Sir Clement Freud and links to the McCanns

Mimi wrote:I didn`t realise he had been `totally cleared`.   He was released from arguido status, like the McCanns, but didn`t know the PJ had totally cleared him.  I assumed he would be in the same situation as the McCanns, as the Supreme Court stated, never having been cleared.

The media has told us so much "spin" over the years,we don't know if we can believe anything they say. When I Google "Robert Murat cleared" the stories all suggest that he is not now a suspect.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/53972/madeleine-mccann-the-most-common-theories-ten-years-on/page/0/3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7507545.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563871/Madeleine-Robert-Murat-may-be-cleared.html

I have a feeling I have read in the final report when archiving the case he was cleared. Need to read it all again though.

Would it be because RM has never seen nor met Madeleine before? The mcs are the parents so they can't be cleared until the truth is known? Plus, no cadaver or blood hits from RM and his property, the mcs however? Just asking as I don't know.

candyfloss wrote:Robert Murat - An Apology – 21 July 2017

On 19 June 2016 we published an article concerning the late Clement Freud and the abduction of Madeleine McCann (“Paedophile Clement Freud drank in same Portuguese pub as one-time Maddie suspect”).



PUBLISHED:  15:33, Fri, Jul 21, 2017    | UPDATED: 16:22, Fri, Jul 21, 2017
The article also referred to Robert Murat who was totally cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We would like to make it clear that Mr Murat never met, nor had any connection with, Clement Freud, whether at the Portugal pub mentioned in our article or otherwise.  

It was not our intention to suggest any wrong-ding by Robert Murat and we apologise for the harm and distress we caused him.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/831452/Robert-Murat-Apology-21-July-2017

Also in Daily Star....

Robert Murat: An Apology – 21 July 2017

On 19 June 2016 we published an article concerning the late Clement Freud and the abduction of Madeleine McCann (“Paedo Clement Freud ‘went drinking at Portugal pub with Maddie suspect”).

The article also referred to Robert Murat who was totally cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We would like to make it clear that Mr Murat never met, nor had any connection with, Clement Freud, whether at the Portugal pub mentioned in our article or otherwise.

It was not our intention to suggest any wrong-doing by Robert Murat and we apologise for the harm and distress we caused him.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/631559/Robert-Murat-Apology-21-July-2017

Interesting timing - why is this being released now?

Why is it so important to have it publicly stated that RM never met or indeed had any connection with Clement Freud?

Kate, in her book, also writes about Clement Freud and his invitation to the family to come to his villa for a meal. Kate writes that at first she thought this was a hoax. Given Kate's penchant for 'the truth' we can take what she has written as gospel of course .

This must mean RM put in a complaint?

dogs don't lie wrote:This must mean RM put in a complaint?

Didn't R Murat win damages before,you'd think the press would learn,then again maybe not.

Heisenburg wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:This must mean RM put in a complaint?

Didn't R Murat win damages before,you'd think the press would learn,then again maybe not.

Murat did indeed win damages. Then again so did the McCanns and members of the Tapas. It doesn't really mean that much imo apart from you have paid for a lawyer or two.

Just because they won damages doesn't mean they have come out of this sordid case squeaky clean.

IMO.

It's just interesting that Murat objects to having had any association with Clement Freud.

I can understand why RM objected; Clement Freud had been widely portrayed as an unsavoury lecher at best and a paedophile at worst.

Who would want to be labelled as a friend / drinking chum of his?

The whole thing reeks of the usual McCann tactic of deflection.

I suspect that, since the McCanns can't deny that they met and dined with Clement Freud as Kate wrote about it in her book, they most probably and only my opinion, spoon fed the press the story that RM, a Maddie suspect no less, was his drinking buddy. The press print any old dross if it comes (indirectly) from the McCanns - probably because they know that The Mcanns won't sue if they provided the details. Robert Murat was just more McCannon fodder that the short-sighted and forgetful media did not expect to fight back.

I don't suppose the McCanns care since the press did their job and diverted attention from the McCann/Freud connection when it was the in headlines and the apology has only appeared now when the original story is all but forgotten ...although not by us.

All speculation on my part.

If true, that would be evil on a whole new level.

There is a difference between "someone did this awful thing" to deflect from your own misdeeds, and framing a specific person, deliberately ruining their life.

True, Mo6, but look what they did, and are still trying to do, to Goncalo Amaral.

Dee Coy wrote:True, Mo6, but look what they did, and are still trying to do, to Goncalo Amaral.

Aided and abetted by the UK press in that case.

I can almost understand what they did to Amaral.

Looking at it from their, entitled, point of view, they were forced to come up with the whole charade, not for their sake, but for the sake of the twins, and all the patients they were going to help. No court was going to understand how they needed the break, how the pressures of medicine are so much greater than anything else, so really, what option was there?

