by Hektor van Bohmen and Marina Guilsford - 25 July 2016
PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
Nuno Lourenco had a major impact on the first few days of the Portuguese Police investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
His statement to the Portuguese Police and accompanying police reports and photos can be seen here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm
(Thank you once again to pamalam for that great encyclopaedia of Madeleine McCann information)
His full name is Nuno Manuel Lourenco de Jesus.
His ’phone call early on Saturday 5 May to the PJ seriously diverted investigation co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral and his team into contacting the German and Polish police, and INTERPOL, detaining an aircraft and its passengers at Berlin airport, and successfully asking the Polish police to visit Wojchiech Krokowski’s apartment in Warsaw, moments after he arrived back home.
Nuno Lourenco’s central claim was that a man - subsequently identified as Krokowski – had tried to abduct his three-year-old daughter outside a cake-shop/cafe in the tiny village of Sagres, at the extreme south-western tip of Europe.
This claim has already been examined in detail on the CMOMM forum, in two ‘Krokowski’ threads. A poll was run on this thread:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child
Only 35 have voted so far, but out of those, 28 (80%) agreed that Nuno Lourenco’s statement was a lie.
TWO MATCHING DESCRIPTIONS OF A SUSPECTED KIDNAPPER
The rapidity with which the PJ investigated Lourenco’s lead was due to two key features in what he told the police:
A His description of a man wearing strange clothes, ‘classic’ shoes, with long dark hair, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’, matched the description of an alleged abductor of Madeleine by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, only hours earlier (on Friday 4 May), (The Tanner sighting was later – and very controversially - ruled out by DCI Andy Redwood when, six years later, he told a BBC Crimewatch McCann Special programme (October 2014) that a man had suddenly come forward claiming that he was the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner. He told Redwood he had been alone, carrying his daughter home - in her pyjamas - in his arms, with no covering on her, after placing her in a night crèche. Amazingly, he still had the very clothes that both he and his child were wearing that night. Very few Madeleine McCann researchers believe what Redwood said)
and
B He had a photograph of a car which he said belonged to the man who (he says) nearly kidnapped his daughter. The police rapidly traced the car as a hired car rented by Krokowksi for the week 28 April to 5 May 2007.
GONCALO AMARAL IS FOOLED
No wonder Amaral’s team was excited, as this extract from Goncalo Amaral’s book (AnnaEsse’s translation) makes clear:
QUOTE:
From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual [Lourenco] has been surprised [by a man – Krokowski] on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.
He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.
Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife.
Wojchiech
Krokowski, from Warsaw - photo which appeared in a Sunday newspaper
just weeks after Richard Hall published his second Madeleine
documentary, The Phantoms
They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and [stayed] in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.
UNQUOTE
A HOST OF IMPROBABILITIES
The improbabilities of Nuno Lourenco’s account of the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter have been set out in great detail in two places:
A On the CMOMM forum, on the Krokowski threads, here:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10602-was-wojcek-krokowski-sagres-man-with-a-camera-the-template-for-both-tannerman-and-smithman
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11402-richard-hall-s-film-the-phantoms-or-the-four-fabrications-explained-in-21-simple-points
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12123-textusas-article-30-oct-2015-on-sagresman-wojchiech-krokowski-a-good-article-excellent-original-research-some-great-conclusions-but-some-wrong-ones
and
B In a blog article by Textusa, one of his best, here:
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sagresman.html
If anyone reading this article post has not read these analyses, we would recommend that you have a careful look through them to satisfy yourself as to whether Nuno Lourenco told the truth or not.
