Hi Chris

by tulip Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:42 am

I don't think any of us knows what Murat's real financial situation is: it has all been guesswork based on limited facts. The same quality of 'facts' that the 'anti 'detectives have been using to 'convict' the McCanns. But his financial position isn't the issue. My point is that damages are compensation for much more than lost earnings. They are for lost reputation, which cannot be quantified so easily. Like Sass I wouldn't do business with this man, and I'm sure this is a common reaction. As Calcite says 'once a man's reputation is tarnished it's hard to recover'.

Nwespapers have to be pulled up when they do this kind of thing or it will become even more of a free-for-all than it is now.

Not quite sure what you mean when you say your thoughts on Murat will never change. I don't care for what I have seen and heard of him either. Not at all. But on the basis of available evidence he is an innocent man. If PROOF were to emerge at a later stage that Murat had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance would your thoughts change then? Or do you feel he shouldn't get damages because we don't like him?

May I compliment the mods for giving us this opportunity to have a mature debate about an interesting topic. An objective debate is about topics not posters, and even if we disagree on some elements of this case -- we'd be odd if we didn't -- we're all on the same side.

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:59 am

How many times am i going to say this?

No one is disputing how libel damages are worked out or awarded. No one in suggesting that the press are angels. There is a particularly nasty story circulating at the moment and before I mention it I am waiting to see what our media make of it.

But the press do not always get things wrong either!

I am not rewriting history here, Robert Murat in my opinion was not attacked by the press as badly as the McCann's were and continue to be to this day.

We are told repeatedly that Murat has the backing of his local community and even his old village in Norfolk backs him.

Much of his business we are led to believe is done across the internet in various businesses, nothing wrong in that, but people are hardly likely to know who they are dealing with.

So this being the case, how could what the papers have printed harmed his reputation this badly?

A judge would take this into consideration.

Murat is the forgotten arguido, people tend to forget he is a suspect in this case, so how could the papers have damaged his reputation that much?

Maybe because we know who he is, but it is my guess that ask any person that does not spend their time on the internet following this case and they would probably not know who he is, or maybe vaguely recognise him, so again how could the papers have tarnished his reputation in this country that badly? As far as working goes, well he does not live or work here, maybe it is the Portuguese press he should be going after?

It is just a simple point of law, one which a judge would take into consideration when fixing libel damages. it makes little difference what you or I think, it is what is actually the case in law. Maybe this was one of the reasons he settled out of court, for this figure when it had previously been reported he was going for a £2 million figure? I do not know and do not profess to know, but always thought he would settle out of court and I said so and he did.

Calcite, this has nothing to do with pulling Murat into the public arena, which I haven't done and have no intention of doing. As far as I am concerned he is also innocent until proven guilty.

Gerry McCann was not re employed by the NHS trust, because he was never sacked or resigned. Gerry McCann took *UNPAID* leave from his job.

I think to this day he is still not having contact with patients, he is employed as research and in a teaching capacity, so you could say that the adverse publicity has affected him and his position far more than Murat.

Equally I did not tell Murat how he could spend his money, I did not imply how he should spend his money, quite why people have said this is baffling, perhaps they should re read what I originally wrote? It may clear it up for them.

To me that money would always be tainted because of where it came from and why. This is my personal feelings.

by calcite51 Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:34 am

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU were judging Murat in a public arena - it's just that the McCanns were judged guilty by two different blogs and we didn't think that was fair - I was afraid people would start getting on that bandwagon - but I certainly wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I made the comment - it was a general comment.

I don't particularly like Murat or his lifestyle (in my opinion and the little I know of him - he is weird) but there is no way with the way this investigation was conducted, I can judge anyone.

by christabel Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:21 am

tulip wrote:I don't think any of us knows what Murat's real financial situation is: it has all been guesswork based on limited facts. The same quality of 'facts' that the 'anti 'detectives have been using to 'convict' the McCanns. But his financial position isn't the issue. My point is that damages are compensation for much more than lost earnings. They are for lost reputation, which cannot be quantified so easily. Like Sass I wouldn't do business with this man, and I'm sure this is a common reaction. As Calcite says 'once a man's reputation is tarnished it's hard to recover'.

