Murat sues!

[karia]

Given what was said about the chap on the org at the time..have your views changed at all?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080413/tuk-portugal-missing-britain-media-a7ad41d.html

[Rie]

Sorry but think he is just cashing in on maddies dissapearence AGAIN!
yes it must be terrible being accused of such a thing but surly he could understand why he was a suspect!!!!

[Bobinovich]

The article says he is still a suspect so he should not be able to sue until it is established what DID happen to Madeline.

I can understand how these accusations could damage his reputation and therefore his business, so IF he is proved innocent of any wrongdoings then he SHOULD be compensated for said damage.

[TBH]

So does it now follow that all suspects in a heinous crime are able to sue because they were found innocent?
Would it not make more sense if it was against the law to reveal the name of a suspect unless they are charged and go to trial and are found guilty?
Probably some of the worst cases are people suspected of rape and paedophilia only to be found innocent, I am sure that would destroy their lives.

[_Ju_]

The article says he is still a suspect so he should not be able to sue until it is established what DID happen to Madeline.

I can understand how these accusations could damage his reputation and therefore his business, so IF he is proved innocent of any wrongdoings then he SHOULD be compensated for said damage.

He isn't sueing because he was constituted an "arguido" ( which isn't exactly the same as a suspect.....I suppose it could be translated as a person of interest to the investigation or potencial suspect. It is applied to people to stop them influencing the investigation by say, speaking to witnesses, etc). He is sueing because newspapers are allowed to write whatever they want here, effectively naming him guilty before any trial that decided his guilt. So, he hould be able to sue when he is considered guilty before proven innocent. No matter what any of us or the journalists (?) think of him, innocence untill proven guilty HAS to be the norm to protect everyone.

On the other hand people have to be investigated if there is a reasonable reason to do so, and as along as a persons innocence is preserved ( untill proven guity), the police have to be able to investigate freely, without worrying about potencial payouts to people who end up proven innocent and feel wronged for having been considered suspect. So I don't think that the judicial system and/or police should be considered liable for carrying out investigations.

[The Angel Of Death]

He is sueing because newspapers are allowed to write whatever they want here, effectively naming him guilty before any trial that decided his guilt

And for that reason he should be allowed to sue

Its always the same in a big case like that (or celebs) are always thrust into the limelight before any form of guilt is found out for example john leslie the mans career is in ruins because he was accused no one wanted to know that he wasn't guilty everyone jumped on the band wagon and it was guilty by association

Forgetting celebs how many ordinary people have been accused of rape and kiddie fiddling and had there lives ruined there was a bloke who had his credit card details cloned and he then showed up on operation ore list lost his job and was disowned by his family all because he "could" have done it this was by people who knew him better than anyone else people you would expect to stand buy you in a situation like that

In a rape case the female has the right to have her details (rightly) withheld and remain anonymous how isn't there this option for the accused ??? and when and if there found guilty then publish details about them

Its to easy these days to make something up about someone and as we all know mud sticks guilty or not they will always be known as the person who was accused and not the person who was legally cleared

Remember something about a paediatrician being run out of town because some twunk managed to confuse that with being a paedophile lynch mod then gathered and it went from there

[Boozeburglar]

There is no such thing as 'proved innocent' in Britain, not sure about Portugal.

If they do not have enough evidence to even hold him; I think we should assume he is innocent until it is proven otherwise.

In the meantime he should enjoy the rights of normal free people; one of which is to sue newspapers.

OJ was in a position to sue. Are we suggesting someone who has not even had a chance in front of a jury should not have the right?

Could happen to any of us.

What about that guy who was falsely accused of the Ipswich murders?

Do you think his life has not been ruined?

What if they had never got the real guy; and everyone carried on as though he had merely dodged the bullet for lack of evidence?

:)

[Amy-Winehouse]

I dont believe he is guilty but I will agree he is very shady , but I do believe the McCanns are guilty of neglecting their children, Why were they never charged with neglect ???

[Boozeburglar]

Gee, let me think.

Could it be that they lost a child as a result?

Perhaps the authorities are lenient in their thinking that that is punishment enough.

Do you suggest that?

;)

[TBH]

Gee, let me think.

Could it be that they lost a child as a result?

Perhaps the authorities are lenient in their thinking that that is punishment enough.

Do you suggest that?

;)Punishment enough indeed Boozeburglar.

[Amy-Winehouse]

Money & their place in society would have more to do with it...Im not convinced theyre entirely innocent but thats my opinion & Im sticking with it until proven otherwise.