But here anyway is a brief summary of the many ‘red flags’ which, to our minds at least, and to a good many others, effectively prove that his story is a lie, a complete invention, from start to finish:
1 Altogether, three different dates are given for when the kidnapping incident is supposed to have happened
2 The improbability of both Lourenco and his wife and two friends of his, both with their young children, taking no action when (allegedly) Krokowski was taking pictures of their children on a camera just yards in front of them
3 The improbability of Krokowski trying to abduct a young girl outside a bakery-cum-café in broad daylight, in front of several witnesses, while on a week’s holiday in Portugal
4 The improbability that Lourenco took a close-up picture of Krokowski on his mobile ’phone just after the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter, which failed because his finger was over the shutter
5 The improbability that Krokowski had parked his car well outside the village (see photo below)
6 The improbability of his account of following Krokowski to his car and then taking a photograph of his car before he drove off
7 The fact that the photograph he allegedly took on this occasion does not show either Krokowski or his wife
8 The improbability of Lourenco deciding not to report either the photographing of his children by Krokowski, or the alleged attempted abduction of his daughter to police until six days after he says these two incidents occurred (Sunday 29 April 2007).
9 In addition to all those improbabilities, the question of the timing of his call to police on the morning of Saturday 5 May is all-important. It occurred the morning after Jane Tanner had made her statement. It was made after Krokowski’s plane took off from Faro for Berlin. And his description of Krokowski matched that of Jane Tanner in almost every detail, as Goncalo Amaral and his staff were quick to realise (see quote above).
At this stage we invite all those reading our article to decide which of the following groups they fall into:
A Believe that Nuno Lourenco’s account is the truth
B Believe that Nuno Lourneco’s account is a total fabrication, or
C Not sure either way.
The rest of this post is in effect only addressed to those in Group (B), i.e. those who accept that Nuno Lourenco’s statement is a fabrication and want to understand why.
HOW KROKOWSKI WAS ‘FITTED UP’
We proceed by noting that it is agreed all round that Nuno Lourenco was describing Wojchiech Krokowski in his statement.
We believe that many, but by no means all, agree with us that Jane Tanner’s statement also describes Krokowski – and was meant to. (Even if you don’t agree with us on that point, you must at least concede that Goncalo Amaral and his team also thought that Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were describing the same man).
How did Lourenco prove to police that the man they wanted was Krokowski?
Here we come to the crux of our article.
Nuno Lourenco had just two pieces of forensic evidence that pointed to Krokowski:
1 A photo of Krokowski’s hired car, taken at Sagres, and
2 His recollection of Krokowksi’s car registration number he thought featured the letters ‘AV’ and the numbers ‘67’.
Here is part of his statement:
QUOTE
Shaken by this situation, and without the least doubt that the individual’s [‘Krokowski’s] intention was to abduct his daughter, he got out his mobile and began taking various pictures of the individual [Krokowski], from the front, and in such a way that the individual would clearly see that the witness [Lourenco] was taking pictures. This did not work however, as the witness had his finger on the lens of the mobile camera. Even though the individual had left the kiosk area, he noticed that the individual had now situated himself next to the wheel of a grey-coloured, recent model Renault Clio. The witness noted the registration plate on a piece of paper which he eventually discarded, as will be explained later in this statement. This individual was accompanied by a woman, sitting in the passenger seat. The witness managed to take a picture of the vehicle which he handed over to the police, and which is now exhibited. The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007.
NOTE:
The top picture shows a parked car on the road out from Sagres. It was
originally thought that this was the actual rented car hired by
Krokowski and his wife. However, it has been pointed out that the car in
the photo is a Vauxhall Corsa, not a Renault Clio, so it seems that the
PJ was withheld Lourenco's actual photo. Nevertheless, from the very
vague description of the whole alleged near-kidnapping by Lourenco, it
appears to be the case that he alleges that Krokowski's car was parked
some distance from the cake shop/café.
After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone, a few minutes later the couple in question left in the direction of the Sagres Fortaleza. Thinking that the recorded license plate would no longer be of any use, the witness threw (the) paper in the rubbish or on the ground.
UNQUOTE
More improbabilities
In reading this statement, a great many obvious questions arise. We might note to start with that at least three different dates have been given for the date this alleged near-kidnapping took place. Goncalo Amaral in his book gives a different date.
Here are some of the many other questions that arise:
1 How likely is it that, immediately after his daughter had nearly been snatched, he could take several pictures on his mobile ’phone in quick succession of Krokowski while he stood right in front of him, facing him?
2 How likely is it that on all of these occasions, he just happened to have his finger stuck over the lens of his mobile ’phone (indeed, is it technically possible when taking a photo on a mobile ‘phone that you cannot see if your finger is in the way or not?
