The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.04.15 21:25

@Mo wrote:
Thank you for your response Tony.  Having read Lourenco’s statement I can’t see anything wrong with it at the moment.  I am trying to look at this from the core outwards rather than peeling an onion!
I am very surprised that anyone could take a look at Lourenco's statement and believe there is nothing whatever wrong with it.

Here are 20 questions I have about Lourenco's statements, and below that is Lourenco's statement from the PJ Files (culled from Pamalam's website 'mccannpjfiles' with due acknowledgement and thanks once again). I hope that will better enable members to analyse Lourenco's statement. 

I would be every interetsed in how others would answer the 20 questions:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TWENTY QUESTIONS ABOUT NUNO LOURENCO'S STATEMENT


1. How likely is it that a man (Krokowski as we now know) would walk along a beach covertly taking pictures of children on a beach, holding a camera by his stomach?

2. How likely is it that he would then go on to openly take pictures, with the camera to his eye, of the Lourenco’s children, aged 2 and 3, and those of Lourenco’s friend nearby, whose children were 9 and 5?

3. Still more to the point, why according to Lourneco, did neither he nor his friend confront the man, (Krokowski) apart from (Krokowski’s words) staring at him ‘indignantly and aggressively’?

4. Even more relevantly, since we are told by Lourenco that the man had his mobile ’phone with him, did he not immediately contact the police?

5. How credible is the entire account that Lourenco gives of Krokowski’s entering and leaving the pastry shop?

6. In particular, how credible is his description of the actual moment that Krokowski is supposed to have tried to snatch his child?

7. Indeed, how credible is it that anyone would attempt to snatch a child from his parents outside a shop with other customers, shop assistants, and people around in the street?

8. Is there any one of the bystanders to this alleged event who has come forward to confirm Lourenco’s account of events?

9. How credible is it that Lourenco took several photos of Krokowski but that none of them came out because his finger was covering the lens?

10. How credible is his account of chasing Krokowski through the streets of Sagres?

11. Looking at his account, where is his wife in all of this? Patiently waiting for him in the hired car?

12. Look at the photo Lourenco takes of the car. Why doesn’t he take any other photos apart from this one? Where are other photographs of him as he was chasing him? Is it because his finger was in front of the lens on all the other photos?

13. Do we see Krokowski and his wife in the car in that photo?

14. Why did he rip up, and throw on the ground, the piece of paper on which he wrote the car number plate of Krokowski’s
hired car?

15. Why, after this alleged kidnapping, did he not immediately contact the police?

16. Why did ne not report this to the police the next day (30 April)?

17. Why did he not report this to the police the day after that, the next day, the day after that, and so on?

18. Is his account - of being told by his wife on 4 May to report the kidnapping - persuasive?  

19. Why does he leave it until after Krokowski’s plane takes off for Berlin before ringing the PJ?

20. Why does his description of Krokowski match Jane Tanner’s description of Tannerman so closely?


NUNO LOURENCO DE JESUS' STATEMENT

Today we went to the above mentioned address with the aim of confirming a denouncement of an individual whose identification and attitude towards a four-year old girl on Mareta beach in Sagres was considered suspicious.

Thus, we contacted the father, NUNO LOURENCO, of the household that was on holiday in the town of Sagres until 13/05/2007 together with a daughter around four years old and a son of around two years old.


Nuno M---- Lourenco d- J----
Date : 2007.05.05
Time: 16H30
Place: DIC Portimao
Officer responsible: Joao Carlos, Inspector
Profession: Domestic worker
Place of work:

That he comes to the process as a witness and states:

He is of Portuguese nationality but immigrated to Germany 14 years ago. He married a German citizen in Denmark. He has two children, whose names are L*******, almost three years old and a girl whose name is L*****, who is almost four years old.

He was on holiday in Portugal from the 22nd of April until the 13th of the current month. He stayed with his mother who lives in Sagres, and was accompanied by his two children and his wife B******, who does not speak Portuguese.

On the 29th of the past month, after he had returned his rental car, he walked (since it was close by) to Mareta beach in Sagres. He arrived there around 15H00. He and his family went to the play area. Between 16H00 and 17H00, he cannot be more precise, he noticed a male individual holding a small silver-coloured camera who, in a disguised fashion, was taking pictures of his children. He speaks of 'disguised fashion' as the individual, instead of holding the camera to his face, was taking pictures from the abdominal area of his body. The witness overheard the 'clicking' noise when pictures were taken.

After having taken three or four pictures of his children, he verified that that the individual took more pictures of two male children, nine and five years of age. These were children of a couple who were at the witness's side and who were playing with a ball. He knows of them as they live in Sagres, a short distance from his mother. He does not know their names.

For this reason, he supposes that his children were photographed to be abducted or to be used for illicit reasons. He began looking at the individual indignantly and aggressively and the same individual taking the pictures then left the area.

But even before this, the individual took more pictures of the four children in a disguised fashion, and of others with the camera to his face. This individual also got on his knees on the sand to take additional pictures.

After leaving the area, the witness did not see the individual and did not again think about the incident.

