DNA from bottle in Belgium, does not match Madeleine

[Wolfgirl]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/08/wmaddy208.xml

shame

I agree with Oliveoil too, there is now ay the parents were involved imo
And of course if Murat is innocent he should get compensation, his life has been raked over and intruded upon in the worst way imaginable

Do you mean he deerves companstion because he was/is a suspect?
The police have to follow any leads there may be, they then need to investigate to see if they lead anywhere, the police are doing nothing wrong in investgating someone if the have suspicions.
Its their job.

being investigated by the police is one thing

being toasted by the worlds media (on no grounds at all so far) is quite another.

it is their job

it is not however the job of the media to stalk out his ex wife and young daughter and harrass them

oh, yes, silly me, it IS their job to do that

of course

oh right, article I read said he was living in Spain 9although also said he was an ex pat yes)

...now he may have reason to sue the British media organisations who revealed his identity. But i dont actually know where the law stands on that tbh.

and his poor mother... her life is ruined

it is not the fault of the police that the media are ghouls

i think he's die compensation, his name has been dragged through the mud- we know there are other suspects yet their identities have been kept quiet; everyone now knows who Robert murat is.

I wsa hoping that might lead to something to. Her poor parents

I assumed by the use of the word 'compensation' that it was meant as he should recieve compensation from the Portugese authorities.

I completely agree that he and/or his ex wife would have a good case against the media organisations.

i never said it was the fault of the police I said he deserved compensation or to put it a better way - he should sue the arse of the papers. If Posh spice can get thousands for being wrongly called plump or spotty or whatever - then what do you get for having you reputation mangled?

No need for

I just explained what i meant.

x post Jezza

...and X POST AGAIN!

Surely if it was legal, and necessary, for Portuguese police formally to name him as an active witness/suspect then media can report it (Uk has reporting restrictions they could invoke in such circumstances). Any compensation would be subject to Portuguese regulations which presumably allows for this.

Yes, perhaps but then surely they have a responsibility to not use that information to harass his innocent family members.

agree with Jeremy. It's patently wrong to drag his family members into it at any rate, even if he did turn out to be guilty - unless of course they were complicit in it - tho I cant see his separated wife and four year old daughter having much to do with a crime in Portugal but there you go.

unfortunately it's the freedom of the press. and they wouldn't print it if it didn't sell papers.
i doubt anyone involved in the media has been stupid enough to allege that he had anything to do with it or claimed he was guilty.
what they will and can report is the truth as far as we know it, that the man is a potential suspect and of interest to the police.
if the fall out from this is that people wrongly assume him to be guilty or shun him the press will argue that they can not be responsible for the assumptions made by third parties and their reactions to statements of fact which in no way claim he is guilty.
i agree it is disgusting but unfortunately it is one of the cons of having free speech.

Personally I don't think the police would even say if it was Madelines DNA found on the straw, as that hitting the media, would make anyone who had abducted her panic now wouldn't it? and if she is alive and it was her, that's not what you'd want someone holding a child to do now is it.

but the media printed Robert Murat's name before he was declared a suspect. The day the Portuguese police searched his villa that mirror journalist was all over the news channels giving her story - of how she had thought him suspicious/too involved/how she had alerted the police etc. And at that point he still hadn't been formally named as a suspect.

And as far as I'm aware, the police never actually said that "robert murat" had been named suspect, as far as I recall, all their statements said that a "34 (?) year old man had been named", it was sky who collared Murat for an interview on his "arguito" status....

I disagree frizbe, if the police didn't want any details to be made known they wouldn't have confirmed that the sighting was being treated seriously and then lie about the findings of the DNA test. They would have not commented at all if the story had made it to the press via other means, and given how many sightings there have apparently been, the story would probably just never have made it to print.

but surely its allowed them to get an efit of a suspect out there, which the portugease (SP) police were not allowed to do by their laws?

no, there's no way police would be allowed to issue false info under any circumstances. They can withhold info, but cannot issue false info because it could jeopardise any trial.

Imagine police issue photofit of man seen in cafe with child resembling Madeleine, DNA is taken and it is confirmed that the child was Madeleine, but the police don't want the man to be freaked so they say that the DNA wasn't her's. So eventually this man is caught, only he doesn't have Madeleine with him, but he's the same man seen in the cafe, so he's charged in connection with the abduction. Then the case comes to trial, and immediately the defence produce... "statement from police saying that DNA found on the bottle was not Madeleine's". So no evidence to link the man to the child, in fact the police have gone on record saying the child wasn't there.

If the police say the DNA on the bottle wasn't Madeleine's, then the DNA wasn't Madeleine's.

I never for one second thought that there would be Madeleines DNA on that bottle.