Was Wojcek Krokowski - 'Sagres man with a camera' - the template for both 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman'?

I am propounding a new hypothesis.

I suggest that the description by Nuno Lourenco of the man who he says 'tried to kidnap' his 3-year-old daughter at Sagres was used by Jane Tanner as the basis for 'Tannerman' and by the Smiths as the basis for 'Smithman'.

Lourenco says he saw a man on Sagres beach covertly and then openly photographing children. He says that later the same day, the same man tried to kidnap his daughter. However, he did not report this apparently terrifying incident until Saturday 5 May, several days later. The man was then identified as Wojcek Krokowski, a Polish man from Warsaw who had holidayed with his wife at the Solimar apartments, Burgau, from Saturday, 28 April to Saturday, 5 May 2007.

There are a great number of strange aspects about this sighting. For now, I'll just mention three of them:   

On what date did this incident with the man on the beach with a camera occur?

Dr Goncalo Amaral in his book says it occurred Thursday 26 April. The Daily Telegraph report of 12 May 2007 says it was Monday 30 April, the same day as the McCanns were there. But Nuno Lourencos’s statement says it occurred on Sunday 29 April. That hardly gives us confidence that this story is true.

Did the McCanns actually visit Sagres, as claimed in newspaper reports?

It was an integral part of the stories in a number of British mainstream newspapers on 11 and 12 May 2007. The press coverage clearly pointed the finger at this man - possibly a paedophile - with a camera. It was stated as a fact in these articles that the McCanns were on Sagres beach on Monday 30 April and openly stated that this man with a camera might have seen Madeleine that day amnd decided to abduct her. It lent dramatic extra weight to the claim that Madeleine had been abducted. Yet in Dr Kate McCann’s account of events that week in her 2011 book, ‘madeleine’, there is no mention of any visit to Sagres, let alone a ‘day trip’. Also, all three of their children were signed in and out of the crèche at the Ocean Club that day. 

Why was this apparently frightening incident not reported straightaway to the police?

Lourenco says the incident took place on Sunday 29 April. He did nothing to report it. He says he saw the man again in Friday 4 May at a car rentals office in Sagres. He says he spoke to his wife about seeing the man again. His wife mentioned the abduction of Madeleine McCann. His wife suggested that he should report the incidents concerning this man to the police. He only did so, however, the following morning, by which time Krokowski and his wife were already in mid-air on a flight from Faro to Berlin. There is no evidence that Krokowski is a paedophile and I cannot find any evidence of any other witnesses who back up Lourenco's story about the two incidents at Sagres.

The description of Wojcek Krokowski = the man on the beach with a camera = 'Sagres man'  
 
The description given by Lourenco of Krokowski is of great interest, as it is remarkably similar to those given by Jane Tanner of 'Tannerman' and the Smiths of 'Smithman'.

Here is the description, direct from his statement, which can be viewed here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

1. masculine,       
2. Caucasian                                                                                                                    
3. with Latin colouring,                                                                                                      
4. curly dark brown hair                                                                                                    
5. that ran to his neck                                                                                                       
6. and in a pony tail                                                                                                         
7. between 35/40 years of age,                                                                                       
8. of medium complexion,                                                                                                
9. and around 170 to 175 cm in height.

He did not have any distinguishing marks or signs and did not wear rings or other jewellery.

10. He wore a cream coloured beach hat,                                                                      
11. He also wore dark glasses                                                                                         
12. He wore cloth trousers                                                                                             
13. and a coat/jacket of the same material                                                                    
14. which was cream coloured                                                                                       
15. and was almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously.                       
16. His shoes, he thinks, were dark brown…                                                                
17. …and of the type that need to be shined or polished [i.e. leather].