At around 18H00/18H30, as it got a bit colder, they left the beach and headed toward the esplanade to buy sweets at a pastry shop called 'Marreiros', about 400 metres from the beach, in Sagres. As he and his family were sitting (the witness was having a coffee), he saw the same individual passing the pastry shop and heading toward the outer perimeter of the esplanade. He noticed that the individual constantly looked at the children and entered the shop, but left immediately after. At this moment, his daughter, began racing around the tables as they were ready to leave.

Seeing this, the individual began to walk rapidly toward the witness’s daughter crossing the witness’s family as they were departing. Luckily or by chance, the witness's daughter stopped next to the witness as it appeared the individual tried to stop them from leaving, and once again entered the pastry shop and again left without buying anything.

This same individual left toward the back of a kiosk which exists in the area. Shaken by this situation, and without the least doubt that the individual’s intention was to abduct this daughter, he got out his mobile and began taking various pictures of the individual, from the front, and in such a way that the individual would clearly see that the witness 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 paper in the rubbish or on the ground.

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, 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 who told him to go to the police as they had already heard about the disappearance of Madeleine. The witness’s daughter bears a striking resemblance to Madeleine’s images.

That very morning, the witness contacted the police and told them what had happened.

Of the vehicle registration plate, he only remembered the partial plate numbers AV and 67.

In so far as the suspect is concerned, he describes him [that is, Wojcek Krokowski] as masculine, Caucasian with Latin colouring, curly dark brown hair that ran to his neck and in a pony tail. He was between 35/40 years of age, of medium complexion, and around 170 to 175 cm in height. He did not have any particular marks or signals and did not wear rings or other jewellery. He wore a cream coloured beach hat. He also wore dark glasses.

He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of the same material which was cream coloured. Almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously. His shoes were dark brown: the type that need to be shined or polished.

As regards the woman with the individual, as he saw her seated in the vehicle, he can only state that she had short hair which appeared to be white in colour and very shiny. In the sitting position, her head was below the car head rest. She appeared to be skinny and Caucasian. She did not use glasses. He can say no more as she was difficult to see.

When questioned, the witness states that he could recognise the individual in person and from a photograph or sketch.

At this moment, the interview is interrupted to show the witness photographs of individuals with similar physical characteristics.

These were returned to the investigators with negative result, as confirmed in the appendix.

There are no additional elements to offer the investigation.

ENDS

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14899
Reputation : 2991
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Post by MRNOODLES on 07.04.15 22:18

"he supposes that his children were photographed to be abducted...."


Would most parents think this in this situation at the time?  Speaking as a parent. I doubt it would cross my mind.  I'd just think, 'you dirty $^$$*$$* what the **** are you playing at'.
avatar
MRNOODLES

Posts : 747
Reputation : 296
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Post by jozi on 08.04.15 11:35

@MRNOODLES wrote:"he supposes that his children were photographed to be abducted...."


Would most parents think this in this situation at the time?  Speaking as a parent. I doubt it would cross my mind.  I'd just think, 'you dirty $his stat^$$*$$* what the **** are you playing at'.
Ha ha this statement also reminds me of Mr Payne statement about Kate's face looking like the face of a mother who's daughter has just been abducted !!!!!!!!!!

Now what in the hell is all that about ?Wonder how many mothers he knew who's daughters have been abducted !!!

They must have had scripts to read and rehearse and when D day came, they gave their statements mmm........wonder if this is why Murat said the biggest F--k up of the 21st century.............Just saying.
avatar
jozi

Posts : 710
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2012-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Post by jeanmonroe on 08.04.15 15:20

In so far as the suspect is concerned, he describes him [that is, Wojcek Krokowski] as masculine, Caucasian with Latin colouring, curly dark brown hair that ran to his neck and in a pony tail. He was between 35/40 years of age, of medium complexion, and around 170 to 175 cm in height. He did not have any particular marks or signals and did not wear rings or other jewellery. He wore a cream coloured beach hat. He also wore dark glasses.

He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of the same material which was cream coloured. Almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously. His shoes were dark brown: the type that need to be shined or polished.

When questioned, the witness states that he could recognise the individual in person and from a photograph or sketch.
===========================

Well of course he wouldn't 'recognise' the 'suspect' from the very VAGUE/NON DESCRIPT 'description' he gave!

Did 'manage' to 'see' his shoes were dark brown, and the type that needed to be 'shined or polished' though!  winkwink

Jeeez, if only he had given a slightly 'better' description of the 'suspect'

Oh, hang on......................

UN-F*CKING-BELIEVEABLE!

Even i would 'recognise' the 'suspect' from the detailed, even down to shoes worn, no rings etc EXTREMELY 'VAGUE' description he gave!

DUH me!

"Almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously."

PREVIOUSLY?

So, he 'saw' the 'suspect' at LEAST twice!

But says he wouldn't be able to 'recognise' him!


jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1665
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

Post by plebgate on 09.04.15 12:02

REf. OP
Maybe someone could ask the question of the "smearer"  - why was an offer made to Rocky to settle out of court?

plebgate

Posts : 6185
Reputation : 1845
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum