During
the summer of 2015, Tony Bennett wrote a series of articles exposing
how Nuno Lourenco must have comprehensively fabricated an alleged
kidnapping of his daughter by a Polish holidaymaker, Wojchiech
Krokowski, at Sagres, the windy southwestern tip of Portugal - and
indeed of the entire continent of Europe.
He showed how and why the fake kidnapping was constructed - and highlighted the massive effect it had on the very initial stages of the Portuguese Police's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nuno Lourenco's account of this fake kidnapping - aided by a photo he had taken of Wojchiech Krokowski's hired car - diverted the PJ on the second full day of their investigations into organising a man-hunt for Krokowski by INTERPOL and the German and Polish police. Valuable police resources were used up with this wild goose chase over Europe.
After Tony's articles, Textusa added some of his own original research in an article which backed Tony's conclusions. Here is Tony's response to Textusa's article of 30 October 2015.
MMRG revised and updated Tony's article on 17 May 2019. We believe that the recognition that this alleged kidnapping never happened is a major clue as to what really happened to Madeleine McCann - MMRG.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Textusa’s article, 30 Oct 2015, on ‘Sagresman’/Wojchiech Krokowski: A good article, excellent, original research, some great conclusions, but some wrong ones
The lies by Nuno Lourenco claiming his daughter was nearly kidnapped (twice in one day) by Wojchiech Krokowski are a very important part of events leading up to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Textusa’s recent article on this gives us further valuable commentary on this subject, so I’m adding a few notes on her article here.
A. Introduction
It was back on 4 November last year - over a year ago now - that, after much research on the alleged ‘sightings’ of abductors by Nuno Lourenco, Jane Tanner and the Irish Smith family, I first published a detailed article on CMOMM explaining my thesis that Nuno Lourenco’s claims that Wojchiech Krokowski tried to kidnap his three-year-old daughter was a tissue of lies from start to finish. I said it was manifestly fabricated. I went on to suggest that the description of Wojchiech Krokowksi was used as a ‘template’ description for the descriptions by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by the Smith family of ‘Smithman’. I stand by all those conclusions.
The article gained a modest amount of interest. It has had 9,700 views and 61 replies to date. At the same time, I ran a poll, to test opinion on the forum. So far, 32 have voted; 24 (75%) thought that Nuno Lourenco was lying; just 8 (24%) thought Lourenco was telling the truth.
Five months later, in April this year, Richard D. Hall brought the claim that Nuno Lourenco's statement was a deliberate fabrication to a wider audience with his documentary film, ‘The Phantoms’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU ...
…in which he identified not only ‘Sagresman’, ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’ as phantom abductors, but also Operation Grange’s ‘Crecheman’, first revealed on BBC Crimewatch’s McCann Special on 14 October 2013. His film has now been seen by over 100,000 and has received similar critical acclaim to his first film: ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’.
On 25 October, just weeks after Richard Hall had exposed Nuno Lourenco's lies on his 'Phantoms' film, the Sunday People published a major article featuring Wojchiech Krokowski, titled: “Madeleine McCann detectives examine man’s pictures after Sunday People probe”. This finally brought the topic of Wojchiech Krokowski to a much wider audience, and the thread featuring this news story already has over 10,000 views on CMOMM.
On the same date, following publication of the People article, I ran a second poll on whether Lourenco was telling the truth. This time 35 have voted, with 28 (85% of those with an opinion one way or the other) saying he was a liar, and only five insisting he was telling the truth. Two were undecided.
And five days later, on 30 October, Textusa (who goes by the name 'Maria Santos' which I shall use in this article) finally addressed the issue of Krokowski, in a major article titled simply: ‘Sagresman’ which, despite its length, I suggest is well worth a read.
B. Points of agreement between Maria Santos and myself and Richard Hall
Maria’s article agrees with myself and Richard Hall on these fundamental points:
1 That Wojchiech Krokowski and Nuno Lourenco are very significant figures in this entire story of the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann
2 That Nuno Lourenco’s story is a tissue of lies from start to finish, and
3 That Nuno Lourenco was working to a script.
I will at the end of this article address to points of difference with 'Maria'.
C. The absurdity of Nuno Lourenco’s fabricated story
One thing I tried to emphasise in my original article was how ludicrous Lourenco’s tale was. Maria’s analysis: http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sagresman.html
…is fuller than mine was, with many new points added, in her typically minute and detailed analysis of every sentence in Lourenco’s statement. For anyone who still thinks that Lourenco was telling the truth about the two attempted kidnappings in one afternoon, I thoroughly recommend that you read 'Maria’s article - Sections 2 to 15.
Here are three paragraphs from Textusa's article which summarise what s/he says:
"We won’t go much into what Nuno Lourenço alleges to have happened on the beach between him and Wojciech Krokowski. We will just say that it is as ridiculous as what he later has to say about what is supposed to have happened in the Praça da República.
