A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED

by **Tony Bennett** 05.04.15 1:15

Tonight, in another place, this deliberate smear against Goncalo Amaral appeared:

QUOTE

I would love to know why the haters never ask themselves a very obvious question.

Here's the thing. If there is one thing every cop, however incompetent or lazy, anywhere in the world, wants to be, it's the cop that finds the missing child and brings them home to their family. We've all seen the news reports - that cop is a hero for the rest of their days.

But not Gonzo. From minute one, he showed little or no interest in actually finding Madeleine McCann and reuniting her with her family.

He just shrugged his shoulders and set about trying to frame her parents.

Why do his fans NEVER ask why he didn't try to find Madeleine?

UNQUOTE

Let me explain just how unfair that criticism is.

On Friday 4th May 2007, hours after Madeleine McCann was first reported missing, Jane Tanner gave her first account of the man she claimed she saw the previous night, once known as 'Bundleman', now known as 'Tannerman'.

Then, on the morning of Saturday 5th May, the PJ took a call from a Portuguese expat now living in Germany: Nuno Lourenco de Jesus.

Lourenco explained how a bloke who wasn't dressed like a typical tourist had tried to snatch his young daughter - 6 days ago - outside a bakery/confectioners in Sagres. Earlier that day the same man had allegedly seen this man taking covert photographs of other children on the beach, and then of his own children (aged 3 and 2) and his friend's children (aged 9 and 5). For some peculiar reason Lourenco hadn't reported these dramatic events to the police for 6 days.

Now, as claimed in the other place, did Goncalo Amaral "show little or no interest in actually finding Madeleine McCann and reuniting her with her family".

NO.

Did he "just shrug his shoulders and set about trying to frame her parents"?

Again, NO.

So what did he did?

Let's refer to Goncalo Amaral's own account in Anna Esse's translation of his book:

QUOTE

POLISH LEAD IN SAGRES

Hundreds of statements continue to be gathered in Vila da Luz. All the people of the area are interviewed: resort employees, tourists, play leaders from the crèches, residents. Most of them will be of no use to us, but none must be neglected.

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised 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 put up 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...

UNQUOTE

So, quote contrary to the libellous smear of Dr Amaral in that other place, Amaral acted with the utmost speed and decisive ness to see if this 'forty-year-old Polish man' might have abducted Madeleine.

He contacted car hire rental firms in the area.

He located the vehicle in Lourenco's photograph.

He found the name of the man who had hired the vehicle - Wojcek (also spelt Wojciech) Krokowski.

He found out that he had boarded a plane that morning, strangely enough just minutes before Lourenco made his 'phone call to the PJ.

He contacted INTERPOL for information about him.

He contacted the German police, who boarded the plane in Berlin when it landed, and questioned Krokowski, his wife or girlfriend, and the passengers on the plane. No sign of Madeleine.

He contacted the Polish police, making sure that they searched his flat and questioned him the moment he got back to Warsaw.

Back in Burgau, he searched the flat where Krokowski and his wife had been staying. He found nothing of interest (except hairs of the same haplotype as those of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat).

In other words, he did his level best to do all in his power to see if Krokowski might have been connected with the abduction of Madeleine.

Not only that, but despite the growing doubts of Amaral and his team about whether the McCanns and their friends were telling the truth about what happened to Madeleine, when the Irish police told them that a bloke called Martin Smith claimed (on 16 May) to have seen a man (who 'didn't look like a tourist') carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May, he immediately arranged for Martin Smith and two of his six children to make statements in Portimao Police Station about their claimed sighting. Which they did on 26 May.

Here, then, was an investigation co-ordinator truly 'leaving no stone unturned' in an effort to find out what happened to Madeleine.

But here's a thing. Suppose that in fact Lourenco's story about the kidnapping was a complete pack of lies to deceive Amaral and his team?

Suppose also that Jane Tanner's statement about 'Tannerman' was equally a complete pack of lies?

