores imo
Has anything changed ? They still seem desperately angry.
I am sure they do Davel so why no criticism of Paulo Rebelo by name only Goncalo Amaral?
From my reading supporters posts on this forum so far you would think Goncalo Amaral was the only PJ officer involved in the case.
I’m sure the fact that the dogs didn’t alert to anything connected to Murat helped to refocus the investigation.It would be a pretty poor police investigation that ruled out a suspect on the basis that sniffer dogs did not alert in his home.
Yet there was there was no mistrial or any one died because of this alleged misunderstanding, so what harm was done and why the continual complaints.
Has anything changed ? They still seem desperately angry.Yup. We named our cat Amaral just so that I could kick it when I get home every night, that’s how bloody furious I still am.
Didn't the PJ dig up parts of Casa Liliana back in May 2007 and used probes and ground penetrating radar in an attempt to find any trace of the missing child.Misty will know. I make a point of knowing as little as possible about RM.
Didn't the PJ dig up parts of Casa Liliana back in May 2007 and used probes and ground penetrating radar in an attempt to find any trace of the missing child.
Didn't their attentions then turn elsewhere after finding zilch concerning R Murat.But would you bury a child in your own mother's backyard? IMO it is an odd place to look. OK at least they eliminated that section. But just one of thousands of potential sections I'd imagine.
But would you bury a child in your own mother's backyard? IMO it is an odd place to look. OK at least they eliminated that section. But just one of thousands of potential sections I'd imagine.
I think that barrier wasn't just referring to the digs at Casa Liliana Robittybob1 but other investigations regarding Robert Murat that turned up nothing against him.I'm a bit confused now sorry. I don't study RM.
have you not seen supporters abused on other forums......we were referred to as arse lickers here todayReally did I miss that one?
I'm a bit confused now sorry. I don't study RM.
Neither have I Robittybob1 but I have read enough to see that there was nothing against him (I think).But what do you think about this statement from Stephen Carpenter? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg481335#msg481335
But what do you think about this statement from Stephen Carpenter? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9966.msg481335#msg481335
I have seen it before but it is most interesting though. As they searched Murat's house and indeed dug up his garden I remember reading then I can't see anything pointing to him.
However who is the 50 year old Englishman?
From Stephen Carpenter's statement
And when we entered the garage I asked who lived there, he replied that his son lived there and then there were distractions and because I was concentrated on the fifty year old English man, this man is Portuguese
I will have a look see if I can find the laundryworker too.
If you find anything could you post it here please?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10045.0
I think that barrier wasn't just referring to the digs at Casa Liliana Robittybob1 but other investigations regarding Robert Murat that turned up nothing against him.
Got it in one.
Possibly because he is as yet the only P J officer who was involved in the investigation who has turned his thoughts on the case into a source of income.
His book was imo written as a money earning exercise . His book is based on his flawed thinking and reasoning.
He accused Madeleine's parents of being involved in her disappearance.
There's absolutely nothing about the man which I admire.
I would say more but this is all off topic.
Erngath, what are your views on Danny Collins and his book Vanished, The Truth About The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. You could say exactly the same about his book, and IMO that was certainly flawed and he certainly wrote it to make money for himself.Would it break even? It was so boring I doubt if many people bought it.
I have read the first one but not his latest book so I can't say if it was any better.
Would it break even? It was so boring I doubt if many people bought it.That's not really the point. It was written for gain and presumably be obtained in exchange for filthy lucre.
That's not really the point. It was written for gain and presumably be obtained in exchange for filthy lucre.
How awful.
I think you are missing the point Jass.... He wasn't there, and knew nothing, but didn't slag off the parents. So that is ok -to make money.. tsk wake up ! lol
Can it be said that Murat was not cleared by the filing of the criminal proceedings.