“To say he hears three or four clicks coming from a camera held by a strange middle aged man fully clothed on the beach pointing it to his children and do nothing is absurd.
“To say he continues to hear the clicking continuing as the man took “more pictures of 2 children of male gender” sons of a couple next to him and to say he limits his reaction to only looking at said stranger with camera in a “spiteful and aggressive” manner is absurd”.
D. 'Maria Santos’s visit to Sagres
Another very good reason for reading 'Maria’s article is that s/he has actually made a detailed visit to Sagres, to the scenes of the two alleged kidnappings, that is, Mareta Beach and the pastry shop in the village. She has taken many photographs. She has added a series of aerial photographs and diagrams, all of which bring these places to life and help us to visualise the utter impossibility of Lourenco’s story being true. It’s a truly excellent and original bit of research and I congratulate her/him on it.
E. Was Nuno Lourenco working to a script?
'Maria' seems to be in full agreement with myself and Richard Hall on this. For example, she says:
“Note, the potential abductor even makes his life much more difficult by parking in between 2 cars, which means that he has to manoeuvre to get out of there. Go figure. Either quite a stupid abductor, or a very poor script writer. We opt for the latter”.
And then this:
“The man has to start the engine and has to manoeuvre to get out of the parking space, the drive away in a very narrow “S”, the escape route we have shown above and which is the only way out of Praça da República. This would allow for many to see and register the licence plate of the car. A car that the man had rented in his real name so quickly traceable to him, as fact it would prove to be. All of the above done in front of the girl’s father and mother, all in the space (except the “S” bit) of a tennis court.
“Very, very poor scriptwriting we must say.
“We hope that the reader can now picture how we ( = 'Maria') laughed out loud when envisioning the above while sitting in the Marreiros esplanade and discussing this”.
So, we are all in agreement that Nuno Lourenco was working to a script. What Maria doesn’t offer, however, and which is vital to understanding matters relating to Lourenco and Krokowski, is any discussion of who might have written this script and when they did so. 'Maria' is committed, and always has been, to the view that something serious happened to Madeleine after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. She must therefore assume that any script that Nuno Lourenco was given must have been devised only after something happened to Madeleine.
My own opinion is that a script, involving a description of Krokowski, must have been given to both Nuno Lourenco and to Jane Tanner well before the evening of 3 May, and clearly must have involved others who devised these two very significant fabrications.
F. When was Nuno Lourenco’s car photographed in the square at Sagres?
A major question in all of this is how did Lourenco’s car come to be photographed in the square at Sagres? - and when was this photograph taken?
'Maria writes':
“But, one may ask, and one should, if all was as we say it was then how could the rented car have been photographed on the 29th in the Praça da República?
“In our opinion it wasn’t.
“In our opinion it was photographed on the 4th, explaining Nuno Lourenço’s insistence to show when the photograph was taken: “this time he was able to take a photo of the vehicle, which he supplied to the police and that he exhibits now, insisting [fazendo questão] in showing the time, 18H08 of 29/04/2007 as registered on the phone”.
“The first and evident fact is that Nuno Lourenço photographs a vehicle that has been rented by Wojciech Krokowski. And he describes Wojciech Krokowski to perfection. Which means he simply didn’t choose a vehicle randomly. It was that one he wanted to photograph.
“Second fact is that the photographed car is on Praça da República, meaning that Wojciech Krokowski had been indeed in Sagres and had been in that particular town square”.
'Maria' continues: “All that is left to be found is a volunteer to send PJ up this creek.
“Nuno Lourenço is chosen. He supposedly is not in Praia da Luz and he has a daughter the same age as Maddie. Wojciech Krokowski parks the car in Praça da República on the 4th and Nuno Lourenço photographs it. The cellphone data is manipulated so [that the] photo is registered as taken on the 29th.”
Now then, 'Maria' uses the phrase: ‘Nuno Lourenco was chosen’. I agree with that choice of phrase. But it still begs the question of who chose him, was it more than one person who chose him, and when did they do so?
'Maria' says that the photo was not taken on Sunday 29 April as claimed by Lourenco. She says that the date and time stamp was altered so as to give the date of 29 April to fit in with the bogus story of the alleged kidnapping at Sagres that day. I agree with all those conclusions, and would add that this reminds us, of course, to the discussion about the ‘Last Photo’ which now suggests that it could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not Thursday 3 May as claimed. It appears to have been a genuine photo taken on a sunny Sunday and NOT on cloudy, cool, windy Thursday 3 May as the McCanns claim.