The uncanny similarities between Sagres man, Tannerman and Smithman

Here they are:

1.      FACE

Tannerman:   Dark-skinned individual, couldn’t see his face

Sagres (Polish) man:  Caucasian with Latin colouring…’of medium complexion’

Smithman: Difficult to see his face in the dark, didn’t appear to have a beard or moustache


2.       AGE

Tannerman:  Aged 35-40

Sagres (Polish) man:  Between 35-40 years of age

Smithman:  Martin Smith says 35-40, Peter Smith says ‘about 35, maybe older’, while Aoife Smith suggests ‘20-30’

 
3.       HEIGHT

Tannerman:   About 1.7m tall (5’ 7”)

Sagres (Polish) man:  Around 170 to 175 cm in height (5’ 7” - 5’ 9”)

Smithman: Martin and Peter Smith say he was about 1.75m to 1.80m tall (5’ 9” - 5’11”); Aoife Smith says 1.7 to 1.75m (5’ 7” - 5’ 9”)

 
4.        HAIR

Tannerman:  Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back

Sagres (Polish) man:  Curly, dark brown hair that ran down to the back of his neck, and in a pony tail

Smithman: All the Smiths say his hair was brown and shortish; Aiofe says his hair colour was ‘light brown’, ‘thick’ and ‘long on top‘

 
5.        JACKET

Tannerman:  Wearing a dark ‘duffy’ sic type jacket (but not that thick), a sort of anorak, of the same material as his trousers

Sagres (Polish) man:  He wore a cream-coloured cloth coat/jacket, of the same material as his trousers

Smithman: The man was wearing a dark jacket. Martin Smith couldn’t remember what top the man was wearing when first questioned, but later ‘remembered’ that he wore ‘a darkish top, maybe a jacket or blazer’

 
6.        TROUSERS

Tannerman: He was wearing linen type ‘chino style’ cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, like ‘corticite’, of the same material as his jacket

Sagres (Polish) man: He wore cloth trousers, of the same material as his jacket 

Smithman: The man was wearing light-coloured trousers. Aoife Smith says: “beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen…”. Martin Smith says: “He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut…”

 
7.        SHOES

Tannerman: His shoes were dark in colour, classic type

Sagres (Polish) man:  His shoes, he thinks, were dark brown…and of the type that need to be shined or polished [i.e. leather]. In his book, Dr Goncalo Amaral says they were ‘shoes of a classic type’

Smithman: (no comments made)

 
8.        BUILD

Tannerman: Slim physical appearance

Sagres (Polish) man:  (no comment made)

Smithman: The Smiths all say ‘average build’, except that Martin Smith says: “He had an average build, a bit on the thin side”

 

9.     NOT A TOURIST
 
Tannerman:  By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a   tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".

Sagres man: (no comment made, but Dr Goncalo Amaral writes in his book (Chapter 3): “The stranger did not look like a tourist” 

Smithman: The man didn’t look like a tourist. The Portuguese police report Martin Smith’s evidence on this point as follows says: “Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing”.


Then there is the Robert Murat connection to this story, which may or not be relevant

Krokowski and his wife stayed in the Solimar apartments that week, which were apparently built by Robert Murat's father and are still maintained by his father's company

The main witness to Krokwoski's activities that week is a staff member who recalls them dining at his Burgau beach bar several times, talking about football, discussing Portuguese and Brazilian music, and taking a trip to an Algarve shopping centre. The beach bar is said to be owned by Robert Murat's uncle, Ralph Eveleigh - who of course hosted the now-fabled meeting on 13 November 2007 between Team Murat (Murat, his mother, aunt, uncle and lawyer Francisco Pagarete) and Team McCann (Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy and the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer, Director of Madeleine's Fund and top-ranking Freemason, Edward Smethurst)    

This is what Dr Goncalo Amaral says in his book, 'The Truth About A Lie' (Anna Esse's translation) about Sagres man ( = Wojcek Krokowski):

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

“Information from Sagres tells us that an individual was caught in the act of taking photos of several children on Mareta beach and in particular of a little [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], 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.

“We circulate a photo - which we obtained thanks to a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in a Lisbon shopping mall - amongst holiday-makers, clients and employees of Praia da Luz restaurants. Fruitlessly. Nobody saw them. On the other hand, employees of the restaurant they usually went to, in the Burgau-Budens area, remember them".

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

Point 1:  Was this the intention all laong of the 'sighting' of Wojcek Krokowski, the alleged paedophile with a camera on Sagres beach? To trap Amaral and his team into thinking: "A-ha! Jane Tanner also saw a bloke that didn't look like a tourist, brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and shoes of classic style? Is this our abductor?"  And of course Sagres man also provided the raw material for a raft of stories in the British mainstream press on 11 & 12 May about 'the man with a camera who might have seen Madeleine on the beach on Monday 30 April'. (Except that the McCanns weren't there).

Point 2: The 'restaurant in the Burgau-Budens area', whose employees remembered Krokowski and his wife, was apparently owned by Robert Murat's uncle, Ralph Eveleigh, and the couple were staying in the Solimar apartments, built and maintained by Robert Murat father's company. And I think the hairs of  Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were found at the Solimar apartments. All just a coincidence?       

As V says in V for vendetta ~  "There are no coincidences, Delia... only the illusion of coincidence."

I have been re-examining the statement by Nuno Loruenco about what he says happened at the beach on Sagres in the late afternoon. Actually, he says there was a second and even more worrying incident outside a pastry shop in Sagres about an hour-and-a-half later.

To come to the point, I want to know if others here think that the account he gives is credible.

Here are my notes on the two incidents:

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


Nuno Lourenco tells his police interviewer, Inspector Joao Carlos, that he is a Portuguese citizen who emigrated to Germany 14 years previously (1993). He has a girl aged nearly four and a boy almost three. He says that he was on holiday with his wife and children from 22 April to 13 May and staying with his mother in Sagres

He goes on to give these details [see his full statement on Pamalam’s site, link in th OP]:
On Sunday 29 May 2007, he says he had just returned his rental car, and walked to the nearby Mareta beach in Sagres, arriving there about 3.00pm. They all went to the ‘play area’. He says that between 4.00pm and 5.00pm, he noticed a man holding a small silver-coloured camera who was sneakily taking pictures of children on the beach by clicking a camera held near his waist. Lourenco even tells us that he was close enough to ‘hear the clicking of his camera’.

The man (subsequently identified as Krokowski) went on to ‘take three or four pictures’ of his children. He then took pictures of two more boys, aged about 9 and 5, who were close by and playing with a ball, who were from a Sages family he already knew.
In the English translation of Nuno Lourenco’s statement it states that he began staring at this man with a camera ‘indignantly and aggressively’ - but apparently he did not actually confront him. Lourenco says that before leaving the area, the man he sneakily took more pictures of all four children, and of other children, this time with a camera held to his eye. Furthermore, says Lourenco, he also got on his knees in the sand to take additional photos.   

After this, says Nuno Lourenco, the man left and he ‘did not see the individual and did not again think about the incident’. In particular, we might note that it appears that it did not even occur to Lourenco at this point to think of contacting the police.  
He then says that ‘At around 6.00pm - 6.30pm, it got a bit colder, so they left the beach and headed toward the promenade to buy sweets at a pastry shop called Marreiros, about a quarter of a mile from the beach, in Sagres’. He and his family sat down and he was drinking coffee, when he spotted the same man ‘passing the pastry shop’ and ‘heading for the edge of the promenade’. He then adds that the man ‘entered the shop but left immediately’ and ‘was constantly looking at children’.

Then Lourenco says this in his statement [English translation]: “As the man left [the pastry shop], his three-year daughter began racing around the tables as they were ready to leave. Seeing this, the man began to walk rapidly toward Lourenco’s daughter as the family were [leaving the shop]. By chance, his daughter stopped next to him as the man appeared to try to stop them from leaving. The man went into the pastry shop once again and left without buying anything. He then went to the back of a local kiosk”.
Lourenco then says that he has ‘no doubt’ that the man ‘intended to abduct his daughter’. So, he says, he got out his mobile ’phone and began taking various pictures of the man. He did so ‘in front of the man’, so that he would ‘clearly see that he was taking pictures of him’.

Then Lourenco explains to Inspector Carlos that the ’photo didn’t come out on his mobile ’phone because ‘he had his finger on the camera lens’. Now then, how many times does a mobile ’phone photo fail because of a finger over ‘its lens’? Not many, I would suggest. This is surely another part of his story that makes us pause and question what Lourenco is saying.    
Lourenco goes on to explain that the man ‘had left the kiosk area’ and he noticed that he was now sitting behind the wheel of a newish grey Renault car. Lourenco - who must have taken a biro or pencil down to the beach with him and some paper - now tells us that he ‘noted the registration number’ on a ‘piece of paper’. A ‘few minutes  later’, he tells us that he threw this piece of paper into a rubbish bin, or flung it on the ground (he can’t remember which) as he ‘didn’t think it would be of any further use’.