3 How do we get from Lourenco taking photos straight in front of him to ‘noticing’ that he was now ‘next to’ the wheel of a grey Renault Clio? Did he chase Krokowski? Did he follow him on foot? Or did he just happen to ‘notice’ him out of the corner of his eye? Lourenco tells us nothing.
4 We are then told that he takes a photo of the car. Why does he only take one photo?
5 Lourenco says that he sees a woman next to Krokowski in the car – presumably his wife. Are we supposed to believe that all the time he was ‘nearly’ kidnapping a three-year-old, she was just meekly sitting in the car or hanging around Sagres somewhere, waiting for him to come back with a young girl?
6 If indeed Lourenco had taken a photo of Krokowski in his car, wouldn’t the most likely thing be for Krokowski to drive off in a hurry? But he doesn’t do this. Why not?
7 In fact, Lourenco says that they only drove off after ‘several minutes’. Again, are we to believe that Lourenco just stood there for several minutes, yards away from Krokowski’s car, not doing anything? Not taking more photos? Not walking up to Krokowski and confronting him?
8 Lourenco tells us that the photo was taken at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April. It is noteworthy that he emphasises this time by repeating that there is a date and time stamp: “The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone…” Now where else in this case have we come across heavy emphasis being placed on the accuracy of a date and time stamp?
9 How credible is it that he (allegedly) wrote down the registration number of the car – and then got rid of it?
10 How credible is it that he now cannot remember if he threw it in a rubbish bin or on the ground?
11 And finally, one of the most pertinent questions of them all. This man - Krokowski - had (allegedly) been photographing four children on the beach earlier in the afternoon. Then, later Lourenco (allegedly) nearly had his three-year-old daughter snatched from his side. He admits that he has a mobile ’phone with him. Where is the ’phone call to the police?
While he’s on the beach? – No
Just after the kidnapping has ‘nearly’ happened? – No
While he’s taking a photo of Krokowski’s car and standing there watching him? – No
Later that evening when he gets home? – No
The next morning? – No
Later that day? – No
The day after (1 May)? – No
The day after that (2 May)? – No
The day after that (3 May)? – No
The day after that (4 May)? – No.
He waits until Jane Tanner has given her statement.
He waits until Wojchiech Krokowski’s plane has left the tarmac at Faro Airport for Berlin.
And only then does he pick up the ’phone, pretending that he is doing so because he thinks what happened to him may just be relevant to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
So here’s what may have happened.
HYPOTHESIS A:
1 Nuno Lourenco’s entire statement is a tissue of lies
2 He did not invent his story on his own whether to gain attention or for any other reason
3 The attempt to identify Krokowski as a kidnapper was ludicrous as it is wholly contrary to common sense to think that a bloke on holiday with his wife could possibly have abducted Madeleine McCann
4 The purposes of his identifying Krokowski as the likely suspect included (a) diverting the Portuguese Police from pursuing other lines of enquiry (b) inducing the Portuguese Police to pursue a wild goose chase after Krokowski over Europe to Germany and Berlin, and (c) generally to promote the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted
5 The striking similarities between Jane Tanner’s description of the man she said she saw and Nuno Lourenco’s description of Krokowski (‘not a tourist’, clothes, long dark hair, classic shoes etc.) provide clear evidence of a co-ordinated plan for Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco to get the police to investigate Krokowski
6 There must have been a planning meeting to discuss this audacious plan
7 The striking fact that hairs of the same haplotype as those of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were both found in the very apartment in the Sol e Mar complex where Krokowski was staying raise these three possibilities: (a) that a planning meeting took place in Krokowski’s rented apartment (b) that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were present at this planning meeting, and (c) that Krokowski was also present, thus enabling Tanner to describe him to the police on 4 May
8 Nuno Lourenco did not take the photo of Krokowski’s rented car at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April but did so at another time later in the week
9 The time and date stanp on his mobile ’phone was forged.
10 For Krokowski’s car to have been photographed just outside Sagres, before Lourenco gave it to the police, suggests that Krokowski may have co-operated with this elaborate hoax.