I part company with 'Maria' however where she says that the photo was 'definitely' taken on Friday 4 May and that Krokowski must have driven it there. That fits in with Textusa's well-known belief (in which s/he agrees with Goncalo Amaral and the PJ) that Madeleine died sometime after 5.30pm on Thursday,
Assuming that Lourenco was handed a script by a group of plotters (as Maria seems to agree), then (with Lrokowski's consent) anyone could have driven Krokowski’s car to Sagres, not necessarily Krokowski himself. And the photograph could easily have been taken on another day before 4 May. All we can say with certainty is that a photograph of that car must have been in Lourenco’s camera before he ’phoned the police early on 5 May.
And that before that, that someone had altered the date and time stamp to read ’29 April’, a matter which he (Lourenco) unnecessarily draws the police’s attention to.
And that Lourenco was primed to say that Krokowski had attempted to kidnap his daughter twice on that Sunday.
In fact it is certainly possible that Krokowksi himself never went to Sagres at all that week.
G. Was there a pre-arranged plan?
'Maria adds' weight to the pre-planning involved in Lourenco’s fabrication in these words:
“Maddie disappears on the night of the 3rd, Wojciech Krokowski has to leave Portugal early on the 5th and as he’s staying in Burgau and flying out in Faro, so the only day to link him to Nuno Lourenço is the 4th. Reason why Wojciech Krokowski is in Sagres that day.
“But to put PJ really on Wojciech Krokowski’s heels Nuno Lourenço must call the authorities only on the 5th. He has to allow Wojciech Krokowski time to fly out of the country before warning PJ.
“If he called PJ on the 4th, the police would quickly track the man down, talk to him and find out he had nothing to reveal and abandon there and then any and all investigation concerning the man. The false lead would not even survive a day.
“We have written before that immediately after Maddie’s disappearance there followed a critical period when it was absolutely required to keep PJ distracted with false leads under the penalty they could focus their investigation on where they shouldn’t, which would be on Praia da Luz and on the people holidaying there in the off-season.
“Once Wojciech Krokowski flew out of the country he would become a false lead that would continue to be followed.
“Long-distance investigations always involve a degree of bureaucracy and time wasted doing it and he would have left the country just before he was to be considered a person of interest to the case.
“There had to be a reason to call authorities and that could only be arranged on the 4th and authorities could only be called on the 5th after he left, as they were”.
I agree with the burden of this analysis, namely that it was necessary to create this additional ‘sighting’ of Krokowski by Lourenco. But when was all this planned?
However, I do not agree with 'Maria’s assumption that ‘Maddie disappears on the night of the 3rd’, nor do I accept that it is proven that Krokowski was actually in Sagres in 4 May. All we know is that his hired car was photographed in Sagres, near the car hire agency. But how it got there, and when, we don’t actually know.
Moreover, 'Maria' does not mention how Lourenco’s description of Krokowski is an almost perfect match with Jane Tanner’s of Tannerman, given to the PJ the day before, nor does s/he deal with how influential it was on the PJ’s thinking to get two near-identical descriptions of an abductor within less than 24 hours.
But what 'Maria’s article has done for me is to help firm up my mind on the vexed question of whether Krokowski was a willing or unwilling ‘patsy’, a question on which I was undecided. The new material and analysis that 'Maria' has offered tends to tip the balance IMO very much towards suggesting that, for whatever reason, Krokowski may have been aware of this fabricated story and co-operated with it.
H. The role of Robert Murat’s uncle, Ralph Eveleigh
Here, 'Maria’s Portuguese helps us to some extent with some translation issues. She writes:
“But there is one person pivotal and shows that there is a network behind this story: the bar owner.
“He is the one who provides the independent validation to Nuno Lourenço’s otherwise absurd tale. He is the one that makes the pieces of the story to come together so making it very clear it was all a collective effort.
“The bar owner, we repeat not employee, who nudged PJ into finding the FNAC Chiado CCTV image we believe was Ralph Eveleigh, Robert Murat’s uncle.
“If not him then it would be someone close to him as the Eveleighs owned that bar at one time. It’s possible the person who spoke to police may have been renting from Ralph Eveleigh and be referred to as proprietário (owner) because although a rentor he would effectively be the owner of the business using the rented space.
“We suggest that Nuno Lourenço and Wojciech Krokowski are part of - or connected to - that circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason, one they did all for it not to be known”.
'Maria' here refers to a ‘network’. S/he places at the centre of this network Ralph Eveleigh, Murat’s uncle. I agree with 'Maria' that there may have been some kind of ‘network’ operating. I agree that Ralph Eveleigh is probably near the centre of any such this network, but I would place his nephew Robert Murat at the centre as well.
'Maria' refers to ‘a circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason’. Sticking to those strict words, I am able to agree that what 'Maria' has written may be true. However, as I understand it, 'Maria' includes within that circle dozens, maybe a hundred or more, guests that week who had all come for the purpose of enjoying an ‘adult’. V.I.P. swinging holiday. I do not see the evidence to support that. But I am able to conceive of a rather smaller network, or ‘circle’, of people with a common interest. whose interests were threatened, or at least affected, by whatever happened to Madeleine.