Suppose further that Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman' was deliberately crafted so as to be virtually the same as Lourenco's description of Krokowski.

Which was obviously what Amaral was MEANT to think. And DID think (see extract above from Amaral's book).

And suppose further that the descriptions of Martin Smith and his two children were also crafted on the basis of the same description...'not a tourist, warm clothes, beige trousers, classic shoes' etc. etc.

THEN how would things look?

by Five Star 05.04.15 2:16

The dogs told him not to look? ......I suppose that could be the answer! ........ imo

by Angelique 05.04.15 2:17

Tony

Indeed, it started from the very point Madeleine disappeared.

The campaign to swamp the Portuguese Police with so much dis-information and false sightings became obvious in the end and I think GA mentions this in his Book. Eventually he saw through it all despite all this plus the political interference.

In fact, they, who ever "they" are had to finally transfer him to another department he was so thorough at his job.

by plebgate 05.04.15 2:55

Doesn't surprise me to read about the smears. I expect more in the run up to the judge's ruling on the libel hearing.

by whatsupdoc 05.04.15 8:48

There must be many smears around in TM land , Tony, so why mention one without even a link , name of a forum or twitter etc? I'm not interested in any smears as I think GA and his team did an excellent job considering the McCanns didn't help by answering questions and the tapas group gave wooly accounts.

I posted http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm (171-180) a few days ago with probably the correct spelling of Wojciech so people can read the mccannpj files for themselves after Richard D. Hall asked the question "Who was Wojciech Krokowski?".

Fingers crossed for a good result for GA this coming week.

:fingerscrossed

by puzzled 06.04.15 16:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
Suppose further that Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman' was deliberately crafted so as to be virtually the same as Lourenco's description of Krokowski.

How would this be possible? Is there any evidence that they knew each other, or were in contact, before the abduction story broke? Which story broke first, Tannerman, or the story of the guy on the beach? I feel a bit confused here.

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 16:35

puzzled wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Suppose further that Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman' was deliberately crafted so as to be virtually the same as Lourenco's description of Krokowski.

How would this be possible? Is there any evidence that they knew each other, or were in contact, before the abduction story broke? Which story broke first, Tannerman, or the story of the guy on the beach? I feel a bit confused here.

Three descriptions with incredible similarities.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 17:30

puzzled wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Suppose further that Jane Tanner's description of 'Tannerman' was deliberately crafted so as to be virtually the same as Lourenco's description of Krokowski.

How would this be possible? Is there any evidence that they knew each other, or were in contact, before the abduction story broke? Which story broke first, Tannerman, or the story of the guy on the beach? I feel a bit confused here.

@ puzzled

OK, this is a very good question.

The answers are all, or mostly, on the Wojcek Krokowski thread. LINK: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10602-was-wojcek-krokowski-sagres-man-with-a-camera-the-template-for-both-tannerman-and-smithman

Here is a very brief timeline of key events, just to get people thinking more about this:

Sat 28 April

Polish man Wojcek Krokowski and wife/partner arrive in Burgau to spend a week in the Solimar Apartment (built by Robert Murat's father and now maintained by his father's company)

A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED Xxxkro10

A typical false smear against Goncalo Amaral - REBUTTED Xxxkro10

Wojcek Krokowski (left) and wife/partner captured on CCTV whilst at an Algarve shopping centre

Thurs 3 May, 10pm

McCanns raise alarm claiming Madeleine has been abducted; during the next hour Russell O'Brien scrawls two timelines on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Sainsburys Activity Sticker Book and writes down, twice, that Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child at 9.20pm (widely believed to be a wholly fabricated story).