GO TO PART TWO >>>
PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
Nuno Lourenco had a major impact on the first few days of the Portuguese Police investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
His statement to the Portuguese Police and accompanying police reports and photos can be seen here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm
(Thank you once again to pamalam for that great encyclopaedia of Madeleine McCann information)
His full name is Nuno Manuel Lourenco de Jesus.
His ’phone call early on Saturday 5 May to the PJ seriously diverted investigation co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral and his team into contacting the German and Polish police, and INTERPOL, detaining an aircraft and its passengers at Berlin airport, and successfully asking the Polish police to visit Wojchiech Krokowski’s apartment in Warsaw, moments after he arrived back home.
Nuno Lourenco’s central claim was that a man - subsequently identified as Krokowski – had tried to abduct his three-year-old daughter outside a cake-shop/cafe in the tiny village of Sagres, at the extreme south-western tip of Europe.
Nuno Lourenco and children - photo on Facebook, 2012
This claim has already been examined in detail on the CMOMM forum, in two ‘Krokowski’ threads. A poll was run on this thread:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child
Only 35 have voted so far, but out of those, 28 (80%) agreed that Nuno Lourenco’s statement was a lie.
TWO MATCHING DESCRIPTIONS OF A SUSPECTED KIDNAPPER
The rapidity with which the PJ investigated Lourenco’s lead was due to two key features in what he told the police:
A His description of a man wearing strange clothes, ‘classic’ shoes, with long dark hair, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’, matched the description of an alleged abductor of Madeleine by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, only hours earlier (on Friday 4 May), (The Tanner sighting was later – and very controversially - ruled out by DCI Andy Redwood when, six years later, he told a BBC Crimewatch McCann Special programme (October 2014) that a man had suddenly come forward claiming that he was the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner. He told Redwood he had been alone, carrying his daughter home - in her pyjamas - in his arms, with no covering on her, after placing her in a night crèche. Amazingly, he still had the very clothes that both he and his child were wearing that night. Very few Madeleine McCann researchers believe what Redwood said)
and
B He had a photograph of a car which he said belonged to the man who (he says) nearly kidnapped his daughter. The police rapidly traced the car as a hired car rented by Krokowksi for the week 28 April to 5 May 2007.
GONCALO AMARAL IS FOOLED
No wonder Amaral’s team was excited, as this extract from Goncalo Amaral’s book (AnnaEsse’s translation) makes clear:
QUOTE:
From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual [Lourenco] has been surprised [by a man – Krokowski] on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.
He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.
Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife.
Wojchiech
Krokowski, from Warsaw - photo which appeared in a Sunday newspaper
just weeks after Richard Hall published his second Madeleine
documentary, The Phantoms They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and [stayed] in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.
UNQUOTE
A HOST OF IMPROBABILITIES
The improbabilities of Nuno Lourenco’s account of the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter have been set out in great detail in two places:
A On the CMOMM forum, on the Krokowski threads, here:
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10602-was-wojcek-krokowski-sagres-man-with-a-camera-the-template-for-both-tannerman-and-smithman
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11402-richard-hall-s-film-the-phantoms-or-the-four-fabrications-explained-in-21-simple-points
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12123-textusas-article-30-oct-2015-on-sagresman-wojchiech-krokowski-a-good-article-excellent-original-research-some-great-conclusions-but-some-wrong-ones
and
B In a blog article by Textusa, one of his best, here:
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sagresman.html
If anyone reading this article post has not read these analyses, we would recommend that you have a careful look through them to satisfy yourself as to whether Nuno Lourenco told the truth or not.
