Brian Ladd - What a flake and a fake!

[Matt]

There's also the problems of press weasel words like allegedly. Whilst the article may say something like, "leaked infomration was circulating yesterday suggesting that DNA evidence taken from Robert Murats house has been matched with Madeline"

Now this has a number of interpretations: It's just a rumour with no truth behind it, a test was done but the results aren't known, a test was done and was consistent with Maddies DNA but not conclusive, e.g could equally have been a relative's DNA, A test was done and was conclusive.

Now it's difficult to sue the newspaper for libel. All they have to prove is that such a rumour was indeed circulating as that's all they've actually said. If their source were apparently reliable thye've every reason to run the story.

However by the time is been read and misremebered a few times there's millions of people believeing that there's no doubt that conclusive infalliable tests prove that Maddie was at Murats house.

[Bubblesxx]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

[MischiefMonkey]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

If he has a spare £250,000.

Can you find a story in that definitively says that Madeleine McCann's DNA was found in his house? I would bet you can't. However I would also be willing to bet you could find a fair few examples of the like Matt outlined above. In which case any legal team is going to want a big chunk of their £250,000+ up front. Of course, if he sued and lost he would likely have to pay some or all of the defendant's costs.

[Matt]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

It's not quite as simple as that but pretty much. You can be sued for implying things that are untrue even if you don't say them explicitly. So in some circumstances unqualified reporting of scurrilous gossip can land you in trouble.

The trick when reading the news is to pay close attention to what is explicitly stated as true and what sources are given.

This becomes very tricky when it comes to politicians. e.g. Sources close to the minister often mean his press office. Which can mean it's what the minister want you to think but can't actually say - possibly because it's not true.

As Bernard Wolley from Yes Minister said about leaks

"That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

For all we knew the "leak" about finding DNA in murat's appartment may have just been a ploy to flush a confession. It's certainly not reliable information.

If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

There's probably a few publications that overstepped the mark but as it stands at the moment he's barred from making public statements about the case. That puts the kibosh on him suing.

Even afterwards the journalists may claim qualified priviledge that they're simply reporting the rumours going round as they are in the public interest. Murat would have to prove malice to get a libel conviction.

[Bubblesxx]

Murat would have to prove malice to get a libel conviction.

It may be in the public interest but not in the interest of RM himself eh?! Who is going to take blame for the fact that his name has been dragged through the mud? I mean if the case is solved and he is completely innocent, its a bit late really isn't it? People will always have their reservations about him from now on. So who is going to take the blame when say, he can't get a job? I know I wouldnt want to employ him - and the businesses that he is supposed to own wont get much custom i assume?

[Matt]

It may be in the public interest but not in the interest of RM himself eh?! Who is going to take blame for the fact that his name has been dragged through the mud? I mean if the case is solved and he is completely innocent, its a bit late really isn't it? People will always have their reservations about him from now on. So who is going to take the blame when say, he can't get a job? I know I wouldnt want to employ him - and the businesses that he is supposed to own wont get much custom i assume?

It's a sad fact of life, shit sticks. What's the first thing you think of when you hear the name Craig Charles. For me it's Dave Lister in Red Dwarf but second is the fact that he was conviceted of rape. Only afterwards do I remember that he was cleared of all charges. part of me wonders what really happened. Shit sticks. Accusations are front page, retractions not so much.

[MischiefMonkey]

Or Colin Stagg. His life has been ruined.

[Bubblesxx]

It's a sad fact of life, shit sticks. What's the first thing you think of when you hear the name Craig Charles. For me it's Dave Lister in Red Dwarf but second is the fact that he was conviceted of rape. Only afterwards do I remember that he was cleared of all charges. part of me wonders what really happened.

Yea that is pretty sad actually. Shame aswell. I understand that you say part of you wonders what happened... coz I assume that he must have been caught in some sort of compromising position for such allegations to be made. Now I realise that that is not always the case, and anybody could have 'pointed the finger' for no reason! Did he sue or get any sort of compensation when cleared of charges?

[Matt]

Yea that is pretty sad actually. Shame aswell. I understand that you say part of you wonders what happened... coz I assume that he must have been caught in some sort of compromising position for such allegations to be made. Now I realise that that is not always the case, and anybody could have 'pointed the finger' for no reason! Did he sue or get any sort of compensation when cleared of charges?

Who would he sue if the girl who accused him or rape has no appreciable assets and the papers who reported the unbiased facts of the case did so without malice? Even if that were not the case dragging the events of that night through the tabloids once more might do more harm than good.

[Matt]

Or Colin Stagg. His life has been ruined.

Good point, well made. Innocent until until let off on a technicality.

[Sarah]

It's been interesting reading all your replies - they went off at a tangent, but good replies, thank you!

[Bubblesxx]

It's been interesting reading all your replies - they went off at a tangent, but good replies, thank you!

I enjoyed that and actually learnt a few things. That's what these forums are for aren't they? A lot tend to go off at a tangent as people get more and more attached and passionate about writing!

[SKIRRID5]

Matt, Colin Stagg was not let off on a technicality. In my opinion the police, having no evidence against anyone, tried to set him up with the disgusting "honey trap". If they'd had good forensic evidence they'd have presented it instead of the "confession". They thought " The judge will throw the case out, and people will think we didn't fail, but were stopped by a technicality" And it worked!
The staggering thing is why the DPP allowed the case to get to court. Anyway, the cops now have the right man, don't they?
And to think everybody was criticising the Portuguese police!

[SKIRRID5]

Matt, on second thoughts you may have been being sarcastic. If so excuse my slowness.

[Investigative Reporter]

Has any one ever come across this man. He seems to be involved in a number of scams, ranging from trying to steal Luton Football club to stealing Oil Rigs in the Middle East. DN news in Norway reports that he is working in concert with a Michael Howarth an Australian he seems to use a company called ACI http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.v531.3j.htm Does any one know of these people or has anyone had any dealings with them. John Gurney is profiled on a blog as having a criminal record does any one have any further information on why he was jailed in the USA for fraud, and jailed in the UK for Fraud.