Fri 4 May

Jane Tanner interviewed. Gives quite elaborate description of abductor. Her description happens to match Krokowski to a tee

Sat 5 May, approx 8am

Krokowski and wife/partner have finished their week's holiday - they fly off from Faro Airport back to Poland via Berlin

Sat 5 May, approx 9am

Nuno Lourenco 'phones up PJ and gives them cock-and-bull story about someone having tried to snatch his daughter, outside a bakery cafe in Sagres, SIX DAYS EARLIER (29 April). He describes the man he saw.  His description happens to match Krokowski to a tee and after a quick check by Amaral and his team of certain details supplied by Lourenco in fact turns out to be Krokowski. Goncalo Amaral and his team then make frantic and successful efforts to get the German police to board the plane when it lands and interrogate Krokowski and partner and all the passengers.

Now take a look at Goncalo Amaral's account of events (in the OP, but see also below).

Fri 11 May & Sat 12 May

Stories surface in some British newspapers suggesting basically that:

a) Lourenco's child was nearly snatched by a paedophile in Sagres on Monday 30th April (NOT Sunday 29th April)
b) The paedophile (now known to be Krokowski) may also have seen Madeleine on the beach at Sagres on Monday, as they were there that day
c) The paedophile (now known to be Krokowslk) wanted to abduct Madeleine - and may have done so on Thursday.

NOTES:
1. There is absolutely no credible evidence - apart from this story - that the McCanns were in Sagres that day
2. It is not clear who sourced these stories on 11 & 12 May but suspicion naturally falls on members of the McCann Team
3. The story was the first mention anywhere AFAIK which mentioned a possible abductor

Sometime in May 2007

Forensic lab results come in on hairs found at the Solimar apartment which reveal hair haplotypes the same as those of (a) Jane Tanner and (b) Robert Murat.

NOTE: That raises at the very least a strong possibillity that during the week 28 April - 5 May, both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were at some time in the Solimar apartment where Krokowski was staying.

-------------------

I fully agree that this is a complex story to follow. One of the key things to bear in mind in all this is the uncanny similarity of the decriptions of both Tannerman and Smithman to Krokowski

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

EXTRACT FROM GONCALO AMARAL'S BOOK

QUOTE

POLISH LEAD IN SAGRES

Hundreds of statements continue to be gathered in Vila da Luz. All the people of the area are interviewed: resort employees, tourists, play leaders from the crèches, residents. Most of them will be of no use to us, but none must be neglected.

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised 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 travelling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and put up 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...

UNQUOTE

by Daryl Dixon 06.04.15 21:10

Sometime in May 2007

Forensic lab results come in on hairs found at the Solimar apartment which reveal hair haplotypes the same as those of (a) Jane Tanner and (b) Robert Murat.

NOTE: That raises at the very least a strong possibillity that during the week 28 April - 5 May, both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were at some time in the Solimar apartment where Krokowski was staying.

No, it really does not.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 21:46

Daryl Dixon wrote:Sometime in May 2007

Forensic lab results come in on hairs found at the Solimar apartment which reveal hair haplotypes the same as those of (a) Jane Tanner and (b) Robert Murat.

NOTE: That raises at the very least a strong possibillity that during the week 28 April - 5 May, both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were at some time in the Solimar apartment where Krokowski was staying.

No, it really does not.

Several hairs were found in the Solimar apartment. A few dozen I think.

Either 1 or 2 had the same haplotype as Robert Murat.

Either 1 or 2 had the same haplotype as Jane Tanner.

Let's start with these two propositions:

1. At least one hair COULD belong to Robert Murat

AND

2. At least one hair COULD belong to Jane Tanner

by puzzled 06.04.15 21:58

Tony Bennett wrote:

Fri 4 May

Jane Tanner interviewed. Gives quite elaborate description of abductor. Her description happens to match Krokowski to a tee

Sat 5 May, approx 8am

Krokowski and wife/partner have finished their week's holiday - they fly off from Faro Airport back to Poland via Berlin

Sat 5 May, approx 9am

Nuno Lourenco 'phones up PJ and gives them cock-and-bull story about someone having tried to snatch his daughter, outside a bakery cafe in Sagres, SIX DAYS EARLIER (29 April). He describes the man he saw. His description happens to match Krokowski to a tee and after a quick check by Amaral and his team of certain details supplied by Lourenco in fact turns out to be Krokowski. Goncalo Amaral and his team then make frantic and successful efforts to get the German police to board the plane when it lands and interrogate Krokowski and partner and all the passengers.

UNQUOTE

It's very peculiar. Obviously, Jane Tanner could not have based her description on his. Is it possible he based his on hers. Was it on the news on the night of the 4th? If I recall,Tannerman wasn't publicised until a bit later, but perhaps my memory is playing false.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 22:30

puzzled wrote:
It's very peculiar. Obviously, Jane Tanner could not have based her description on his. Is it possible he based his on hers. Was it on the news on the night of the 4th? If I recall,Tannerman wasn't publicised until a bit later, but perhaps my memory is playing false.

No, there was nothing of any sort on the news.

Let me spell it out in clearer terms - not your fault if you haven't sussed what might have happened here, it is a complex scenario to explain.

Let's first put on the table what we have:

1. An abduction is claimed at 10pm 3rd May

2. That night Jane Tanner says she saw a bloke carrying a child; the next day (4 May) shew makes a statement about it

3. Up pops Lourenco the next morning, just after Krokowski gets on the plane, and says: 'There was this bloke who tried to kidnap my 3-year-old daughter SIX DAYS AGO

4. The descriptions of 'Sagres Man' and 'Tannerman' are remarkably similar - so much so that Amaral practically drops everything to get INTERPOL, the German Police and the Polish police to interrogate everyone on the plane and search Krokowski's flat.

Now you've puzzled (forgive the reference to your username here) over how Lourenco could have known what Hane Tanner has said - or how Tanner would have know what Lourenco was going to say. It seems impossible.

But here is a scenario that could account for it.

Suppose (not thinking of this case), speaking in general terms:

1. Something terrible had happened to your child that you wanted to cover up

2. Suppose you decided to mislead the police and everyone by claiming she had been abducted

3. How good would it be if you had already handed a script to Person A, who gave out a certain description of a bloke carrying a child, and had already handed the same script to Person B, who the very next day would basically confirm that Person A's alleged sighting by giving almost exactly the same description of someone, saying: "Lookl! I saw this bloke at Sagres last Sunday. He was covertly taking pictures of children at the beach. He even took photos of my children. Two hours later, he tried to snatch my daughter away from me. I thought I'd better tell you, what with someone the same age as my daughter nearly having been kidnapped. I did manage to take a pic of his car if that's of any help?"

Now, if you were Goncalo Amaral confronted with a similar set of events, how would you react after you get two matching description of a bloke, a possible suspect, within little more than 24 hours of starting your investigation?

by Daryl Dixon 06.04.15 23:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:Sometime in May 2007

Forensic lab results come in on hairs found at the Solimar apartment which reveal hair haplotypes the same as those of (a) Jane Tanner and (b) Robert Murat.

NOTE: That raises at the very least a strong possibillity that during the week 28 April - 5 May, both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were at some time in the Solimar apartment where Krokowski was staying.

No, it really does not.
Several hairs were found in the Solimar apartment. A few dozen I think.

Either 1 or 2 had the same haplotype as Robert Murat.

Either 1 or 2 had the same haplotype as Jane Tanner.

Let's start with these two propositions:

1. At least one hair COULD belong to Robert Murat

AND

2. At least one hair COULD belong to Jane Tanner

Do you actually understand what a haplotype is? All a haplogroup indicates is a common ancestor, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years ago. It does not mean that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in the Solimar apartment.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 8:34

Daryl Dixon wrote:
Do you actually understand what a haplotype is?

REPLY: Yes.

All a haplogroup indicates is a common ancestor, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years ago.

REPLY: It is not as simple as you suggest. Haplotypes depend on what mutations are discovered within the DNS analysed. And haplotypes are inherited down the maternal line.

It does not mean that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in the Solimar apartment.

REPLY: Thank you for your answer, for some reason you did not wish to answer it directly, but clearly you concede my main point, namely that the hairs could have come from Robert Murat and Jane Tanner.

by Mo 07.04.15 10:32

I'm not getting this? If Jane Tanner and Robert Murrat were both in the Solimar plotting and planning, how come Jane identified Robert Murrat as the person carrying MM to Stuart Prior in the back of a unmarked van? Is Jane related to Robert Murrat in some way? Did Robert Murrat Know he was going to be identified?

by Daryl Dixon 07.04.15 11:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
Do you actually understand what a haplotype is?

REPLY: Yes.

All a haplogroup indicates is a common ancestor, thousands, or even tens of thousands of years ago.

REPLY: It is not as simple as you suggest. Haplotypes depend on what mutations are discovered within the DNS analysed. And haplotypes are inherited down the maternal line.

It does not mean that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in the Solimar apartment.

REPLY: Thank you for your answer, for some reason you did not wish to answer it directly, but clearly you concede my main point, namely that the hairs could have come from Robert Murat and Jane Tanner.

You don't have even the basic understanding of haplotype or haplogroups. If you did, you would not be making these erroneous assumptions. Unfortunately, some people will believe your nonsense and another forum myth: Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in the Solimar apartment together, will grow legs and run roll

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 11:25

Mo wrote:I'm not getting this? If Jane Tanner and Robert Murrat were both in the Solimar plotting and planning, how come Jane identified Robert Murat as the person carrying MM to Stuart Prior in the back of a unmarked van?

REPLY: First, I am not saying that Tanner and Murat were definitely both plotting and planning about Jane Tanner's description of an abductor (4 May) and the following day Lourenco's description of a man we now know to be Krokowski (5 May). I merely say that on the evidence we have available, that is a reasonable hypothesis to consider.

The subsequent identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner on 13 May is indeed one of the abiding mysteries of the case. Allow me to make a few very brief observations on that, though they will repeat things I've said many times in the past when analysing Murat's undoubted involvement in key events from Tuesday 1 May onwards.

In bullet points:

* Of course you are right, how come Jane Tanner described someone to the police on 4 May that looked very different from Robert Murat? (whom she 'identified' on 13 May). I will be as clear as I possibly can on this: I can see no other valid explanation for this contradiction other than that she was deliberately lying on both occasions

* During the 48 hours that followed Murat being made a suspect, three members of the Tapas 7 made claims that they'd seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club late on 3 May: Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachael Oldfield (two of those three later retracted this identification)

* Kate McCann spends an extraordinary four pages of her book (pp. 133-137) attempting (badly IMO) to explain why Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat. On page 135 of her book, Kate explains this thus: "By now, the van windows were steaming up...She told police she could not be sure either way [if it was Murat or not]"

* Amaral is very clear in his book (and I believe him on this point): Jane Tanner was 'adamant' that Murat was the person she had seen carrying a child on 3 May

* In March 2010, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed (by Channel 4 News IIRC) and gave this evasive answer when questioned about Tanner identifying Murat: "Jane Tanner never named Murat". This was true - and yet not true! Maybe she never said on the record that she thought the person she saw was Murat. But, if we trust Amaral's account, clearly she did point him out as the man she said she'd seen.

Is Jane related to Robert Murat in some way?

REPLY: I don't think so.

Did Robert Murat know he was going to be identified?

REPLY: If only we knew! But what I suggest we CANNOT doubt is that there was a deliberate plot to name him, early, as the lead suspect. Jane Tanner's conduct clearly IMO points that way. So does Amaral's evidence that the murky set of MI5 blokes, criminal profilers and others connected to the security services had profiled Murat as '90%' fitting the profile of the likely abductor. Amaral was persuaded, he says, by these 'profilers', to regard Murat with suspicion and place him under surveillance

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 11:32

Daryl Dixon wrote:
You don't have even the basic understanding of haplotype or haplogroups. If you did, you would not be making these erroneous assumptions.