I would like to have seen more reference in 'Maria’s article to Robert Murat himself, for example these issues:
* Hairs of his haplotype and Jane Tanner’s haplotype - the same haplotype - being found at the Sol e Mar apartments where Krokowski was staying
* The building and current maintenance of the Sol e Mar apartments being connected with Murat and his father, and
* Murat's rapid departure from England early on Tuesday 1 May.
I. Points of disagreement between 'Maria Santos', myself and Richard Hall
To summarise the important areas of disagreement between 'Maria', and myself and Richard Hall, these are:
* I think something serious may have happened to Madeleine before 3 May.
* I suggest there was a plot involving the Lourenco fabrication, the 'Tannerman' (Jane Tanner) fabrication and the probably false claim that the 'Last Photo' was taken on Thursday 3 May,
* I think it is possible (a) that Wojchiech Krokowski was never at Sagres that week or (b) that (for whatever reason) Krokowki co-operated with the plotters, and
*I think it possible that there was a planning meeting in Krokowski's flat at Sol e Mar. For example, a plot co-ordinator could have met there with Krokowski, Robert Murat, Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner.
Suppose the plot was hatched before Madeleine was reported missing? Suppose Robert Murat acted as co-ordinator? He would need Nuno Lourenco there, and Jane Tanner - and what better than to have Krokowski there in person so they could both get their descriptions right? Of course, as an alternative, Murat (or any other co-ordinator) could merely have shown them photographs of him.
I am just throwing out some realistic possibilities to explain the remarkable coincidence of Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco both coming up with near-identical descriptions of a (fake) abductor. I see strong evidence of advance planning.
J. Grounds for optimism, or not?
'Maria' ends her piece with these words: “We see no reason to be other than optimistic”.
The reason for her optimism is set out in these paragraphs, in which she again suggests that a network, or ‘circle’ of swingers is perpetuating the undoubted cover-up that exists in this case:
“The wider circle, the one that really matters, the one that is sustaining - not deciding - the whole edifice of this hoax has finally been told that it is time for them step on the stage and face the lights. And that it’s time for them to face the public’s reaction.
“The Met has been told to send the clear message that the time to play cops is over. No more binder paper carrying in the cobbled streets of the Algarve for the cameras. They “are now following a small number of focused lines of inquiry” and we get to know that the “enquiry has not reached a conclusion, there are still focused lines of investigation to be pursued.”
“And the lines are not only focused but that they “still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case.”
“Or in other words, it’s time for the Met to close shop and to start coming to conclusions.
And it’s not forgotten to remind all that “Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues” and that “the Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police”.
I am unable to agree, as 'Maria' suggests, that the Met Police have been ‘told’, in a ‘clear message’, using the Wojcheich Krokowski story in the Sunday People, that ‘the time to play cops is over’ and that it is time for the ‘swinging conspiracy’ to be exposed.
I am unable to agree, based on all that I’ve read in the past 4½ years, that the Met Police and PJ are 'closely collaborating' in a genuine pursuit of the truth and of those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.
I think it is far more probable that the Sunday People story is a prelude to an announcement that in some way Krokowski’s photographs of his week in Praia da Luz confirm, rather than disprove, the claim that Madeleine was abducted.
I still think it is far more likely that this continues to be an expensive charade, designed to influence public perception that an abduction really occurred.
For that reason I cannot share Maria’s optimism. [We believe Tony was justified. Four years later, nothing new has happened with the two investigations - MMRG].
K. Final word
Section 3 of 'Maria’s article has a section pointing up two errors in Richard Hall’s ‘Phantoms’. First, she points out that Lourenco is Portuguese, not Spanish as apparently stated in his film. Second, she notes that Richard used the wrong photograph of a grey car when referring to Lourenco’s hired car. The matter at issue was how Lourenco could have photographed Krokowski and his wife in an empty grey car (both the ‘wrong’ car and the ‘right’ one show an unoccupied car). Since 'Maria' fully agrees with Richard’s interpretation that Krokowski’s story is an obvious fabrication designed to put the PJ off the scent, it is somewhat churlish of her/him to spend a whole long section highlighting these two errors, while failing to acknowledge the successful impact Richard has made by putting out his film earlier in the year and bringing what we might now call ‘The Krokowski Deception’ out into the open for the 100,000-plus who have already been enlightened on the Krokowski deception on the internet.
But my final word is to advise members here to read 'Maria’s article, and with the helpful analysis and original material s/he has supplied, (a) to fix in your minds that the Sagres kidnapping story is one almighty hoax, and (b) to start thinking exactly who might have been involved in perpetrating that hoax.
