Author Topic: TVI ordered to pay €20,000 to Robert Murat for calling him a "paedophile".  (Read 23997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Is there an answer?

the amswer is in the SC judgement

Offline slartibartfast

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

They stated they were cleared by the filing of the case (innocent), the SC said they weren’t and that presumption of innocence was only applicable to criminal cases.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline John

I know its Friday but can we keep posts constructive please.  TY
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Maybe a bit peeved that Mr Murat's total pot was one of the biggest payouts in UK libel history.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 12:28:01 AM by John »
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline barrier

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.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Maybe a bit peeved that Mr Murat's total pot was one of the biggest payouts in UK libel history.

Oh Indeed Alice! I do  wonder sometimes why the family and small band of die hard 'supporters' spit venom at those whos only crime was to try and help them find the daughter they 'lost'
I honestly can't fathom a reasonable arguement for this behaviour.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Miss Taken Identity


£600,000 plus legal cost's.


Yes, and what did the McCans get from the express and others?

couple thoudsand was it, and that went to a charity did it?
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Brietta

HENRIQUE RAPOSO

Angels, Defendants and the McCanns
07.07.2008

At the beginning of the Divine Comedy, at the Gate of Hell, Dante describes some very curious characters: the neutral angels, that is, angels who refuse God but also refuse to enter Lucifer's army.
Therefore, these agents of heavenly neutrality remain in no man's land.
They are theological hermaphrodites.
In Portugal, there are also neutral angels: they are the famous 'defendants' ~ são os famosos 'arguidos'. These individuals are not innocent, but they are not defendants.
The defendants are held in limbo without end in sight. They are legal hermaphrodites.

The McCann case is the perfect example to analyze the damage caused by the figure of the accused.
Kate and Gerry McCann were conscripted and, with Luciferic inevitability, a cloak of guilt fell on the couple. Judgments were made in the public square.
Moita Flores made dozens of auto-de-fé, shouting "against the Bretons, to march, to march".
Now, after this muddy storm, the case will be shelved.
There remain two questions: Is this police arrogance legitimate? Who will pay for this incompetence?

The figure of the defendant (arguido) destroys the presumption of innocence.
Through this legal tool, the authorities place an imprint of anticipated guilt on people.
Basically, the Portuguese law says to the defendants: "Look, my dear, I think you are guilty, but I have no evidence yet, and in any case I will warn the society that you are not trustworthy ".
Shoot first, investigate later. In civilized countries, people are innocent until proven guilty.
In Portugal, people are guilty until proven guilty.
I am told that the figure of the defendant is - in theory - a formalism designed to give more rights to individuals (eg, the accused has the right to remain silent).
But in practice, this legal figure removes rights, since it imposes a seal of suspicion that takes an eternity to be removed. Our justice has the rhythm of an old man with rheumatic, therefore, the condition of defendant annuls juridically a person indefinitely.
The defendant is neither with God (innocent) nor with Lucifer (guilty).
It is a lost soul lost in the corridors of the dantesco scene that is the Portuguese justice.

Finally, a wish: I only hope that the McCanns will sue the Portuguese state; it is urgent a legal pink map.

https://www.expresso.sapo.pt/opiniao/HenriqueRaposo/anjos-arguidos-e-os-mccann=f358317#gs.277msWA



The McCann arguido status was lifted 21st July 2008 ~ from which date onwards they ceased to be defendants or suspects ~ and so it remained until the intervention of the supreme court appeal judges.

Which in my opinion made it inevitable that Henrique Raposo will see his wish enacted.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Brietta

The Maddie Case
If the investigation did not bear much fruit, the plan to save the honor of the convent was
14.09.07

Whatever its evolution, the Maddie case will always have a dramatic ending. Unless by unpredictable miracle it appears, safe and sound. But for now, a macabre folklore dominates the attention.

The stubbornness of Maddie's parents to stay in Portugal prevented the case from being forgotten, as were so many others, and gave permanent visibility to the impotence of the investigators.