Nwespapers have to be pulled up when they do this kind of thing or it will become even more of a free-for-all than it is now.

Not quite sure what you mean when you say your thoughts on Murat will never change. I don't care for what I have seen and heard of him either. Not at all. But on the basis of available evidence he is an innocent man. If PROOF were to emerge at a later stage that Murat had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance would your thoughts change then? Or do you feel he shouldn't get damages because we don't like him?

May I compliment the mods for giving us this opportunity to have a mature debate about an interesting topic. An objective debate is about topics not posters, and even if we disagree on some elements of this case -- we'd be odd if we didn't -- we're all on the same side.

"The same quality of 'facts' that the 'anti 'detectives have been using to 'convict' the McCanns" sorry your wrong there, but never mind. I myself think his finacial position is as much of the issue as was the McCanns, they haven't pocketed the settlement, which they could have!
As you say "They are for lost reputation, which cannot be quantified so easily"
Calcite is right too about a mans reputation being tarnished, we only need to look at Gerry and Kates and how they have and still are being tarnished (no offence meant by this Calcite). I have done months and months of research on Murat, lots I've posted some I haven't. I might even do a Gonc and write a book Laffin

Sorry Tulip I thought you knew my thoughts on Murat as most do from the DE days. I never said he shouldn't get damages because WE don't like him. These are my opinions and I don't speak for anyone else's and as you say we are all on the same side but can have different views.
xx

by Guest Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:46 am

I think Robert Murat did very well out of the case...all things considered. He has never hit the front pages like the McCann's have, and neither has he had to endure the hate filled comments the McCann's have had to endure.
Something has to be not quite right with Murat...after all I have just read his legal advisor has quit! Why would he do that..especially now. If nothing else..it makes you think.

by tulip Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:24 am

Hi Mum, how are things?

I think it was his PR guy Max Clifford who has been fired and he's very very put out. Or maybe there is more?

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:46 pm

Do you mean Max Clifford? Or an actual legal adviser? Max Clifford as we know is a PR agent, I doubt he would advise on his legal position in a formal capacity. I would be interested in knowing if Murat's legal adviser has quit.
If he was telling Murat to sue witnesses, he should quit!

Interesting that this non story has cropped up about David Payne right at this point don't you think?
Anyone who thinks the paper that printed this garbage cannot be sued is living in cloud cuckoo land. (Well that has been apparent for a long time) Of course they can be sued and I hope David Payne sues their sad sorry backsides off.
I have had a quick scan of the Sunday's and cannot find mentioned this story. If this was anyway remote true it would be massive breaking news, it is not mentioned in the papers and I have heard nothing of it on the news.

To me this smacks of a certain person, his grubby lardy hands are all over it, he must be so desperate. Nothing about that story makes any sense but it is enough to send the armchair detectives off into orbit, I swear they are wetting their knickers with excitement, are they sick?

Betty on the 3A's is going into meltdown over it, telling everyone she knows all there is to know about paedophiles and they are absolutely everywhere etc, good Lord, she will have everyone as paranoid as she obviously is. I don't even think she is a qualified person, just a helper of some sort, yet she is setting her stall as if she is a trained professional, can this be right?

I feel this has been published to try and discredit the McCann's ahead of Monday, to my way of thinking, if the the PJ and the tubby one are this desperate that they stoop this low and reveal some jealous woman making what appear to be unsubstantiated baseless accusations, then things must be looking extremely bad for the PJ.

