ANALYSIS - Robert Murat's strange reaction to winning a libel payout of £600,000

Tony Bennett wrote:Extracted from:

'The Mystery of Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause', an investigative report in 6 parts on The Madeleine Foundation website ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] click on 'Articles')

P. A libel payout to Robert Murat of £600,000

In March 2008, the remainder of Murat’s computers and other possessions seized by the Portuguese Police were returned to him. He described this at the time as ‘a very positive sign’, adding: “Why would they return something if it was in the middle of being investigated in any way, shape or form? We are very happy to have the computers back, and I hope I will have my arguido status dropped very shortly”.

The following month, his lawyers, Simons Muirhead & Burton, revealed that their client planned to sue 11 leading British newspapers and Sky TV over allegedly libellous stories.

When the Portuguese Attorney-General, in July 2008, published a final report on the Portuguese Police investigation and stated that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with an offence, Robert Murat, along with the McCanns, had his status as ‘arguido’ - suspect - lifted.

But before that, and one might almost say in anticipation of that, he received one of the biggest-ever payouts for libel - a reputed £600,000. In addition, his partner Michaela Walczuk apparently netted a further £100,000, as did his friend Sergei Malinka. These awards came around four months after the McCanns received, in March, a libel pay-out reputed to have been £550,000 and two months before the ‘Tapas 9’ group of the McCanns’ friends received, we were told, a total of £375,000 - over £50,000 each. The total libel pay-out to these 12 people amounted to around £1¾ million.

Simons Muirhead & Burton had announced in April that they were pursuing 11 leading British newspapers and SKY TV over allegedly libellous stories. The newspapers were the Sun, Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World and the Scotsman. The Scotsman said of its article about Murat: “We made a number of seriously defamatory allegations which were wholly untrue”. Altogether, there were said to have been ‘nearly 100 false media stories’ about Murat.

The libel settlement, which included an apology, was achieved because the 11 newspapers and SKY TV each admitted that they had been wrong to allege that Robert Murat had in any way been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Daily Telegraph correspondent Joshua Rozenberg said: “They realise that this is one of the most damaging things you could say about anybody, and it appears that they have all clubbed together and agreed to settle the libel claim out of court. The only way in which the newspapers could defend this case would be if they could prove the truth of what they alleged”.

Murat flew to London for the settlement, being photographed on the steps of the High Court. Media commentator and journalism professor Roy Greenslade was quick to comment. He said: “This case shows that newspapers had lost their heads over the Madeleine story. They need to be more aware that when crimes happen abroad, it does not relieve them of the normal rules that they should apply. Competition has driven them to ‘bid each other up’ in terms of what they thought they could get away with in their reporting. Profits and sales ruled, rather than principles and ethics”.

Q. Robert Murat’s interview five days after he received his £600,000 libel award

Asked to comment on his libel victory, Murat declared, on SKY TV, and reading from a prepared text: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life, and caused immense distress”.

Five days after Robert Murat received his libel pay-out, and while still an arguido, he gave a TV interview for the BBC. This is how the interview went:

Murat: “I would like to know why...um...er... I was made an arguido...er, because, er, sincerely, I don't understand why I was made an arguido. Erm, yeah, I would like to find out. I would like to find out.

Reporter: “Would there be satisfaction or anger when the police, if they do, fully clear you?”

Murat: “Well, I can't really answer that because, er, they may have...they may have had, um...they may have felt, should I say, that, that there was a reason to do it, and if there's a justifiable reason to make me an arguido, um, then...I have to look at it and be sensible about it. Um, it doesn't help in any way, shape or form, me, um, here, 14 months down the line, er, still an arguido, but that is the law of Portugal. Now this happened in Portugal and as much as we do not like how the legal system works in Portugal, this is their legal system and they are doing their job”.

The U.S.-based website ‘Eyes for Lies’ has analysed this interview, looking at the facial expressions. The full analysis by the ‘Eyes’ website (run by a U.S. lady) can be viewed here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In summary, the ‘Eyes’ website makes these points:

‘Eyes’ suggests that five day later, we would expect Murat to be showing the same sign of distress as in the statement he made five days earlier on SKY.

QUOTE

“We should see a man, who is angry, violated, misunderstood and unjustly treated”.

She continues: “Is this what we see when we watch Murat speak here? Absolutely not. What we see, instead, is a man who is enjoying the spotlight. You'd think in this interview that Murat was sitting down for an afternoon tea, and not a serious conversation about how his life was ruined. He is enjoying speculating and bantering about this whole scenario as if it had no implications for him, yet he readily acknowledges he is still a suspect.

“Look at how he smirks and grins. More importantly, we don't see any distress, or feelings of violation. We don't see anger for all the pain he has supposedly had to endure. We don't see a hint that this is a man who was wrongly looked at, put under the microscope, called a suspect and had his life destroyedas he says himself. His behaviour is a complete contradiction to the circumstances that he wants us to believe here. It is totally different than the script he read out to the media after he won his libel suit, but it shouldn't be.

“It’s one thing not to be bothered by the entire frenzy and to ignore it because he knows he is innocent, and that the police couldn't possibly have anything on him. It's quite another to tell us it devastatedhis life and to go after the press, but to then turn around and act like it was no big deal, and entertain the idea that if the Portuguese police had reason to call him a suspect that they are just ‘doing their job’ and that he should be ‘sensible’ about it, is absurd.

“It's flat out pompous. If the police inaccurately labelled you a suspect, would you ever entertain such nonsense? I can't believe I am even seeing this arrogance. Is that how you would feel if you have been wrongly looked at as a suspect for an entire year? After the police searched your house multiple times? After your life was supposedly ruined, and the media trashed your name around the world?

“If shoddy detective work destroyed your life, was inaccurate or faulty, I can be 100% confident in saying that you'd nevergo there. It defies logic. If there is one person on this earth who should neverhave doubts about Murat's innocence, it should be Robert Murat himself…”

UNQUOTE

We think these are perceptive observations and would recommend people to view the full article.