And so here we have another two points of interest. Once again, despite this apparent dramatic attempt to snatch his three-year-old daughter, he still doesn’t even think of contacting the police, nor does he bother to keep the registration number of the car into which the man has driven off. More matters that surely increase one’s doubt about the entire tale. 
Then we are told this: “Lourenco saw that there was a woman in the passenger seat. He managed to take a photo of the car, which his camera said was taken at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April”. At least he didn’t have his finger in front of the lens this time. The car is said to have driven off ‘in the direction of the Sagres Fortaleza’.

It`s a fact that Lourenco never mentioned any of this to the police until Saturday, 5 May - a full six days after he says that this probable  paedophile tried to snatch his daughter.

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

Is the above a true story?

Don't believe a word of it. Sounds like a fantasist after 5 mins of attention.

Any chance of Sagres man & company having been the Mccs?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Don't believe a word of it. Sounds like a fantasist after 5 mins of attention.

@ Smokeandmirrors

What do you think of the possibility that he was set up to do this?

Look at these timings:

1. Sagres incident said to be 29 April

2. Madeleine reported missing around 10.00pm 3 May

3. Timeline that evening says Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child about 9.15pm that evening

4. May 4 - Tanner interviewed by police, describes man with dark jacket, light cloth trousers, classic-style shoes, 5' 7" - 5' 9" tall, didn't look like a tourist' etc.

5. Early on 5 May - and six days after the incident - Nuno Lourenco pops down to local police station, gives account of suspicious man at Sagres with light cloth jacket and trousers and classic-style shoes, '5' 7" - 5' 9" tall, 'didn't look like a tourist' etc. (by which time Krokowski is back on the plane to Poland)

6. Amaral leaps to the conclusion it is the same man - says so in his book, Chapter 3.


The add to the above mix:

A. Krokowskis staying in Solimar apartments, built and maintained by fatfher of Robert Murat and his company

B. Hairs probably of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner found there 

C. Main information about Krokowski comes from employee of Sagres beach bar, which is owned by Murat's uncle, Ralph Eveleigh

E. Eveleighs' villa searched by Amaral

F. Eveleighs' villa used for high summit meeting between Murat Team and McCann Team 13 November 2007   


[See OP and 2nd post for more information]

Portia wrote:Any chance of Sagres man & company having been the Mccs?

Sagres man is Wojcek Krokowksi - no doubt about that

The bloke reporting his sighting (six days later) is German resident Nuno Lourenco 'visiting his mother in Sagres'

McCanns never mention any visit to Sagres that week - that story only emerges in the British press from 'a source' 

Lourenco's story seems to lack credibility on all sorts of levels

Kate says very little about April 30th in her book, all that she does say is that she visited Baptista supermarket with Jane to stock up on a few essentials, and that they all ate at the Tapas bar that night.

Hmmmm, thanks for that Tony, I'd forgotten about Solimar being where he was staying. Now that I can recall a bit of that, it does re-focus ones mind on some of the back-story, also reminds one of the curious blue eyeshadow picture with a similar background as the balcony in Burgau.

And what a co-incidence about the 29th. Looks almost like there was a plan A and a plan B. Also cannot recall if any of the deleted phone traffic was from the 29th (my memory is like a sieve only with more holes) - if so, then it adds to the significance of the "event".

All a bit "convenient", isn't it? I'm glad to be reminded of this, once again it shows the depth of the rot in this case.

The Crimewatch "debunking" of Tannerman proves SY don't want this earlier event to be remembered.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Hmmmm, thanks for that Tony, I'd forgotten about Solimar being where he was staying. Now that I can recall a bit of that, it does re-focus ones mind on some of the back-story, also reminds one of the curious blue eyeshadow picture with a similar background as the balcony in Burgau.

And what a co-incidence about the 29th. Looks almost like there was a plan A and a plan B. Also cannot recall if any of the deleted phone traffic was from the 29th (my memory is like a sieve only with more holes) - if so, then it adds to the significance of the "event".

All a bit "convenient", isn't it? I'm glad to be reminded of this, once again it shows the depth of the rot in this case.

The Crimewatch "debunking" of Tannerman proves SY don't want this earlier event to be remembered.

On April 29th the McCanns ate Breakfast at the Millienium restaurant, after that they ate at their own apartment. They started leaving the apartment using different doors. I also find it odd that whilst the rest of the group ate lunch on the Paynes' balcony, the McCann took lunch in their own apartment.

The alleged incident on Sagres beach involving Warsaw man Wojcek Krokowski is said by Nuno Lourenco to have happened in the afternoon of Sunday 29 April.

