by Hektor van
Bohmen and Marina Guilsford - 25 July 2016
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:
(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:
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. 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.
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. 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:
(1)
On the CMOMM forum, on the Krokowski
threads, here:
and
(2)
In a blog article by Textusa, one of his
best, here:
If anyone reading this article my 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).
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 piece 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.
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
stamp 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.
We now look at how the Portuguese Police managed to
deduce that the man who allegedly nearly kidnapped Lourenco’s daughter was
Wojcheich Krokowski.
Here is the report from the PJ files:
QUOTE
It pleases me to
inform you V.Exa, that on the present date, Inspector Rui Goncalves went to
Sagres - the location where he was to make
inquiries relating to a grey-coloured vehicle.
It is noted that the vehicle in the picture corresponds to a Renault Clio with vehicle registration 15-AV-67.
It is noted that the vehicle in the picture corresponds to a Renault Clio with vehicle registration 15-AV-67.
At the headquarters
of the self-drive vehicle rental company, "Luzcar rent-a-car," [in
Lagos] we asked them to provide us with all the information concerning the
vehicle bearing the registration number...AV - 67 for the period from 28/04/07
to the time of the present investigation. It was possible to determine that the
vehicle was rented on April 28th at Faro airport by a Polish citizen, named
W.K., staying at Solimar in Burgau.
UNQUOTE
It is clear, quite simply, that, armed with two pieces
of information from Lourenco: (a) a photo of Krokowski’s hire car and (b) his
memory of AV-67 as part of the car’s registration number, the Portuguese Police
were rapidly able to trace who the car belonged to (the car rental agency),
visit them, and establish that Krokowski hired that vehicle from 28 April to 5
May.
They then rapidly discovered that he had been staying
at the Sol e Mar apartment, and thereafter found out further information about
what he had been doing that week.
THE EVIDENCE FROM THE
OWNER/MANAGER OF THE BURGAU BEACH BAR
And that brings us round to the second specific piece
of evidence that was supplied to the police: the information that Krokowksi had
been photographed leaving a shop in a shopping centre in Lisbon. Here is the CCTV image that the police managed to
capture, followed by the police statement about it:
QUOTE
In order to
determine the comings and goings of the couple of Polish nationality, who spent
their holiday in Burgau, we approached several business establishments and on
the basis of the description which we have of the couple, the owner of the
"Beach Bar" advised us that it could be two of his clients. He seemed
to recall that the couple had lunch and dinner two or three times, without
remembering the exact days, but it would have been at the beginning of the
week. He knows that they are Polish because they spoke about football on the
day of the Liverpool/Chelsea match, saying that Liverpool's goalkeeper was
Polish. The match in question took place on May 1st 2007. They also discussed
Portuguese and Brazilian classical music.
The couple know several performers from those countries. They asked the owner of the bar where they could buy music of this genre. The owner directed them to the FNAC shop at the Algarve shopping centre or to the Chiado commercial centre. They said they would probably go to Lisbon the same day.
The couple know several performers from those countries. They asked the owner of the bar where they could buy music of this genre. The owner directed them to the FNAC shop at the Algarve shopping centre or to the Chiado commercial centre. They said they would probably go to Lisbon the same day.
The investigation
determines that the couple effectively went to FNAC at the Chiado centre on May
2nd 2007 where they bought two comedy musical CDs, paid for with credit card
no. ... ... ... ..., the same one used to pay the Luzcar rent-a-car company for
the hire of the vehicle, registration...AV-67. We seized the surveillance video
and we attach photos from the FNAC surveillance system in which we can see the
Polish couple in question.
UNQUOTE
So – information provided by the owner/manager of the
Burgau beach bar, whose name has never been disclosed so far as we are aware –
led the Portuguese Police to a CCTV image of Krokowski and his wife at the Chiado
Commercial Centre in Lisbon. The information, then, didn’t come from Lourenco,
but from ‘the owner of the Burgau beach bar, where Krokowski had spent a significant
part of week.
We are not told how the Portuguese Police came to meet
this individual. They say that they “approached several business
establishments”. Did someone maybe ‘guide’ the police to the Burgau beach
owner/manager? However it happened, the police managed to find someone who
enabled them to obtain this CCTV image.
The beach bar owner/manager told an interesting story,
which had these key elements:
1.
Krokowski and his wife had eaten at his
beach bar restaurant several times in the week
2.
Sometime during the week, on the very day
of the Chelsea v Liverpool match, Krokowski and the beach bar owner/manager
apparently began talking about football
3.
Krokowski apparently brought up the subject
of the Liverpool goalkeeper being Polish
4.
Somehow the subject of Portuguese and
Brazilian classical music came into the conversation. Krokowski and his wife
said they knew ‘several performers from those countries’. They wanted to know
where they could buy such music in Portugal
5.
The beach bar owner/manager told Krokowski
of two places where he might be able to get them, QUOTE: “The FNAC shop at the
Algarve shopping centre, or the Chiado commercial centre [in Lisbon]”.
And on that basis, the police presumably checked out
both places, and produced the CCTV image of Krokowski and his wife walking out
of the FNAC shop in the Chiado Commercial Centre, Lisbon. Here is the police’s
account of how they did this:
QUOTE
Data:
2007/05/07 Local: Vila de Sagres - Concelho de Vila do Bispo
Person who ordered the work: Mario A., Chief Inspector;
Officer who performed the work: Renato C. e Rui G., both Inspector of the P.J.