I think you will have to be much clearer than that, @ Daryl Dixon.

Sweeping statements boasting of superior knowledge doesn't cut it.

I have twice put it to you that, at the very least, hairs of the same haplotype as Robert Murat and Jane Tanner mean that they could belong to those two individuals.

Why is extracting a simple concession from you on that like getting blood out of a stone, I wonder?

So I ask for the third and final time: do you concede that it is possible that those hairs were from Robert Murat and Jane Tanner?

Now let me put another suggestion to you, to aid our discussion of this issue.

We have a hair.

It is of the same haplotype as Robert Murat.

Is it more likely that this is a hair belonging to Robert Murat than that it belongs to any other named person?

We have a hair.

It is of the same haplotype as Jane Tanner.

Is it more likely that this is a hair belonging to Jane Tanner than that it belongs to any other named person?

by puzzled 07.04.15 13:43

Tony Bennett wrote:

3. How good would it be if you had already handed a script to Person A, who gave out a certain description of a bloke carrying a child, and had already handed the same script to Person B, who the very next day would basically confirm that Person A's alleged sighting by giving almost exactly the same description of someone, saying: "Lookl! I saw this bloke at Sagres last Sunday. He was covertly taking pictures of children at the beach. He even took photos of my children. Two hours later, he tried to snatch my daughter away from me. I thought I'd better tell you, what with someone the same age as my daughter nearly having been kidnapped. I did manage to take a pic of his car if that's of any help?"

So, does this imply that the McCanns knew this Lourenco person beforehand, or that Jane Tanner knew him?

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 15:27

puzzled wrote:
So, does this imply that the McCanns knew this Lourenco person beforehand, or that Jane Tanner knew him?

What my hypothesis does imply is that Lourenco was in touch with one or more people who hatched the abduction story (NOTE: IF anyone did hatch an abduction story).

Now, which person or persons Lourenco might have been in touch with is open to conjecture.

I think that the most likely person to have known Lourenco before that fateful week in Portugal is Robert Murat, and I say that for these reasons:

1. Lourenco is a native of the Algarve, although now resident in Germany. According to his statement, he still visits his mother who lives in the Sagres-Burgau area. So Murat might well have known him already

2. Lourenco did not make his statement until Saturday 5 May. Murat had been in Faro since about 9am on Tuesday 1 May. Plenty of time for Murat and Lourenco to get together, if they already knew each other

3. Murat lied on 17 separate issues when first interviewed by the PJ on 15 May 2007. It is well within the bounds of possibility that Murat wanted to hide any significant meetings he had on 1, 2 and 3 May, e.g. with Lourenco

4. The Solimar apartment is maintained by the building and property company founded by Robert Murat's father. As Murat had lived on and off in Praia da Luz for many years, it is likley at least that he still had connections with the company

5. The main evidence about Krokowski's movements during the week 28 April to 5 May comes from the manager of the Burgau beach bar. The beach bar is owned by Murat's aunt and uncle, Ralph & Sally Eveleigh

6. Murat's devious conduct when translating for the PJ

7. A hair of Robert Murat's haplotype being found in the Solimar apartment.

As for Lourenco possibly knowing or having met the McCanns, there is no evidence, BUT whenever the question of Robert Murat's prior knowledge of Gerry McCann crops up, I feel we cannot get away from Gerry McCann's nervous, evasive, uncomfortable, snapped reply (accompanied by turning his face away from the interviewer) when asked a straight question as to whether he already knew Murat:

"I am not going to comment on that"

by Mo 07.04.15 15:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mo wrote:I'm not getting this? If Jane Tanner and Robert Murrat were both in the Solimar plotting and planning, how come Jane identified Robert Murat as the person carrying MM to Stuart Prior in the back of a unmarked van?