But here anyway is a brief summary of the many ‘red flags’ which, to our minds at least, and to a good many others, effectively prove that his story is a lie, a complete invention, from start to finish:
1 Altogether, three different dates are given for when the kidnapping incident is supposed to have happened
2 The improbability of both Lourenco and his wife and two friends of his, both with their young children, taking no action when (allegedly) Krokowski was taking pictures of their children on a camera just yards in front of them
3 The improbability of Krokowski trying to abduct a young girl outside a bakery-cum-café in broad daylight, in front of several witnesses, while on a week’s holiday in Portugal
4 The improbability that Lourenco took a close-up picture of Krokowski on his mobile ’phone just after the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter, which failed because his finger was over the shutter
5 The improbability that Krokowski had parked his car well outside the village (see photo below)
6 The improbability of his account of following Krokowski to his car and then taking a photograph of his car before he drove off
7 The fact that the photograph he allegedly took on this occasion does not show either Krokowski or his wife
8 The improbability of Lourenco deciding not to report either the photographing of his children by Krokowski, or the alleged attempted abduction of his daughter to police until six days after he says these two incidents occurred (Sunday 29 April 2007).
9 In addition to all those improbabilities, the question of the timing of his call to police on the morning of Saturday 5 May is all-important. It occurred the morning after Jane Tanner had made her statement. It was made after Krokowski’s plane took off from Faro for Berlin. And his description of Krokowski matched that of Jane Tanner in almost every detail, as Goncalo Amaral and his staff were quick to realise (see quote above).
At this stage we invite all those reading our article to decide which of the following groups they fall into:
A Believe that Nuno Lourenco’s account is the truth
B Believe that Nuno Lourneco’s account is a total fabrication, or
C Not sure either way.
The rest of this post is in effect only addressed to those in Group (B), i.e. those who accept that Nuno Lourenco’s statement is a fabrication and want to understand why.
HOW KROKOWSKI WAS ‘FITTED UP’
We proceed by noting that it is agreed all round that Nuno Lourenco was describing Wojchiech Krokowski in his statement.
We believe that many, but by no means all, agree with us that Jane Tanner’s statement also describes Krokowski – and was meant to. (Even if you don’t agree with us on that point, you must at least concede that Goncalo Amaral and his team also thought that Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were describing the same man).
How did Lourenco prove to police that the man they wanted was Krokowski?
Here we come to the crux of our article.
Nuno Lourenco had just two pieces of forensic evidence that pointed to Krokowski:
1 A photo of Krokowski’s hired car, taken at Sagres, and
2 His recollection of Krokowksi’s car registration number he thought featured the letters ‘AV’ and the numbers ‘67’.
Here is part of his statement:
QUOTE
Shaken by this situation, and without the least doubt that the individual’s [‘Krokowski’s] intention was to abduct his daughter, he got out his mobile and began taking various pictures of the individual [Krokowski], from the front, and in such a way that the individual would clearly see that the witness [Lourenco] was taking pictures. This did not work however, as the witness had his finger on the lens of the mobile camera. Even though the individual had left the kiosk area, he noticed that the individual had now situated himself next to the wheel of a grey-coloured, recent model Renault Clio. The witness noted the registration plate on a piece of paper which he eventually discarded, as will be explained later in this statement. This individual was accompanied by a woman, sitting in the passenger seat. The witness managed to take a picture of the vehicle which he handed over to the police, and which is now exhibited. The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007.
NOTE:
The top picture shows a parked car on the road out from Sagres. It was
originally thought that this was the actual rented car hired by
Krokowski and his wife. However, it has been pointed out that the car in
the photo is a Vauxhall Corsa, not a Renault Clio, so it seems that the
PJ was withheld Lourenco's actual photo. Nevertheless, from the very
vague description of the whole alleged near-kidnapping by Lourenco, it
appears to be the case that he alleges that Krokowski's car was parked
some distance from the cake shop/café. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone, a few minutes later the couple in question left in the direction of the Sagres Fortaleza. Thinking that the recorded license plate would no longer be of any use, the witness threw (the) paper in the rubbish or on the ground.
UNQUOTE
More improbabilities
In reading this statement, a great many obvious questions arise. We might note to start with that at least three different dates have been given for the date this alleged near-kidnapping took place. Goncalo Amaral in his book gives a different date.
Here are some of the many other questions that arise:
1 How likely is it that, immediately after his daughter had nearly been snatched, he could take several pictures on his mobile ’phone in quick succession of Krokowski while he stood right in front of him, facing him?
2 How likely is it that on all of these occasions, he just happened to have his finger stuck over the lens of his mobile ’phone (indeed, is it technically possible when taking a photo on a mobile ‘phone that you cannot see if your finger is in the way or not?