Mind you, 26 April, 28 April and 30 April have also been given for this incident - a curious fact in itself.

Yet another mystery is why Nuno Lourenco:

* didn't report the man photographing hios children on Sagres beach to the police

* didn't report a second incident (later that day) to the police and

* threw away a piece of paper with Krokowski's rented car number-plate on it.

Here is an analysis of what Lourenco claimed was a THIRD sighting of Krokowski, on Friday 4 May.

Remember that Krokowski and his wife were on a week's holiday staying at the Solimar apartments (built and maintained by Robert Murat's father) from Saturday 28 April to Saturday 5 May. They flew back to Warsaw via Berlin very early on 5 May:

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

According to Lourenco'  account, he did nothing about the two incidents at Sagres, one of them, he claims, involving the attempted kidnapping of his 3-year-old daughter.

Lourenco tells us about a further incident, which he says happens on Friday 4 May - the day after Madeleine was reported missing.  

Reporting this incident to the police the following day, Inspector Carlos records what Lourenco told him as follows:

“Yesterday, 4^th May [Friday], he went to a rental car agency. The name of the agency was TURINFO, and is located in Sagres. It was around 1.00pm. The employee present told them to return at 1.30pm, 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 out of the bar, he saw the same man [as on the previous Sunday], dressed in exactly the same fashion, but without a hat. This man was alone and on foot and then left the area - and he didn’t see him again, nor did he see his car.

“Upon returning home”, says Inspector Carlos, [Lourenco] recounted the story to his wife, who told him to go to the police as they had already heard about the disappearance of Madeleine. Lourenco’s daughter bears a striking resemblance to photos of Madeleine.
“That very morning [5^th May], Lourenco contacted the police and told them what had happened. Of the vehicle registration plate, he only remembered the partial plate numbers AV and 67”.


So we are asked to believe the following:

• That it had not occurred to Lourenco to contact the police before 4^th May
  
• That, as he went to a car rental agency, he happened to see the same man in a different location, and
  
• That only after his wife mentioned Madeleine McCann did she - and he - think of contacting the police.
  

Even then, it looks as though he delayed visiting the police until the following day [5^th May], by which time Krokowski and his wife, plus camera, were already aboard a flight from Faro to Berlin.

My question once again.

How credible are Lourenco's tales?

Good posts Tony!
Its just too coincidental that its always a case of; just missed, just left, didn't think important, reporting incident too late etc., which makes the whole McScamPlan so unbelievable.

Imo. It is sad, but very necessary not to eliminate anyone connected - (and the number of people seem to be legion) - with this case, however tenuously.

Snifferdog wrote:Good posts Tony!

It's just too coincidental that its always a case of; just missed, just left, didn't think important, reporting incident too late etc., which makes the whole McScamPlan so unbelievable.

Imo. It is sad, but very necessary not to eliminate anyone connected - (and the number of people seem to be legion) - with this case, however tenuously.

(bit  in bold)  Exactly right!

Especially crecheman - 6 years late!

Perhaps you have pipped TM & OG inc.
ETA. I believe we cannot take anything we hear re. Sightings etc at face value, just like the crèche records, or that Madeleine was around on the third. I believe Madeleine died (quote: Bernard H Howe), at the beginning of the holiday.

And don't forget the TM version of events on Thursday morning, 3rd May. When Kate was allegedly hanging around the grassy play area after her tennis lesson, watching Gerry on court and chatting to Russell 'who I'd found there.'

According to Kate in her book on page 64 another guest appeared with a video camera to record his three-year-old playing mini-tennis.

"He looked a little embarrassed and laughing remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It lead to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles. I remember Russell talking about how everything had got a bit out of hand, that these days people were so untrusting you hardly dared speak to children you didn't know. What he was saying was that the world had become paranoid: that he wanted his daughters to grow up with confidence and a sense of freedom. The other dad and I chipped in with our views - I mentioned not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools along longer - and we agreed that it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children. It would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation."

I have written about this very peculiar account of a conversation at length before. However, I think it demonstrates quite well the sheer perversity, deception and double-speak that typifies the TM mind-set - especially KM and GM.

The conversation as described by Kate always struck me as very peculiar indeed as I have never once met a parent who was embarrassed about recording their child engaging in an activity and I cannot imagine a 'normal' parent claiming that filming his child made him feel like a dirty old man.