A while ago Clawsie nicked my tsunami saying (she is just so boring and unoriginal I just let her get on with it), the only tsunami coming with the lifting of the secrecy order is one directly over the PJ and this is them running for cover now, they hadn't even the sense to deploy an early warning system, they just thought they could swim ashore out of it. nono

Christabel,

I absolutely agree with you. Perhaps we should combine information, we could write the book and donate the money to the Find Madeleine Fund.

by Guest Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:28 pm

I am not sure because I got the information in Portuguese..then translated it. But one thing I am sure of is the translation said he distanced himself from Robert Murat....not that he had been fired.
I am trying to find the report again...but so far no luck.

by tulip Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:37 pm

I read yesterday that Max Clifford was advising him in the PR area for free, and could not understand why he had been 'let go' by Murat in favour of another PR concern that were charging him. I got the impression that his nose was out of joint. i.e 'anyone getting me for free should feel themelves damn lucky!'. Maybe we can find it under yesterday's cached UK news -- I think it was either the Daily Mail or Sky.

by tulip Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:44 pm

Found it via Google but don't know how to paste it here. Clifford wrote a sniffy letter to the publication PR Week to say that he could not understand, after all the free assistance he had give the Murat family, why Murat had seen fit to replace him with a PR firm recommended by his lawyers, and who would be charging him. They had the full text of his letter there and he is most definitely cheesed off! Murat's side say the change was for 'strategy' reasons.

by Guest Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:48 pm

"I am not rewriting history here, Robert Murat in my opinion was not attacked by the press as badly as the McCann's were and continue to be to this day."

I agree with you 100% on this...in fact as far as the British press are concerned, Robert Murat did very well. You see I am still not convinced that Murat is 100% innocent. We know he lied to the PJ about where he was that night and that he went to bed early....and made no phone calls. It was not just Jane Tanner who saw him that night. What about the barman who stated he was drinking in his bar late that night. That barman was a local...not a McCann friend.
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty......but we have to remember he is still a prime suspect in the case.
I remember when the DE apologised to the McCann's...the anti's were up in arms because the DE made a statement that they admitted Kate and Gerry were innocent of any involvement in harming Madeleine. The anti's said "How do the DE know that....they are prime suspects in the case". The same goes for Murat.....the press do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. And neither do we.

by Guest Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:18 pm

Taken from: prweek.com

Clifford 'not happy' with Robert Murat, no longer advising 'arguido' suspect

David Quainton 18-Jul-08

Max Clifford has written a letter to PRWeek expressing his disappointment in the actions of Robert Murat, the man implicated in the Madeleine McCann disappearance.

Clifford said he was disappointed in Murat using his lawyers' PR agency (The PR Office), when he had previously advised the Briton for free. The PR Office said Murat had 'changed strategy'.

Murat yesterday received a substantial payout, of around £600,000, from the British press which had made various unfounded accusations towards him. As yet, Murat has not been found guilty of any charges related to Madeleine's disappearance.

The PR Office was brought in to handle the Murat case against various British newspapers.

Here Clifford's statement follows in full:

'Last summer, when his arguido status was put in place by the Portuguese authorities, it signalled the start of a character assassination of Robert Murat by sections of the Portuguese and British media. I was approached by Robert's family who claimed that Robert and they were having their lives destroyed by this coverage and desperately sought my help.

I totally sympathised with them and agreed to help them just as I have helped many others when facing the worst excesses of the British media. They made it clear that neither Robert nor themselves could afford to pay me and that it was impossible for Robert to work. Nevertheless, I agreed to do whatever I could to help their plight whilst explaining that because of Robert's arguido status I was unable to officially represent him.

Together with Nicola Phillips from my office, I spent a huge amount of time and effort over many months talking to Robert and his Aunt Sally, often late at night and doing everything possible to help them and stop the unjustifiable media onslaught.

So you can imagine this week how I felt when Robert admitted to me he was paying a PR firm that he had been introduced to by his legal team. Having worked free of charge and in the words of Robert and his Aunt Sally, "been both wonderfully supportive and successful", I was not happy.

In spite of this I am very pleased with what we at MCA did for Robert and his family, as many of the things written about him without so much as a shred of evidence were totally disgusting.

Robert continues to have a huge battle on his hands to clear his name and to get his life back on track and I wish him and his family every success in achieving this.

For now, I'll concentrate my time on my many appreciative paying clients and my continued battle with prostate cancer.'

In response PR Office founder Shimon Cohen said his agency was 'engaged by [Murat's legal team] Simons Muirhead & Burton to provide litigation PR support for yesterday's hearing'.