That bit of entitled logic worked on their friends and family.

And then Amaral comes along and refuses to understand how special they are, how the normal rules just cannot apply to them, and the result was anger, anger at the man who, well, believes that the law should apply to them. He had met them, and still did not realise that the law should not apply? How dare he?

The reacted like a spoiled child when the spoiled child is expected to obey the same rules as everyone else, with absolute fury, determined to destroy this person who did not think of them as "special".

After all, what is the choice? To accept his judgement, the one that says that the law should apply to them, that they are just ordinary, and should have looked after their child properly?


Destroying RM is different, he is no threat to them, so choosing to destroy him is not an emotional, panic stricken, angry reaction, it is a cold, calculated, logical decision to destroy another human being. Pure evil.

Of course everything I have said is pure conjecture, just what I imagine lies behind the actions that I have seen/read about.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/159124/Expat-is-to-sue-tapas-bar-friends

Robert Murat came under suspicion when he was identified by Jane Tanner. Russell O'Brien, Fiona Payne & Rachel Oldfield also gave evidence against him. He is a threat to the McCanns because he wouldn't roll over and take the blame.

RM could be the victim of the same kind of narcissistic rage as GA since neither have played along with the McCanns' version of events.

It still leaves the original decision to allegedly and imo frame him. I don't believe that the friends were acting without instruction.

How can a group of people, doctors who are supposed to care about people, just callously decide to ruin a person's life?

To me, there is a world of difference between pretending there is an abduction, pretending to have seen an abductor, and actually deciding to frame someone when you know that he is innocent.

Firstly we need to stay away from any sort of libel and say they friends may have just been mistaken, and not done this in a malicious way. Secondly what actually became of the 'threat to sue' in that express article? It never happened did it? I know the papers paid out to Robert Murat, but not any individuals?

Would we be told if an individual had paid out? Secrecy clauses seem to be used a lot on payments, even employers use them in situations where it is difficult to see what their justification is.

I also wonder whether the fund would have been used, after all, if the Tapas compensation payments went into the fund, it would seem fair that the fund then pays any compensation they have to pay. Of course the fund owners may not see it that way, so who knows?

Super-inaudibles seem to be being used more and more as well, preventing any mention of there even having been a court case.

Of course there are suspicions that some people are using many super-inaudibles to protect their reputation, I mean the happiness of their children, it seems to be a great way of behaving as badly as you like, and as long as you have enough money, no one can ever find out.

I started off following this case with a certain amount of sympathy for a group of people who I believe found themselves in the situation where one of the children died when they were all out getting drunk, but the more I read about what happened afterwards the less I can understand how they could do what they have done.

Following this case has also destroyed any belief I had in the British system of "democracy" and the courts, to me the case proves here is corruption on a scale I would never have believed.

If you want an all encompassing conspiracy theory to ponder, check out the headline that was knocked off the front pages by the murder of Jo Cox.

Sir Clement Freud exposed as a paedophile as police urged to probe Madeleine McCann links

It's certainly not the first time that a dead paedophile has been linked to the McCann case - with a little more substance than others in view of CF having met the McCanns. 

Surely though any mention of the possible link hasn't disappeared since June 2016?

Freedom wrote:It's certainly not the first time that a dead paedophile has been linked to the McCann case - with a little more substance than others in view of CF having met the McCanns. 

Surely though any mention of the possible link hasn't disappeared since June 2016?

Still plenty on the Internet about it. Seems the McCanns are not as powerful as they once were.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/clement-freud/&ved=2ahUKEwjokq-hl5rgAhVPAGMBHUJ2CFQQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2zac_uvzW1CxRnPoiw0jlI

Freedom wrote:It's certainly not the first time that a dead paedophile has been linked to the McCann case - with a little more substance than others in view of CF having met the McCanns. 

Surely though any mention of the possible link hasn't disappeared since June 2016?

I wasn't suggesting that the story had been subsequently whitewashed. Just, well, Freud died in 2009. Out of nowhere, on 15th June 2016, he's a predatory paedophile with potential links to Madeleine McCann. The very next day, 16th June 2016, probably the one thing happens that could kill the story stone dead before the papers got a chance to run with it.

Good point.

I've transferred the last few posts here from the Jo Cox topic.

There had been rumours about Clement Freud before 2016. See the first page here. The June 2016 story just gave them more credibility.

I remember on CMoMM that Tony mentioned the rumours long before 2016 and what implications they might have on the McCann case.

Brendan Cox spent the afternoon of June 15th 2016 messing around on the river Thames with this charming individual.



As an ambassador for Missing People, Geldof couldn't have failed to be aware of the previous day's revelations regarding the charity's (literal) poster child. I wonder if he and Brendan discussed the matter at all?