The conversation simply didn't ring true. So at first I assumed it had been fabricated by TM to flag up to the reader the paedophile angle. And to somehow 'normalize' the (perverted, imo) concept that other parents found something embarrassing about filming their children. When this was not actually the case.

Then I read some of the police statements and a very different version of events emerges. Although quite a bit may have been lost in translation and some of the accounts are confusing, it would appear that what really happened was that the fellow guest and holiday-maker Nigel approached members of TM - specifically Russell it would seem - who were filming his three year old daughter playing mini-tennis - and told them that their filming of his daughter in that manner was was making him feel uncomfortable.

It would appear that the police questioned Russell over this video-recording incident, finding it suspicious no doubt. And Russell, imo, ties himself in knots as presumably he wants to distance himself from the incident. The police must have pushed him about it, presumably to get him to admit that it was him who was filming Nigel's daughter and Nigel had not liked it.

Russell must have got into quite a dither because he ends up stating that he does not remember seeing a video-recorder!

By the time Kate's book appears, TM have obviously put a few more ducks in a row. And they have decided to 'spin' the version of events to the extent of claiming that it was Nigel who was filming his own daughter with a video-recorder and and that 'filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

Rather than pretending that the video-recorder did not exist, they have placed it into Nigel's hands. As well as placing some different words into his mouth.

Nice try, TM! Very nice try! 

But I think you will find that it was indeed you lot  who were being seen as 'dirty old men.' And, it would appear, at least one of you was caught red-handed filming another guest's three year old playing mini-tennis in such a way that the guest felt uncomfortable enough to  approach you and say something.

TM are so sneaky, so deceptive, so duplicitous, so sly.....so .......psychotic......

(And WHY did TM feel the need to video-record a complete strangers child playing mini-tennis on Thursday morning?  They all had their own children at the club all week taking part in activities and playing. So why not video-record your own children on that holiday? Not a single video-recording of any of TM's children. Practically no photos at all from that holiday. Very, very odd.)

And yet, despite the MASSIVE RED FLAGS, the obvious lies, deception and spin, Operation Grange are still promoting a theory that Madeleine's disappearance was because of a bungled burglary......

So the burglar is disturbed, panics, takes 'nothing of value' (according to the McCann family nothing of value was taken) apart from Madeleine. 

Yeah, right.

I mean, WTF is going on??

Lest we forget...so important was this video fest that everyone wanted to be in the conversation

From RO'B Leicester Rogatory

"1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’?”
Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him, 
 
1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were?”
 
Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael"

Not forgetting others --- for example MO

"No, I mean, there was nobody that gave you a particularly bad feeling. Erm, I mean, there was one incident where somebody, and I think Russell mentioned, might have mentioned it, about somebody that was videoing and doing pictures of kids, and I remember being there at the time and the video and everything and was sort of speaking to them, but I don't, you know, I didn't really know them, I didn't get any particular vibes, they had children, they had a video camera"................................[except - he was sailing at the time!!]

j.rob wrote:...I read some of the police statements...Although quite a bit may have been lost in translation and some of the accounts are confusing, it would appear that what really happened was that the fellow guest and holiday-maker Nigel approached members of TM - specifically Russell it would seem - who were filming his three year old daughter playing mini-tennis - and told them that their filming of his daughter in that manner was was making him feel uncomfortable.

It would appear that the police questioned Russell over this video-recording incident, finding it suspicious no doubt. And Russell, imo, ties himself in knots as presumably he wants to distance himself from the incident. The police must have pushed him about it, presumably to get him to admit that it was him who was filming Nigel's daughter and Nigel had not liked it.

Russell must have got into quite a dither because he ends up stating that he does not remember seeing a video-recorder!

By the time Kate's book appears, TM have obviously put a few more ducks in a row. And they have decided to 'spin' the version of events to the extent of claiming that it was Nigel who was filming his own daughter with a video-recorder and and that 'filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

Rather than pretending that the video-recorder did not exist, they have placed it into Nigel's hands.

I recall you posting this and if I may say so I found your analysis very persuasive.

The claim that Madeleine had been snatched by a paedophile was raised by a chorus of voices in those early days - for example a very early article in the Daily Telegraph by pervert and self-professed expert on sex offenders, Ray Wyre, of Elm House Gues House notoriety.