'The change of circumstances in this case brought about a change of strategy,' he continued. 'Max Clifford Associates was advised by Simons Muirhead & Burton in a timely and appropriate manner that their services were not required this week, during the days leading up to the Statement in Open Court or in the immediate aftermath.'

by Mandz Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:44 pm

Hi..

Mum21 I agree Murat has done well out of this. I think in both situations the newspapers were wrong. What I cannot understand is why Murat settled out of Court? If life has been “hell” as he stated on TV then why not drag them to Court and out the “sources” that made life hell for him?

I can understand the McCann’s position on this as their daughter is missing so their focus right now is Maddie and quite right however Murat had a perfect opportunity to out the people who made his life “hell”.

by tulip Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:58 pm

Thanks Sass, yes that was it.

I think in the case of both Murat and the McCanns they would have been advised by their legal tems to accept a settlement rather than have a mud-slinging open court session, where personal stuff would have been thrown around that wasn't necessarily true or relevant. Damages in both cases would have been regarded by many as nominal by some standards. The McCanns wanted the papers to apologise to make an example of them. They might have been able to get much more had it gone further and the sources of their misery outed.

I hold no brief AT ALL for the weird, off-putting and indeed suspicious Murat, believe me, but it's not impossible that his lawyers advised him on the same basis.

Also, as both parties were arguidos, it might have been difficult in an open court situation; would they have been able to use all the defensive info they had?

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:16 pm

I know Max Clifford is a PR agent, I think there are not many people in Western civilisation that do not know this, especially for his more colourful representations. However, I thought he was a Public Relations agent/adviser, not a legal adviser and while I would not decry his legal integrity and knowledge, I thought his main role is to advise on how to handle publicity, adverse or otherwise and maybe even obtain publicity, would he be advising him in a formal legal capacity? I would have thought not, however, I may be wrong of course.

I am aware of his difference of opinion with Robert Murat, seems like Murat and his family were very happy to take his advise for free but then dropped him in preference for someone his 'legal team/adviser' wanted him to have, I think this publicity company is somehow attached to Murat's legal team, not sure, but this is the way I read it the other day.

Max Clifford did sound put out, but then if someone stabs you in the back like this, I expect even Max Clifford would feel put out, he is human too. Clifford, is about the only PR I have seen that seems to have anything resembling a heart, he doesn't strike me as a bad man. We have no idea of how much time and effort that Clifford and his company have put into this, I saw him speaking about Murat the other week and he did an excellent job of it too.
Oh well, if Murat feels rich enough to pay for his PR then that is a matter for him, I can't help feeling he is being manipulated and used, once he starts paying expensive PR firms for their services, "his" £600.000 will not last long. Still that is a matter for him and his teams, what do I care what he does with his money.

The reason why I asked mum, is because I was interested to learn if Murat had actually seen sense and sacked his legal adviser, because this would have been interesting.

One other thing that I would like to point out here is the irony of Murat having Max Clifford speaking for him and the antis have not said a dicky bird about it, can you imagine what they would have done if Kate and Gerry had hired a PR firm with Max Clifford as spokesman for them?

Yet again another double standards disparity. pullinghairout

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:53 pm

Mum21 wrote:"I am not rewriting history here, Robert Murat in my opinion was not attacked by the press as badly as the McCann's were and continue to be to this day."

I agree with you 100% on this...in fact as far as the British press are concerned, Robert Murat did very well. You see I am still not convinced that Murat is 100% innocent. We know he lied to the PJ about where he was that night and that he went to bed early....and made no phone calls. It was not just Jane Tanner who saw him that night. What about the barman who stated he was drinking in his bar late that night. That barman was a local...not a McCann friend.
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty......but we have to remember he is still a prime suspect in the case.
I remember when the DE apologised to the McCann's...the anti's were up in arms because the DE made a statement that they admitted Kate and Gerry were innocent of any involvement in harming Madeleine. The anti's said "How do the DE know that....they are prime suspects in the case". The same goes for Murat.....the press do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. And neither do we.