----------------
Related link: CMOMM on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1682539088657244/
------------
For discussion, please visit this thread: https://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
He showed how and why the fake kidnapping was constructed - and highlighted the massive effect it had on the very initial stages of the Portuguese Police's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nuno Lourenco's account of this fake kidnapping - aided by a photo he had taken of Wojchiech Krokowski's hired car - diverted the PJ on the second full day of their investigations into organising a man-hunt for Krokowski by INTERPOL and the German and Polish police. Valuable police resources were used up with this wild goose chase over Europe.
After Tony's articles, Textusa added some of his own original research in an article which backed Tony's conclusions. Here is Tony's response to Textusa's article of 30 October 2015.
MMRG revised and updated Tony's article on 17 May 2019. We believe that the recognition that this alleged kidnapping never happened is a major clue as to what really happened to Madeleine McCann - MMRG.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Textusa’s article, 30 Oct 2015, on ‘Sagresman’/Wojchiech Krokowski: A good article, excellent, original research, some great conclusions, but some wrong ones
The lies by Nuno Lourenco claiming his daughter was nearly kidnapped (twice in one day) by Wojchiech Krokowski are a very important part of events leading up to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Textusa’s recent article on this gives us further valuable commentary on this subject, so I’m adding a few notes on her article here.
A. Introduction
It was back on 4 November last year - over a year ago now - that, after much research on the alleged ‘sightings’ of abductors by Nuno Lourenco, Jane Tanner and the Irish Smith family, I first published a detailed article on CMOMM explaining my thesis that Nuno Lourenco’s claims that Wojchiech Krokowski tried to kidnap his three-year-old daughter was a tissue of lies from start to finish. I said it was manifestly fabricated. I went on to suggest that the description of Wojchiech Krokowksi was used as a ‘template’ description for the descriptions by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by the Smith family of ‘Smithman’. I stand by all those conclusions.
The article gained a modest amount of interest. It has had 9,700 views and 61 replies to date. At the same time, I ran a poll, to test opinion on the forum. So far, 32 have voted; 24 (75%) thought that Nuno Lourenco was lying; just 8 (24%) thought Lourenco was telling the truth.
Five months later, in April this year, Richard D. Hall brought the claim that Nuno Lourenco's statement was a deliberate fabrication to a wider audience with his documentary film, ‘The Phantoms’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU ...
…in which he identified not only ‘Sagresman’, ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’ as phantom abductors, but also Operation Grange’s ‘Crecheman’, first revealed on BBC Crimewatch’s McCann Special on 14 October 2013. His film has now been seen by over 100,000 and has received similar critical acclaim to his first film: ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’.
On 25 October, just weeks after Richard Hall had exposed Nuno Lourenco's lies on his 'Phantoms' film, the Sunday People published a major article featuring Wojchiech Krokowski, titled: “Madeleine McCann detectives examine man’s pictures after Sunday People probe”. This finally brought the topic of Wojchiech Krokowski to a much wider audience, and the thread featuring this news story already has over 10,000 views on CMOMM.
On the same date, following publication of the People article, I ran a second poll on whether Lourenco was telling the truth. This time 35 have voted, with 28 (85% of those with an opinion one way or the other) saying he was a liar, and only five insisting he was telling the truth. Two were undecided.
And five days later, on 30 October, Textusa (who goes by the name 'Maria Santos' which I shall use in this article) finally addressed the issue of Krokowski, in a major article titled simply: ‘Sagresman’ which, despite its length, I suggest is well worth a read.
B. Points of agreement between Maria Santos and myself and Richard Hall
Maria’s article agrees with myself and Richard Hall on these fundamental points:
1 That Wojchiech Krokowski and Nuno Lourenco are very significant figures in this entire story of the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann
2 That Nuno Lourenco’s story is a tissue of lies from start to finish, and
3 That Nuno Lourenco was working to a script.
I will at the end of this article address to points of difference with 'Maria'.
C. The absurdity of Nuno Lourenco’s fabricated story
One thing I tried to emphasise in my original article was how ludicrous Lourenco’s tale was. Maria’s analysis: http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sagresman.html
…is fuller than mine was, with many new points added, in her typically minute and detailed analysis of every sentence in Lourenco’s statement. For anyone who still thinks that Lourenco was telling the truth about the two attempted kidnappings in one afternoon, I thoroughly recommend that you read 'Maria’s article - Sections 2 to 15.
Here are three paragraphs from Textusa's article which summarise what s/he says:
"We won’t go much into what Nuno Lourenço alleges to have happened on the beach between him and Wojciech Krokowski. We will just say that it is as ridiculous as what he later has to say about what is supposed to have happened in the Praça da República.