Person who ordered the work: Mario A., Chief Inspector;
Officer who performed the work: Renato C. e Rui G., both Inspector of the P.J.
Description and results of the work:
------- In
accordance with orders received, we went today at 14:30 hours to the
abovementioned location, confronting NUNO LOURENCO (formally questioned
in these case papers) with pictures obtained from CCTV of the FNAC shop in
Chiado, Lisbon, which images were dated 02/05/2007. --------
------- When the images were shown the interviewee stated immediately, with a high degree of certainty, that the individual situated on the extreme left (from the viewers perspective) of the picture was the suspicious individual he had described in his previous statement.
We have carried out
investigations to find out where W.K. was staying. He was staying in apartment
no.... Solimar building, Ficticia in Budens. That apartment is managed by the
company ATB, situated on the Main Street, Marretas building, Burgau, Vila do
Bispo, whose director, the person named Nuno F., we have contacted.
That apartment belongs to Peter and Margaret O., who live in Windsor Grove, Cardiff, Wales.
That apartment belongs to Peter and Margaret O., who live in Windsor Grove, Cardiff, Wales.
UNQUOTE
One key question we might ask about this is why
Krokowski and his wife went to Lisbon at all that week. He had taken the plane
to the main Algarve airport, Faro. He was holidaying in the seaside village of
Burgau. On checking on the internet, we found that Lisbon is 320km or 200 miles
from Burgau, and the journey time would be three to four hours. The journey
there and back would take the couple up to seven or eight hours.
Of course, they may have desperately wanted to see
Lisbon that week, and have been prepared to make a long journey to do so.
Perhaps they were also desperate to buy a couple of CDs of Portuguese and
Brazilian classical music. All the same, it seems curious that they could not
buy any of this music closer to Burgau, or alternatively wait until they got
back to one of Europe’s biggest cities, Warsaw, and order the music from one of
the music shops there or even order what they wanted off the internet.
We see in the police report that the police seized this
CCTV image (there may have been others), and showed it to Lourenco. And
Luorenco “stated immediately, with a high degree of certainty, that the
individual…on the left… of the picture was the suspicious individual”.
Lourenco and the
car rental agency
There is one further curious feature of Lourenco’s
statement. And that is his two mentions of being at a car rentals agency.
He says he was on holiday. He was visiting his mother.
His holiday was from 22 April to 13 May.
He says that on Sunday 29 April he ‘returned’ his
rental car to Sagres. He does not actually mention hiring it, though. And it is
after he had returned his car to the agency that he says he first encountered
Krokowski on the beach in Sagres.
Then he gives us this account:
QUOTE
Yesterday, the 4th,
he went to a rental car agency. The name of the agency was TURINFO, and is
located in Sagres. It was around 13H00. The employee present told them to
return at 13H30, at which time the manager would arrive. He proceeded to a bar
called 'Rasa dos Ventos' where he ordered a coffee to pass the time. At a later
point, looking outward, he saw the same individual [Krokowski], dressed in
exactly the same fashion, but without a hat. This same individual left and he
did not see him again, nor did he see his car. It appeared that the individual
was alone and on foot. Upon returning home, he
recounted the story to his wife…”
UNQUOTE
You will note that Lourenco gives no explanation at all
for why he is at the Sagres car rental again on Friday. And once again – lo and
behold! – as soon as Lourenco goes to the Sagres car rental agency, up pops
Krokowski once again. Just like on Sunday! What a coincidence! Surely the odds
against that happening are pretty remote?
The other thing that is curious is that once again
Lourenco sees Krokowski on his own, just like on Sunday. He is on holiday with
his wife. So where is his wife? Why does he keep walking round Sagres on his
own? The more we delve into Lourenco’s story, the stranger it becomes.
So now we close with our second hypothesis:
HYPOTHESIS B:
1 The entire story
of how Krokowski and his wife came to be in the Chiado shopping centre, Lisbon,
and have been photographed on CCTV, looks suspect
2 The story may be another fabrication
3 If so, the
owner/manager of the Burgau beach bar may have been involved in the planning of
this event
4 We suggest that
it is entirely possible that Krokowski visiting the Chiado centre in Lisbon was
a ‘set-up’, in other words, that he was told to go there in order to be
photographed, and that the story about their alleged interest in Portuguese and
Brazilian classical music was bogus
5 If we are right,
people will inevitably ask: ‘Why would he go along with such a plan?’, and why
would someone like Nuno Lourenco make up his ridiculous story about his
daughter being nearly kidnapped by a Polish holidaymaker in broad daylight
outside a shop and café at the
south-western extremity of the continent of Europe? We would suggest that the
answer might well lie in both men being connected in some way with some illegal
and/or immoral activity being carried out in the area.
If our analysis is correct, Nuno Lourenco should be
prosecuted by the Portuguese judiciary for wasting police time and, more
seriously, perverting the course of justice, or whatever the equivalent
Portuguese offences are.
We would welcome any comments on, challenges to or
criticisms of the above analysis and the two sets of hypotheses.
by Hektor van
Bohmen and Marina Guilsford