I agree with mum on this. I just pointed out the irony of those against the McCann's becoming mute and not mentioning a thing about Robert Murat being represented by a PR guru Max Clifford, they all seem to be suffering from 'selective information uptake'. I am not saying that he should not be represented by him, he obviously needed someone to represent him, what I seek to point out is that, it seems it is OK for Murat to have had a spokesman but not the McCann's. Two things that point to the anti double standards;

Murat has PR guru Max Clifford representing him, that apparently is OK for but NOT for the McCann's.
It's OK for the press to issue an apology and say Murat is innocent, but not the same for the McCann's

Like mum, I am not saying Murat is innocent or guilty, what I feel about that is inconsequential, but some need to accept that if it is OK for Murat, it is OK for the McCann's, after all they are all suspects in this case, just rank 'anti' hypocrisy.

It could be vigorously argued that Murat's reputation and employment prospects in the UK did not suffer that much, (his employment prospects if at all), after all he does not live here and he does not work here. Leaving the McCann's out of this for while, it could also be said that he was in no way vilified in the press in this country the same way he was viciously attacked in Portugal, so I wonder why he is here suing the British press? Why did he not start by suing the Portuguese press, where virtually all the stories that appeared in the British press originated from? Sloppy British journalism emanating from information given from a bar stool in Hugo Beaties bar and subject to bad translations and changes in the actuality of the information from Portuguese journalist to British journalist? Who knows? But any journalist wanting to curry favour with certain PJ detectives may have been tempted to slip in the infamous 'red herring' with a view to gaining a valuable source for future cases? Why not? This is journalism after all and the PJ were pretty ticked off with the British press and the British police, so a good way in? You decide!

However why did Murat not sue the Portuguese press? Portugal is where he lives and says he works, this is where the most damage to his reputation and his employment status has occurred, yet all we have heard is that he 'may' sue them and that is that! We have heard more about that he is thinking of suing witnesses that have said they thought they saw him, where, he says he wasn't. Perhaps Murat's legal team, wanted him to use their PR team, because Max Clifford was advising Murat against such a move, because I am pretty certain if Murat attempts to take legal action against witnesses, his good standing in this country will suffer, and it will suffer badly. I can't see anything but misery coming from such a move, it has damaged Murat enough just mentioning it as a possibility.

I too feel that there are many unanswered questions concerning Robert Murat, which may or may not have been asked an answered, who knows? But one thing is for sure, there are two things that will not leave my mind and set alarm bells off is;

How can so many witnesses have got it wrong?
He is reported to have given 3 different alibi's, how can that not be linked with the numerous eye witness accounts that place him somewhere he emphatically denies he wasn't?

Mistaken identity? All those people? I think that is dubious, however I may be wrong.

It still strikes me as odd that he would move from a PR guru like Max Clifford who has been advising him for free, over to some obscure firm that is going to probably charge him mega bucks and then we learn that this PR company, is attached to his legal advisers company? How long is his £600.000 going to last? This business concerning Murat's solicitor etc which is going on behind the scenes of Robert Murat, is beginning to be a story in itself!

You know what they say and Murat's lawyer 'Mr Pagarete' should take note of this, when the person that is representing you starts to become the story, they need to go, after all this is not the first time Mr Pagarete, has made the headlines is it? One of his more notable comments was when he claimed that the; "locals in Praia da Luz now just wanted “these bloody McCanns” to leave Portugal and return to Britain.

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:49 pm

Mandz wrote:Hi..

Mum21 I agree Murat has done well out of this. I think in both situations the newspapers were wrong. What I cannot understand is why Murat settled out of Court? If life has been “hell” as he stated on TV then why not drag them to Court and out the “sources” that made life hell for him?

I can understand the McCann’s position on this as their daughter is missing so their focus right now is Maddie and quite right however Murat had a perfect opportunity to out the people who made his life “hell”.