“To say he hears three or four clicks coming from a camera held by a strange middle aged man fully clothed on the beach pointing it to his children and do nothing is absurd.
“To say he continues to hear the clicking continuing as the man took “more pictures of 2 children of male gender” sons of a couple next to him and to say he limits his reaction to only looking at said stranger with camera in a “spiteful and aggressive” manner is absurd”.
D. 'Maria Santos’s visit to Sagres
Another very good reason for reading 'Maria’s article is that s/he has actually made a detailed visit to Sagres, to the scenes of the two alleged kidnappings, that is, Mareta Beach and the pastry shop in the village. She has taken many photographs. She has added a series of aerial photographs and diagrams, all of which bring these places to life and help us to visualise the utter impossibility of Lourenco’s story being true. It’s a truly excellent and original bit of research and I congratulate her/him on it.
E. Was Nuno Lourenco working to a script?
'Maria' seems to be in full agreement with myself and Richard Hall on this. For example, she says:
“Note, the potential abductor even makes his life much more difficult by parking in between 2 cars, which means that he has to manoeuvre to get out of there. Go figure. Either quite a stupid abductor, or a very poor script writer. We opt for the latter”.
And then this:
“The man has to start the engine and has to manoeuvre to get out of the parking space, the drive away in a very narrow “S”, the escape route we have shown above and which is the only way out of Praça da República. This would allow for many to see and register the licence plate of the car. A car that the man had rented in his real name so quickly traceable to him, as fact it would prove to be. All of the above done in front of the girl’s father and mother, all in the space (except the “S” bit) of a tennis court.
“Very, very poor scriptwriting we must say.
“We hope that the reader can now picture how we ( = 'Maria') laughed out loud when envisioning the above while sitting in the Marreiros esplanade and discussing this”.
So, we are all in agreement that Nuno Lourenco was working to a script. What Maria doesn’t offer, however, and which is vital to understanding matters relating to Lourenco and Krokowski, is any discussion of who might have written this script and when they did so. 'Maria' is committed, and always has been, to the view that something serious happened to Madeleine after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. She must therefore assume that any script that Nuno Lourenco was given must have been devised only after something happened to Madeleine.
My own opinion is that a script, involving a description of Krokowski, must have been given to both Nuno Lourenco and to Jane Tanner well before the evening of 3 May, and clearly must have involved others who devised these two very significant fabrications.
F. When was Nuno Lourenco’s car photographed in the square at Sagres?
A major question in all of this is how did Lourenco’s car come to be photographed in the square at Sagres? - and when was this photograph taken?
'Maria writes':
“But, one may ask, and one should, if all was as we say it was then how could the rented car have been photographed on the 29th in the Praça da República?
“In our opinion it wasn’t.
“In our opinion it was photographed on the 4th, explaining Nuno Lourenço’s insistence to show when the photograph was taken: “this time he was able to take a photo of the vehicle, which he supplied to the police and that he exhibits now, insisting [fazendo questão] in showing the time, 18H08 of 29/04/2007 as registered on the phone”.
“The first and evident fact is that Nuno Lourenço photographs a vehicle that has been rented by Wojciech Krokowski. And he describes Wojciech Krokowski to perfection. Which means he simply didn’t choose a vehicle randomly. It was that one he wanted to photograph.
“Second fact is that the photographed car is on Praça da República, meaning that Wojciech Krokowski had been indeed in Sagres and had been in that particular town square”.
'Maria' continues: “All that is left to be found is a volunteer to send PJ up this creek.
“Nuno Lourenço is chosen. He supposedly is not in Praia da Luz and he has a daughter the same age as Maddie. Wojciech Krokowski parks the car in Praça da República on the 4th and Nuno Lourenço photographs it. The cellphone data is manipulated so [that the] photo is registered as taken on the 29th.”
Now then, 'Maria' uses the phrase: ‘Nuno Lourenco was chosen’. I agree with that choice of phrase. But it still begs the question of who chose him, was it more than one person who chose him, and when did they do so?
'Maria' says that the photo was not taken on Sunday 29 April as claimed by Lourenco. She says that the date and time stamp was altered so as to give the date of 29 April to fit in with the bogus story of the alleged kidnapping at Sagres that day. I agree with all those conclusions, and would add that this reminds us, of course, to the discussion about the ‘Last Photo’ which now suggests that it could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not Thursday 3 May as claimed. It appears to have been a genuine photo taken on a sunny Sunday and NOT on cloudy, cool, windy Thursday 3 May as the McCanns claim.
