TVI ordered to pay €20,000 to Robert Murat for calling him a "paedophile".

[Brietta]

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

The 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

29

[misty]

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

Ha, you just beat me to it! Double standards or what?

[sadie]

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

I wonder what the future will bring for Robert Murat ?


Who were the Judges ?  Anyone know ?

[barrier]

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 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.

[Brietta]

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

Interesting ... when one makes comparison with the front page lies printed about the McCann's and their friends many of which were as mirrored here.
Most interesting of all is the interpretation given that the lifting of Robert Murat's arguido status equates with him being cleared.

Snip
Among the false and highly defamatory allegations, many spread luridly across front pages, were claims that Murat and his friends had been part of a paedophile ring, that they had lied to the police, and that DNA evidence of Madeleine had been found in his house.

Robert Murat was one of the first defendants (arguidos) in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007, but there was never any evidence against him and the Briton was cleared early on.

One year for full compensation through the UK courts, ten years in Portugal while the public is assured by the government that everything is OK with the justice system.
https://algarvedailynews.com/news/14714-maddeleine-case-robert-murat-waits-10-years-for-tvi-peadophile-compensation

[Angelo222]

The difference being that Murat cooperated fully with the police and wasn't involved in a campaign to destroy Goncalo Amaral.

[Brietta]

The difference being that Murat cooperated fully with the police and wasn't involved in a campaign to destroy Goncalo Amaral.

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?

[Robittybob1]

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. 

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

Agreed.
Evidence is the requirement for that and there was no evidence against any one of the three and all three had their argiudo status lifted.  Therefore how can one be considered 'cleared' and the other two not?

[Robittybob1]

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.

"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.

[barrier]

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.

The onus would be on any prosecution to prove the alibi was false.

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Brietta]

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.