REPLY: First, I am not saying that Tanner and Murat were definitely both plotting and planning about Jane Tanner's description of an abductor (4 May) and the following day Lourenco's description of a man we now know to be Krokowski (5 May). I merely say that on the evidence we have available, that is a reasonable hypothesis to consider.

The subsequent identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner on 13 May is indeed one of the abiding mysteries of the case. Allow me to make a few very brief observations on that, though they will repeat things I've said many times in the past when analysing Murat's undoubted involvement in key events from Tuesday 1 May onwards.

In bullet points:

* Of course you are right, how come Jane Tanner described someone to the police on 4 May that looked very different from Robert Murat? (whom she 'identified' on 13 May). I will be as clear as I possibly can on this: I can see no other valid explanation for this contradiction other than that she was deliberately lying on both occasions

* During the 48 hours that followed Murat being made a suspect, three members of the Tapas 7 made claims that they'd seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club late on 3 May: Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachael Oldfield (two of those three later retracted this identification)

* Kate McCann spends an extraordinary four pages of her book (pp. 133-137) attempting (badly IMO) to explain why Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat. On page 135 of her book, Kate explains this thus: "By now, the van windows were steaming up...She told police she could not be sure either way [if it was Murat or not]"

* Amaral is very clear in his book (and I believe him on this point): Jane Tanner was 'adamant' that Murat was the person she had seen carrying a child on 3 May

* In March 2010, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed (by Channel 4 News IIRC) and gave this evasive answer when questioned about Tanner identifying Murat: "Jane Tanner never named Murat". This was true - and yet not true! Maybe she never said on the record that she thought the person she saw was Murat. But, if we trust Amaral's account, clearly she did point him out as the man she said she'd seen.

Is Jane related to Robert Murat in some way?

REPLY: I don't think so.

Did Robert Murat know he was going to be identified?

REPLY: If only we knew! But what I suggest we CANNOT doubt is that there was a deliberate plot to name him, early, as the lead suspect. Jane Tanner's conduct clearly IMO points that way. So does Amaral's evidence that the murky set of MI5 blokes, criminal profilers and others connected to the security services had profiled Murat as '90%' fitting the profile of the likely abductor. Amaral was persuaded, he says, by these 'profilers', to regard Murat with suspicion and place him under surveillance

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!

So far I have come to this conclusion and this is OMO! Please remove admin if not suitable.

All four couples locked their children in their respective apartments each night whilst they dined at the TAPAS, including K&G. What Dr would say they have been neglectful if they hadn’t been, after all, the Mc’s were merely acquaintances.

I think the only people who knew about Madeleine were DP & FP (close friends) but not FP’s mother.

G&K didn’t know the others well enough to ask them to put their ‘necks on the line’.

I think it all kicked off on the Tuesday evening when Madeleine woke up, went into the lounge taking Cuddle Cat with her, climbed on the back of the settee and fell off.

Mrs Fenn heard a child crying calling “Daddy! Daddy! Mrs Fenn says the crying stopped when K & G entered the apartment but I think K & G arrived a little later because I think Madeleine had already died.

Cuddle Cat was placed back on Madeleine’s bed (not in a position a child would have their comfort toy I might add).

Madeleine’s PJ’s were changed (the stain on the pj’s).

I think Madeleine was placed in K&G’s room with the ‘blue bag’ and Kate slept with the twins.

I also think Madeleine’s tooth brush was used to scrub into those awkward cracks! What child doesn’t have its own tooth brush!

It was only mentioned on the Thursday evening I think to others in the group that K&G left their patio door unlocked including the crying episode.

I also think they were hoping MO after the check of the children would dash back and say Madeleine was missing.

Matt, Rachel, Jane and Russell were ‘sucked in’ – why would they lie to people back home – I think it was Rachel who contacted somebody from the BBC -would you knowingly lie to people you’ve known for many years if you didn’t think it was true? – G&K used their families to contact SKY etc.