3 How do we get from Lourenco taking photos straight in front of him to ‘noticing’ that he was now ‘next to’ the wheel of a grey Renault Clio? Did he chase Krokowski? Did he follow him on foot? Or did he just happen to ‘notice’ him out of the corner of his eye? Lourenco tells us nothing.
4 We are then told that he takes a photo of the car. Why does he only take one photo?
5 Lourenco says that he sees a woman next to Krokowski in the car – presumably his wife. Are we supposed to believe that all the time he was ‘nearly’ kidnapping a three-year-old, she was just meekly sitting in the car or hanging around Sagres somewhere, waiting for him to come back with a young girl?
6 If indeed Lourenco had taken a photo of Krokowski in his car, wouldn’t the most likely thing be for Krokowski to drive off in a hurry? But he doesn’t do this. Why not?
7 In fact, Lourenco says that they only drove off after ‘several minutes’. Again, are we to believe that Lourenco just stood there for several minutes, yards away from Krokowski’s car, not doing anything? Not taking more photos? Not walking up to Krokowski and confronting him?
8 Lourenco tells us that the photo was taken at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April. It is noteworthy that he emphasises this time by repeating that there is a date and time stamp: “The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone…” Now where else in this case have we come across heavy emphasis being placed on the accuracy of a date and time stamp?
9 How credible is it that he (allegedly) wrote down the registration number of the car – and then got rid of it?
10 How credible is it that he now cannot remember if he threw it in a rubbish bin or on the ground?
11 And finally, one of the most pertinent questions of them all. This man - Krokowski - had (allegedly) been photographing four children on the beach earlier in the afternoon. Then, later Lourenco (allegedly) nearly had his three-year-old daughter snatched from his side. He admits that he has a mobile ’phone with him. Where is the ’phone call to the police?
While he’s on the beach? – No
Just after the kidnapping has ‘nearly’ happened? – No
While he’s taking a photo of Krokowski’s car and standing there watching him? – No
Later that evening when he gets home? – No
The next morning? – No
Later that day? – No
The day after (1 May)? – No
The day after that (2 May)? – No
The day after that (3 May)? – No
The day after that (4 May)? – No.
He waits until Jane Tanner has given her statement.
He waits until Wojchiech Krokowski’s plane has left the tarmac at Faro Airport for Berlin.
And only then does he pick up the ’phone, pretending that he is doing so because he thinks what happened to him may just be relevant to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
So here’s what may have happened.
HYPOTHESIS A:
1 Nuno Lourenco’s entire statement is a tissue of lies
2 He did not invent his story on his own whether to gain attention or for any other reason
3 The attempt to identify Krokowski as a kidnapper was ludicrous as it is wholly contrary to common sense to think that a bloke on holiday with his wife could possibly have abducted Madeleine McCann
4 The purposes of his identifying Krokowski as the likely suspect included (a) diverting the Portuguese Police from pursuing other lines of enquiry (b) inducing the Portuguese Police to pursue a wild goose chase after Krokowski over Europe to Germany and Berlin, and (c) generally to promote the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted
5 The striking similarities between Jane Tanner’s description of the man she said she saw and Nuno Lourenco’s description of Krokowski (‘not a tourist’, clothes, long dark hair, classic shoes etc.) provide clear evidence of a co-ordinated plan for Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco to get the police to investigate Krokowski
6 There must have been a planning meeting to discuss this audacious plan
7 The striking fact that hairs of the same haplotype as those of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were both found in the very apartment in the Sol e Mar complex where Krokowski was staying raise these three possibilities: (a) that a planning meeting took place in Krokowski’s rented apartment (b) that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were present at this planning meeting, and (c) that Krokowski was also present, thus enabling Tanner to describe him to the police on 4 May
8 Nuno Lourenco did not take the photo of Krokowski’s rented car at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April but did so at another time later in the week
9 The time and date stanp on his mobile ’phone was forged.
10 For Krokowski’s car to have been photographed just outside Sagres, before Lourenco gave it to the police, suggests that Krokowski may have co-operated with this elaborate hoax.
GO TO PART TWO >>>
