Hi again all ...

Just found this from a Portuguese newspaper from the ongoing saga about Robert Murat:

Robert Murat, suspect acquitted in the case Maddie said it would start legal proceedings for defamation against the media Portuguese. Calls for a fee of 140 million euros.

The news was advanced by SIC Notícias. It will deal with news and content published and distributed by the Journal of the Windward Islands Journal News and TVI.

Sod all to do with Jane Tanner, as you'll gather.

But it was a nice spin.

Rosiepops wrote:Never believed it for a single second!

Nor me neither. This is just Morais and Co spinning because they know that Their Hero is going to lose.

The Pros have a common denominator. They regard everything with good manners until they are sure that it is otherwise.

Unfortunately, I lost this ability about two years ago. I can now spot bullshite immediately.

honestbroker wrote:Just found this from a Portuguese newspaper from the ongoing saga about Robert Murat:

Robert Murat, suspect acquitted in the case Maddie said it would start legal proceedings for defamation against the media Portuguese. Calls for a fee of 140 million euros.

The news was advanced by SIC Notícias. It will deal with news and content published and distributed by the Journal of the Windward Islands Journal News and TVI.

Sod all to do with Jane Tanner, as you'll gather.

But it was a nice spin.

Thanks for finding that HB.
Got a link, please(will try to find it myself too)

http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1240854

But it is dated 22nd May 2009

Also

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/robert-murat-sues-jornal-do-barlavento.html

But even before that, on the 17th May 2007

http://www.barlavento.online.pt/index.php/noticia?id=14999

maria wrote:http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1240854

But it is dated 22nd May 2009

Everything always is way behind the times, Maria. And they still keep on churning out this old rubbish.

Didn't the McCanns file a complaint about GA soon after the book was published? And it took them until September to get the injunction?

Maria, was it you who's told us or am I totally mistaken about it?

Sorry Cath, yes I said that at first, but it was a mistake. The injunction was filed 4 days after the video was first shown, not the book published.

Okay, thanks Maria. So it doesn't take that long to get things into court.
Hmmm
Still puzzled about it all.

The videos and the interviews were always more damaging than the poxy book.

Amaral just went too far. And also actively accused The McCanns. More so by the day.

This leads me to suspect that Amaral actually believes his insane theories. And he thought that The McCanns would tolerate anything he said.

He is a very twisted man who heaps shame on his country and his family.

And, Yes, I do feel sorry for him. But then this is just the way of me. I will not lose any sleep when he is exposed.

No Sabot, I don't feel sorry for him, I pity him.

maria wrote:No Sabot, I don't feel sorry for him, I pity him.

That will do just as well, Maria. It is a fine line. Pity or sympathy. But in the end I always feely sorry for people who are responsible for their own demise.

Well, Sabot, may be one of these misinterpretations that litteral translation sometimes bring. To pity someone in portuguese, is actually quite agressive, I do not in any way shape or form have sympathy towards Amaral.

maria wrote:Well, Sabot, may be one of these misinterpretations that litteral translation sometimes bring. To pity someone in portuguese, is actually quite agressive, I do not in any way shape or form have sympathy towards Amaral.

To pity someone in, English, is very insulting.

I will always have sympathy for people who are less able than I am. Always assuming that they are of course.

We do have to fight this, but we should never assume that we are better than they are, because I doubt that we are. We just have a different attitude to life.

Yes, Maria is right. That was last year. Apologies for that.

This present action (according to Joana Morais today) is a criminal action that is still in the inquiry stage and in the veil of secrecy.

Obvious question: if it is in judicial secrecy, why do a small cabal of anti-Mccann (and especially anti Tanner) activists know about it?

Keir Simmons of ITV news is supposed to have had word from Murat's lawyer (but I've not seen that confirmed) and I'd be amazed if Murat's lawyer would openly flout the secrecy laws by talking to an accredited journalist.

This story, if it is true, would have to be a criminal matter, not a civil one, because Jane Tanner has not published (by the definition of the word according to the libel laws, that is, broadcast to a third party) anything she might, or might not have said to Portuguese police (which is protected) about Murat. Clearly she cannot be held responsible for what was published by the Portuguese police or their agents; still less can she be held responsible for anything Amaral said.

So if this is a criminal act, it can only be because it was felt Tanner had acted maliciously. Just don't see it myself.

Why did the Anti-Madeleines and Pro-Amaral forces refuse to give any information, claiming secrecy, yet Keir Simmons asks the guy once and he says, oh yes, here are the details?