You are correct, why settle out of court? I would have thought Murat would relish taking these newspapers to court and proving them wrong. I believe the onus would have been on the newspapers to prove what they said was not libellous, after all if they could prove what they wrote, then what they printed was not libellous. However, I pointed out some weeks ago this would not get to court, that he would settle for a sum outside court, the reasons why I thought this would happen are quite obvious.
If this case had actually gone into court then the legal teams employed by the newspapers would have been digging and diving into Murat's past and digging up anything they could get their hands on, whether we like it or not, this is exactly what would have happened.
We already know the bizarre circumstances of his girlfriend Michaela and him living with her and her husband (another stunning and bizarre Robert Murat lookalike) in front of her little girl, which must have been dreadfully confusing for the child, not to mention the circumstances concerning his own wife and daughter. This is what I have read in the papers in this country and this is not libellous because it is true, so this is type of thing that could have been dragged out into open court. Then because the newspapers had carried these reports about his relationship with Sergy Malinka and the reports about what was supposed to have been found on Murat's computer, this would again have been thrashed out in open court.

This is why I realised very early on that he would in no way go into open court, I would have liked to have seen him there clearing his name properly, but it was never going to happen. I think the stress and problems this would have placed him under, is why he settled for just £600.000 when it was reported that he was suing for damages of around £2 million, it is vast difference and I was quite shocked at the amount he did settle for.

by maria Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:55 pm

However why did Murat not sue the Portuguese press? Portugal is where he lives and says he works, this is where the most damage to his reputation and his employment status has occurred, yet all we have heard is that he 'may' sue them and that is that! We have heard more about that he is thinking of suing witnesses that have said they thought they saw him where he says he wasn't. Perhaps his legal team wanted him to use their PR team because Max Clifford was advising Murat against such a move because I am pretty certain if Murat attempts to take legal action against witnesses, his good standing in this country will suffer and it will suffer badly.

Pressing charges against the media is not very common I would say. It is more invoked the 'right to answer'. Even when charges are pressed they usually are about somewhat unimportant (if compared with what happened to the McCanns, Murat and others in this case) and the results are in general very low fines, nothing worth to talk about. If Murat and/or the McCanns press charges it will be the first big case and our courts aren't exactly known for recognizing the right to a good name or reputation. And the McCanns, at least, will have to look into Paulo Cristovão's and Gonçalo Amaral's books as well.

But I think they all are waiting for the outcome, not necessarily the arguido status lifting but the decision on the shelving or proceed with investigations (as I don't expect charges to be pressed). Portuguese way of thinking is a bit strange for you british... and it may be more cautious to act like this. I'm sure they are being correctly advised by their portuguese lawyers.

by maria Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:00 pm

tulip wrote:If the book appears before the secrecy order is lifted there would be good cause for legal action wouldn't there? It would be SO blatant -- much more so than any of the leaks and 'private briefings'.

It would/could be a defiant attitude to the legal system and he very well could be object of a very serious official inquiry. It will all depend on how it is wirtten. But in any case it will be in breach of professional secrecy .

by Rosie Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:10 pm

A big

to the forum, it is really good to see you posting and excellent to have your input from Portugal.

So do you think that Murat will sue the Portuguese press? I have a feeling the McCann's are going to, I also have a feeling that the McCann's may take legal action against the PJ, although as you quite rightly say, this will depend on what transpires tomorrow and the coming weeks.

by vee8 Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:36 pm

I hope they DO sue the Portuguese press, and this time don't stop at half a bar. I hope they bleed them white. And didn't someone write a book, 'The guilt of the McCann's?' I imagine he's a worried bunny at the moment, too.

by Guest Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:34 am

Mum21 wrote:"I am not rewriting history here, Robert Murat in my opinion was not attacked by the press as badly as the McCann's were and continue to be to this day."

I agree with you 100% on this...in fact as far as the British press are concerned, Robert Murat did very well. ... The same goes for Murat.....the press do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. And neither do we.

This is an argument I disagreed with yesterday - not the fact that Robert Murat has not been attacked as badly as the McCanns (which I think is a given), but the logic behind the argument that it somehow makes a difference that Murat's reputation may not have been tarnished to such an extent as the McCanns'. Using the same "innocent until proven guilty" as we use for the McCanns, we should consider Murat innocent until proven guilty also. At the moment, therefore, we should consider him an innocent man who has been treated badly by the press.

