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

[barrier]

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.

[Mr Gray]

Wonder if it shouldn't read,he lives with his mother who is economically dependant on him.

Yes looks like a mistranslation

[Robittybob1]

if his mother owns the house, does that make a difference.

[John]

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.

"...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

[ShiningInLuz]

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

The Portuguese is clear that he WAS without work etc.

[barrier]

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

Then back to your question,

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!

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[slartibartfast]

How does that affect their right to the presumption  of innocence......so you regard Murat as cleared by the archiving report

Nothing to do with presumption of innocence.

[G-Unit]

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.

[misty]

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?

[G-Unit]

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?

The questions raised weren't just about their timeline.

[John]

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?

I believe the difference is this.  Robert Murat had no involvement with Madeleine unlike her parents and we all know from past events that family members are the first port of call when a child disappears in suspicious circumstances.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Cite that they have claimed to be innocent and have offered the archiving despatch as proof

[Mr Gray]

Nothing to do with presumption of innocence.

according to the SC they were denied the presumption of innocence becasue they were not cleared by the archiving report