As Gerry was missing on the Wednesday, I think this is when Madeleine was moved. I haven’t worked out yet where Robert Murat comes into this. I do think K&G knew him but the others in the TAPAS group didn’t. In KM’s book she was making excuses, covering up for Jane and clearing RM.

I know it’s a small world but, what a coincidence that the McCann’s hired a car that had previously been hired by somebody from their local golf club back home!

by Rogue-a-Tory 07.04.15 16:39

Interesting thoughts Mo. But one thing I have to disagree with being that Madeleine died from an accident.

Had this been the case GM & KM could have easily wriggled off the hook given the extensive support network we've seen over the last 8 years. There was really no need to create a massive cover story, simply call in some Government, PR and legal favours and as quietly as possible deal with the tragic scenario. Take the lenient punishment on the chin and move forward to recoup the damage to reputation. No need for a protected fairytale, a life full of guilt and the dreaded fear of a future incident that reveals a whole sorry tale of perjury and deceit. No the fairytale was needed for a purpose, to cover up something that's otherwise impossible to sweep under the carpet. My opinion clearly.

by Mo 07.04.15 18:03

Hmmm – was GM well in with the past Government? I know GM attended Government meetings regarding the effects of something on people but I can’t remember what it was right now. There must be hundreds of departmental meetings within Government where many people from the medical profession attend and those from large companies. Wasn’t it Kate’s friend who told Sarah Brown about the abduction and may be dropped in the conversation that GM was working on a project for the Government?

So all this about ‘Gordon phoned Gerry’ and Cherry Blair phone Kate as well – means nothing really. The people in Government saw this pair as upper middle class, upstanding citizens of the UK – which they turned out not to be. Where are they all now? Even Clarrie’s abandoned ship at the minute!

If as you say ‘Take the lenient punishment on the chin and move forward to recoup the damage to reputation’ – this would not work because there lives would be ruined, not only financially but morally. The only reputation they would have is being the parents who neglected their children and as a consequence one of them died. All OMO.

by comperedna 07.04.15 18:28

Nobody in government or out of it can EVER have seen the McCanns as 'upper middle class.' ! That's not snobbery... just factual.

by stillsloppingout 07.04.15 18:30

Too much emphasis is placed on there powerful connections . It was the small media contacts they had that set a chain of events off . It became big ,bandwagons were jumped on etc . And because of high powered people's and organisations ego's that is where we are where we are today ( sadly if Meridith Kirchers father with all his media connections had fought fire with fire Knox would be still inside now , very similar case ). I have followed this case since day one had friends out there from the onset . Know the snapper who did the room shots . Been told by people who are adamant about there alleged activities .
For the record Imo there was no accident , kids have holiday scrapes all the time some resulting in death . There would have been a local outpouring of sympathy .
Imo death due to over sedation . The glue is they were all in on it so they are all guilty . The rest is all exactly as GA States . And our Police are dismissing .

Mo wrote:Hmmm – was GM well in with the past Government? I know GM attended Government meetings regarding the effects of something on people but I can’t remember what it was right now. There must be hundreds of departmental meetings within Government where many people from the medical profession attend and those from large companies. Wasn’t it Kate’s friend who told Sarah Brown about the abduction and may be dropped in the conversation that GM was working on a project for the Government?

So all this about ‘Gordon phoned Gerry’ and Cherry Blair phone Kate as well – means nothing really. The people in Government saw this pair as upper middle class, upstanding citizens of the UK – which they turned out not to be. Where are they all now? Even Clarrie’s abandoned ship at the minute!

If as you say ‘Take the lenient punishment on the chin and move forward to recoup the damage to reputation’ – this would not work because there lives would be ruined, not only financially but morally. The only reputation they would have is being the parents who neglected their children and as a consequence one of them died. All OMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 22:25

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

by MRNOODLES 07.04.15 23:18

"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'.

by jozi 08.04.15 12:35

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.

by jeanmonroe 08.04.15 16:20

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!