If you went to the hospital with a broken leg and the doctor said, "Well actually someone was here not long ago and their break was much worse, so do stop fussing" would you be happy? Using the logic some applied to the subject of Murat and the McCanns in the press, then you would have to say, "Well if someone had a worse break than this, then I'll hop home and count my blessings. Stick an Elastoplast on it, will ya doc".

I am no Murat fan - far from it, but I do think that saying that the McCanns were being treated worse than Murat is in fact a non-argument.

by Rosie Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:52 am

sass wrote:
Mum21 wrote:"I am not rewriting history here, Robert Murat in my opinion was not attacked by the press as badly as the McCann's were and continue to be to this day."

I agree with you 100% on this...in fact as far as the British press are concerned, Robert Murat did very well. ... The same goes for Murat.....the press do not know whether he is innocent or guilty. And neither do we.

This is an argument I disagreed with yesterday - not the fact that Robert Murat has not been attacked as badly as the McCanns (which I think is a given), but the logic behind the argument that it somehow makes a difference that Murat's reputation may not have been tarnished to such an extent as the McCanns'. Using the same "innocent until proven guilty" as we use for the McCanns, we should consider Murat innocent until proven guilty also. At the moment, therefore, we should consider him an innocent man who has been treated badly by the press.

If you went to the hospital with a broken leg and the doctor said, "Well actually someone was here not long ago and their break was much worse, so do stop fussing" would you be happy? Using the logic some applied to the subject of Murat and the McCanns in the press, then you would have to say, "Well if someone had a worse break than this, then I'll hop home and count my blessings. Stick an Elastoplast on it, will ya doc".

I am no Murat fan - far from it, but I do think that saying that the McCanns were being treated worse than Murat is in fact a non-argument.

You seem to missing the point, no one is saying that Robert Murat should not be considered innocent until proven guilty, I thought that was clear from what Mum, Chris and myself has said, I have never said that he was guilty, only that he has questions to answer and for all I know, he may well have answered them already, so clearly no one is saying that he should be considered guilty and the McCann's innocent. the same tenet applies to all of them, 'innocent until proven guilty' no exceptions.

When awarding damages the judge will simply look at the case in question, what is proven and then take into consideration the income projections of Murat and what he could have been considered to have earned and how badly the libel has affected his ability to earn that income.

My points are these, as Murat brought his action in the UK the judge would only have considered what happened in the UK concerning the British press and then made an assessment on how Murat's income in the UK was affected and of course his good name too.
Murat did not reside in the UK and odes not earn his living in the UK. This is a very important and salient point, which I feel a judge would be legally bound to consider.

As Murat did not (from the papers I have read anyway) get attacked that badly, on a prolonged basis and then taking into consideration that his work is not in the UK and he does not live in the UK, it is doubtful that he would have been awarded anywhere near the £2 million projected, this is one of the reasons (apart from the obvious others) that I feel he did not go into court and why the newspapers lawyers were able to negotiate an out of court settlement, both sides knew the risks of this going into an open court.

As for Murat Vs the McCann's in how badly they got attacked in the newspapers, this would not have been considered by the judge as it was not relevant.

However, on a personal level, I maintain that Robert Murat, did not get attacked or was not covered in the newspapers anywhere near the level the McCann's were. To say that Murat was not attacked as much as the McCann's, is not a non argument and I give these couple of examples why I think this.

Murat was not the subject of daily stories on the Express Group newspapers of rehashed non news, innuendo and the repetitive reporting of the lies, smears and innuendo coming out of Portugal via these infamous police sources and the Portuguese press. Murat got a mention occasionally, after the initial fuss died down and when it emerged that 'apparently his alibis did not stack up, or when witnesses started to come forward. For Kate and Gerry McCann, the abuse was there constantly almost 24/7 on a sustained basis. The McCann's arguido status was mentioned virtually every day in every single newspaper in the UK, whereby in comparison, Murat was the 'forgotten arguido', Matthew Paris of the Times wrote a whole article about this and how wronged Murat actually was for being made an arguido, so his coverage in the UK press was not even negative all of the time. true the same for Kate and Gerry, but the negative press coverage those two received far outweighed Murat's, it is a simple mathematical logic anyway as Kate and Gerry were in the press far more than Murat.