But the results provided by the English laboratories proved to be a good pretext and Maddie's death was 'decreed'.

And immediately, the perpetrators of the crime were pointed out.

With precipitation.

Because many things still remain to be explained.

Why did the PJ with or without dogs in four months not find the corpse or 'palpable' traces of it?

How did the McCanns, watched 24 hours a day, successfully succeed in hiding the corpse, in the beards of researchers, journalists and television networks from all over the world, neighbors and mere curious?
How did they get rid of her afterwards?

Despite this, the PJ moves quickly to the stage of little 'innocent' intimidation.
Because the theory of the presumption of innocence of a defendant is a mockery.

A fantasy that is intended to deceive everyone.

And that reality is contrary.

Because the constitution of defendant means precisely the opposite. That someone (innocent or not) is presumed by the investigators as potential culprit.
With disruptive and irretrievable social effects.
Generous, however, the investigators give an unexpected toast to so heartless suspects.
They let us calmly recover from the emotions of the last days to their home in England.
They even receive VIP treatment on the way out of the house, on the way to the airport and at the airport. It was a luxury and a care of friendly investigators who, after all, would inaugurate a new phase of the relationship between investigators and defendants, were it not for an unfortunate accident.

And makes you suspicious.

They were relieved.
They were relieved with his departure, others.
Now it is only to make a few more media requests for domestic consumption, that repel the public opinion and published English (such as newspapers and cuddly) and change security measures for pre-trial detention. And wait for them, from their land, to make us a big cuff.
Which is fatal.
If they are innocent they will never submit to the reveries and threats of national investigators.
If they are guilty much less will come back to feet.
They send their English lawyers here and they will continue to calmly collect the benefit of the doubt and the errors of the investigation (which they are already qualified as rude) and the support of their compatriots and newspapers of the house.

Moral of the story: intimidation still results.

And if the investigation did not bear much fruit, the plan to save the honor of the convent was working.

But (cursed but ...) as no one believes that the parents, despite the official facilities, have travelled with the daughter's corpse in the luggage, he, in principle, will have to continue here.
No matter what the researchers, who hold the thesis of the homicidal parents, continue with the girl in the arms.

An appealing 'Joan' recipe will never work here.

It ran out.

They got rid of their parents, but they will never be free of their daughter. Nor the flood that will fall on them.

Ler mais em: https://www.cmjornal.pt/opiniao/detalhe/o-caso-maddie



It is interesting to see how the case against Madeleine's parents was viewed by some Portuguese commentators back in the day ~ I think the gist of it can be determined despite the 'googlese'.

Certainly Robert Murat's reputation may have suffered as a result of what was said about him in the press and on television ... but in my opinion it is mild in comparison to the whirlwind set loose on Madeleine's parents.

There are countless internet sites dedicated to their defilement ... there are countless videos put up on the internet to denigrate them with a dedicated viciousness not even Hitler has managed to generate ... and at the end of the day just reading an opinion piece from the time explains so much that makes risible the rain forest of trees wasted in McCann FOI requests posted off with monotonous regularity more than eleven years down the line.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Robittybob1

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.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Brietta

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.

It is a Google translation, Robitty, with all that implies.
Original ~ Viajaram aliviados uns. Ficaram aliviados com a sua partida, outros.
Google translation ~  They were relieved. They were relieved with his departure, others.

Which in my opinion probably makes little sense in either language if the original structure of the sentence is poor.

Reading from the preceding and following text which appears not to suffer from the same muddled wording, I take it **that it indicates that the PJ were very happy to allow the McCanns to leave the country as their departure would take the heat off them and their investigation which had attracted criticism**.
** denotes not what it actually says in the text ~ only my understanding of the meaning.

"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Vertigo Swirl


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.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

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?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

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?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

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?

Yes... Murat has not claimed to be dependant on his mother... The papers have... And we know as a fact papers get things wrong