I part company with 'Maria' however where she says that the photo was 'definitely' taken on Friday 4 May and that Krokowski must have driven it there. That fits in with Textusa's well-known belief (in which s/he agrees with Goncalo Amaral and the PJ) that Madeleine died sometime after 5.30pm on Thursday,
Assuming that Lourenco was handed a script by a group of plotters (as Maria seems to agree), then (with Lrokowski's consent) anyone could have driven Krokowski’s car to Sagres, not necessarily Krokowski himself. And the photograph could easily have been taken on another day before 4 May. All we can say with certainty is that a photograph of that car must have been in Lourenco’s camera before he ’phoned the police early on 5 May.
And that before that, that someone had altered the date and time stamp to read ’29 April’, a matter which he (Lourenco) unnecessarily draws the police’s attention to.
And that Lourenco was primed to say that Krokowski had attempted to kidnap his daughter twice on that Sunday.
In fact it is certainly possible that Krokowksi himself never went to Sagres at all that week.
G. Was there a pre-arranged plan?
'Maria adds' weight to the pre-planning involved in Lourenco’s fabrication in these words:
“Maddie disappears on the night of the 3rd, Wojciech Krokowski has to leave Portugal early on the 5th and as he’s staying in Burgau and flying out in Faro, so the only day to link him to Nuno Lourenço is the 4th. Reason why Wojciech Krokowski is in Sagres that day.
“But to put PJ really on Wojciech Krokowski’s heels Nuno Lourenço must call the authorities only on the 5th. He has to allow Wojciech Krokowski time to fly out of the country before warning PJ.
“If he called PJ on the 4th, the police would quickly track the man down, talk to him and find out he had nothing to reveal and abandon there and then any and all investigation concerning the man. The false lead would not even survive a day.
“We have written before that immediately after Maddie’s disappearance there followed a critical period when it was absolutely required to keep PJ distracted with false leads under the penalty they could focus their investigation on where they shouldn’t, which would be on Praia da Luz and on the people holidaying there in the off-season.
“Once Wojciech Krokowski flew out of the country he would become a false lead that would continue to be followed.
“Long-distance investigations always involve a degree of bureaucracy and time wasted doing it and he would have left the country just before he was to be considered a person of interest to the case.
“There had to be a reason to call authorities and that could only be arranged on the 4th and authorities could only be called on the 5th after he left, as they were”.
I agree with the burden of this analysis, namely that it was necessary to create this additional ‘sighting’ of Krokowski by Lourenco. But when was all this planned?
However, I do not agree with 'Maria’s assumption that ‘Maddie disappears on the night of the 3rd’, nor do I accept that it is proven that Krokowski was actually in Sagres in 4 May. All we know is that his hired car was photographed in Sagres, near the car hire agency. But how it got there, and when, we don’t actually know.
Moreover, 'Maria' does not mention how Lourenco’s description of Krokowski is an almost perfect match with Jane Tanner’s of Tannerman, given to the PJ the day before, nor does s/he deal with how influential it was on the PJ’s thinking to get two near-identical descriptions of an abductor within less than 24 hours.
But what 'Maria’s article has done for me is to help firm up my mind on the vexed question of whether Krokowski was a willing or unwilling ‘patsy’, a question on which I was undecided. The new material and analysis that 'Maria' has offered tends to tip the balance IMO very much towards suggesting that, for whatever reason, Krokowski may have been aware of this fabricated story and co-operated with it.
H. The role of Robert Murat’s uncle, Ralph Eveleigh
Here, 'Maria’s Portuguese helps us to some extent with some translation issues. She writes:
“But there is one person pivotal and shows that there is a network behind this story: the bar owner.
“He is the one who provides the independent validation to Nuno Lourenço’s otherwise absurd tale. He is the one that makes the pieces of the story to come together so making it very clear it was all a collective effort.
“The bar owner, we repeat not employee, who nudged PJ into finding the FNAC Chiado CCTV image we believe was Ralph Eveleigh, Robert Murat’s uncle.
“If not him then it would be someone close to him as the Eveleighs owned that bar at one time. It’s possible the person who spoke to police may have been renting from Ralph Eveleigh and be referred to as proprietário (owner) because although a rentor he would effectively be the owner of the business using the rented space.
“We suggest that Nuno Lourenço and Wojciech Krokowski are part of - or connected to - that circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason, one they did all for it not to be known”.
'Maria' here refers to a ‘network’. S/he places at the centre of this network Ralph Eveleigh, Murat’s uncle. I agree with 'Maria' that there may have been some kind of ‘network’ operating. I agree that Ralph Eveleigh is probably near the centre of any such this network, but I would place his nephew Robert Murat at the centre as well.
'Maria' refers to ‘a circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason’. Sticking to those strict words, I am able to agree that what 'Maria' has written may be true. However, as I understand it, 'Maria' includes within that circle dozens, maybe a hundred or more, guests that week who had all come for the purpose of enjoying an ‘adult’. V.I.P. swinging holiday. I do not see the evidence to support that. But I am able to conceive of a rather smaller network, or ‘circle’, of people with a common interest. whose interests were threatened, or at least affected, by whatever happened to Madeleine.