We have all seen the photographs taken by our press that portray Kate and Gerry in the most awful way possible, these are the same photos that Vile and notdoc were able to take and use and really damage Kate and Gerry with. The newspapers did not have to use these unflattering shots, they would have had plenty to choose from, the point is, they used these shots on purpose and set out to use the worse shot of them that they could possibly frond for their story. I do not recall one bad shot of Murat, all the photos I have seen of him have just been normal run of the mill photos.

Murat got off lightly IMO and he has done very well for himself out of this mess too.

Why has he not started proceedings against the Portuguese press where all these "lies" about him first appeared? Why did he come to the UK and take this action out? Is it because of what Maria has said, that if he did take the Portuguese press to court, he would not really make that much out of it because they do not really put that much on the hurt feelings and reputation of people in Portugal? If this is so, then it would explain why the Portuguese press have a devil may care attitude to the lies they print and show scant regard towards the people they are hurting.

Certainly explains why Murat was over here prosecuting the UK press, the payout was bigger!

As for the elastoplast analogy, don't quite see where that comes into it at all.

by Mandz Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:33 am

We discussed this on the Chatbox one evening. I agree that if the McCanns can sue, Murat, too, should be able to - after all they all have the same status.

I also believe that as far as employment is concerned it was easier on the practical side for Gerry McCann to get his job back, because by most people he and Kate are seen as victims. Gerry wanted to go back to work to get some semblance of normality back and he had a large institution behind him - the NHS. Murat, on the other hand, is not seen as the victim, but the perpetrator and as he was self-employed had no back-up. How many people wishing to purchase a home in Portugal would choose to use his services?
***************************************************************************
Hi Sass!
Re your post above - I really don’t see why this matters if indeed it was easier for Gerry to return to work than Murat who owned his own business? The McCann’s had to use money from the fund to pay for their mortgage and talked about selling their home therefore it appears to me they had no back up and Gerry had to return to work. As you have said and I agree they are both the victims of sensational reporting.

by Guest Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:11 am

Rosiepops wrote: The point of saying that is, if Gerry McCann can manage to get himself back to work and support his family and pay his bills while under the enormous pressures and strains and grief that he and Kate are under, why is it that Robert Murat could not do the same?

Hiya Mandz!
The part you were questioning was in answer to this. As Gerry got his job back with conditions to suit his situation I would say he had back-up, wouldn't you?

Rosie

I'm not missing the point here - I don't think you get what I am trying to say.

- Yes, the McCanns have been treated abysmally by the press
- Murat has also been treated badly in the press
- Murat may be innocent of everything except looking weird and has had his reputation damaged anyway - it doesn't matter if it is more or less damaged than the McCanns' - it is still damaged.

"Murat got off lightly IMO and he has done very well for himself out of this mess too. " If he is in fact innocent, how has he got off lightly???? You say someone has "got off lightly" if they have done something. If you were accused of say shoplifting and you were completely innocent so weren't sent to prison, would you consider you had "got off lightly"? As for "doing well for himself" if he is actually innocent then he has come out of this very badly - there will always be people mistrusting him, people thinking he has sómething to do with all this and his daughter had to go into hiding.

I don't know why he hasn't sued the Portuguese police - I can't know that - it also wasn't the point of my post.

Anyway, I am going to agree to disagree, because we are going round in circles here.

by Sponsored content

Gonc tries to release his book

Hi Chris

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Rosiepops...

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Robert Murat

Murat

Mum

Rosie

Max Clifford

Max Clifford (cont ...)

Rosie said

Max Clifford - Is this what you wanted copied and pasted, Tulip?

Hi All.....!

Thanks!

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Hi Mandz

Pressing charges in Portugal

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Hi Maria

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Just to illustrate

Re: Gonc tries to release his book

Hi Sass!

Mandz

Re: Gonc tries to release his book