I would like to have seen more reference in 'Maria’s article to Robert Murat himself, for example these issues:
* Hairs of his haplotype and Jane Tanner’s haplotype - the same haplotype - being found at the Sol e Mar apartments where Krokowski was staying
* The building and current maintenance of the Sol e Mar apartments being connected with Murat and his father, and
* Murat's rapid departure from England early on Tuesday 1 May.
I. Points of disagreement between 'Maria Santos', myself and Richard Hall
To summarise the important areas of disagreement between 'Maria', and myself and Richard Hall, these are:
* I think something serious may have happened to Madeleine before 3 May.
* I suggest there was a plot involving the Lourenco fabrication, the 'Tannerman' (Jane Tanner) fabrication and the probably false claim that the 'Last Photo' was taken on Thursday 3 May,
* I think it is possible (a) that Wojchiech Krokowski was never at Sagres that week or (b) that (for whatever reason) Krokowki co-operated with the plotters, and
*I think it possible that there was a planning meeting in Krokowski's flat at Sol e Mar. For example, a plot co-ordinator could have met there with Krokowski, Robert Murat, Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner.
Suppose the plot was hatched before Madeleine was reported missing? Suppose Robert Murat acted as co-ordinator? He would need Nuno Lourenco there, and Jane Tanner - and what better than to have Krokowski there in person so they could both get their descriptions right? Of course, as an alternative, Murat (or any other co-ordinator) could merely have shown them photographs of him.
I am just throwing out some realistic possibilities to explain the remarkable coincidence of Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco both coming up with near-identical descriptions of a (fake) abductor. I see strong evidence of advance planning.
J. Grounds for optimism, or not?
'Maria' ends her piece with these words: “We see no reason to be other than optimistic”.
The reason for her optimism is set out in these paragraphs, in which she again suggests that a network, or ‘circle’ of swingers is perpetuating the undoubted cover-up that exists in this case:
“The wider circle, the one that really matters, the one that is sustaining - not deciding - the whole edifice of this hoax has finally been told that it is time for them step on the stage and face the lights. And that it’s time for them to face the public’s reaction.
“The Met has been told to send the clear message that the time to play cops is over. No more binder paper carrying in the cobbled streets of the Algarve for the cameras. They “are now following a small number of focused lines of inquiry” and we get to know that the “enquiry has not reached a conclusion, there are still focused lines of investigation to be pursued.”
“And the lines are not only focused but that they “still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case.”
“Or in other words, it’s time for the Met to close shop and to start coming to conclusions.
And it’s not forgotten to remind all that “Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues” and that “the Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police”.
I am unable to agree, as 'Maria' suggests, that the Met Police have been ‘told’, in a ‘clear message’, using the Wojcheich Krokowski story in the Sunday People, that ‘the time to play cops is over’ and that it is time for the ‘swinging conspiracy’ to be exposed.
I am unable to agree, based on all that I’ve read in the past 4½ years, that the Met Police and PJ are 'closely collaborating' in a genuine pursuit of the truth and of those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.
I think it is far more probable that the Sunday People story is a prelude to an announcement that in some way Krokowski’s photographs of his week in Praia da Luz confirm, rather than disprove, the claim that Madeleine was abducted.
I still think it is far more likely that this continues to be an expensive charade, designed to influence public perception that an abduction really occurred.
For that reason I cannot share Maria’s optimism. [We believe Tony was justified. Four years later, nothing new has happened with the two investigations - MMRG].
K. Final word
Section 3 of 'Maria’s article has a section pointing up two errors in Richard Hall’s ‘Phantoms’. First, she points out that Lourenco is Portuguese, not Spanish as apparently stated in his film. Second, she notes that Richard used the wrong photograph of a grey car when referring to Lourenco’s hired car. The matter at issue was how Lourenco could have photographed Krokowski and his wife in an empty grey car (both the ‘wrong’ car and the ‘right’ one show an unoccupied car). Since 'Maria' fully agrees with Richard’s interpretation that Krokowski’s story is an obvious fabrication designed to put the PJ off the scent, it is somewhat churlish of her/him to spend a whole long section highlighting these two errors, while failing to acknowledge the successful impact Richard has made by putting out his film earlier in the year and bringing what we might now call ‘The Krokowski Deception’ out into the open for the 100,000-plus who have already been enlightened on the Krokowski deception on the internet.
But my final word is to advise members here to read 'Maria’s article, and with the helpful analysis and original material s/he has supplied, (a) to fix in your minds that the Sagres kidnapping story is one almighty hoax, and (b) to start thinking exactly who might have been involved in perpetrating that hoax.
----------------
Related link: CMOMM on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1682539088657244/
------------
For discussion, please visit this thread: https://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