I think the Sagres story may have been invented and passed to the PJ on 5 May to add significant weight to the 'snatched by paedophile' theory - and Wojcek Krokowski was a real bloke they could pin it on.

But only when Krokowski's plane was already flying over the Iberian peninsula on its way to Berlin...

TB:
 
‘I suggest that the description by Nuno Lourenco of the man who he says 'tried to kidnap' his 3-year-old daughter at Sagres was used by Jane Tanner as the basis for 'Tannerman' and by the Smiths as the basis for 'Smithman'.’
 
Tony, the timeline for the statements is the wrong way round for this to work, but could have ‘helped’ NL with his description if leading questions were asked in his interview.
 
Although they were interviewed by different inspectors, if he had JT’s statement & description he could have used it to lead NL.
 
The other way around it would have been if the initial contact from NL had given a description but not been formally ‘statementised’, but as JT’s statement was fairly early on the 4^th this is probably unlikely.
 
JT 4^th May 2014 @ 11.30
 
NL 5^th May 2014 @ 16.30

Doug D wrote:TB:
 
‘I suggest that the description by Nuno Lourenco of the man who he says 'tried to kidnap' his 3-year-old daughter at Sagres was used by Jane Tanner as the basis for 'Tannerman' and by the Smiths as the basis for 'Smithman'.’
 
Tony, the timeline for the statements is the wrong way round for this to work, but could have ‘helped’ NL with his description if leading questions were asked in his interview.
 
Although they were interviewed by different inspectors, if he had JT’s statement & description he could have used it to lead NL.
 
The other way around it would have been if the initial contact from NL had given a description but not been formally ‘statementised’, but as JT’s statement was fairly early on the 4^th this is probably unlikely.
 
JT 4^th May 2014 @ 11.30
 
NL 5^th May 2014 @ 16.30

Thanks very much Doug D, it's obvious I've not explained myself clearly or fully .

Here for example is a possible scenario:

1. Something serious happens to Madeleine earlier in the week.

2. Those involved plan an abduction hoax for Thursday.

3. They need a phantom abductor.

4. They decide to use Wojcek Krokowski as the basis for the 'phantom abductor', focussing on the unusual clothes he was wearing: 'cream-coloured trousers, didn't look like a tourist' etc.

5. They plan for Nuno Lourenco to make a claim that Krokowksi tried to abduct his child at Sagres on 29 April.

6. The agreed description is written out for both Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner to use.

7. The abduction alarm is raised at 10.00am on 3 May

8. The next day, 4 May, Jane Tanner gives a description based on Krokowski

9. The day after (and on the pretext that he saw Krokowski again on 4 May), early on 5 May, when Krokowski is already on the plane from Faro to Berlin, Lourenco piles in, pitches up at the PJ offices, and tells them about a kidnap attempt 6 days earlier

10. The desired result is achieved. The PJ think Krokowski has abducted Madeleine, they contact Interpol and the German and Polish Police, police surround the plane in Berlin when it lands, interview Krokowski and other passengers (nothing of interest found), Krokowskis fly off to Warsaw, arrive at their flat, 20 minutes later there is a  loud knock at the door by Polish police officers, they ask them questions and search their flat from tip to bottom (nothing of interest found)

11. Over a year later, when Dr Amaral writes his book, he still suspects Krokwoski of maybe being involved; he clearly believes that Lourenco's tales re Krokowski are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; he asks himself if maybe he was part of a Polish paedophile ring - and expresses regret that the Polish police didn't seize his camera and make further enquiries ('The Truth About A Lie', Chapter 3).

++++

The foundation-stone for this scenario is that there was a plan before 3rd May to use Krokowski (or his description) as the phantom abductor of Madeleine McCann.

It is only a possible scenario, based on extensive research of Sagres Man, Tannerman, Smithman and Crecheman

aquila wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Thanks very much Doug D, it's obvious I've not explained myself clearly or fully .

Here for example is a possible scenario:

[SNIPPED]

I find this too far out Tony.

OK, but...

1. How else do you explain the remarkable similarity between the descriptions of Tannerman (4 May) and Sagres Man/Krokowsli (5 May)?

AND

2. Do you think that Lourenco is giving a truthful account of the claimed kidnapping of his 3-year-old daughter? (see up the thread)

A bridge too far for me as well I think Tony, but having said that NL/WK/Solimar Buildings, Burgau,/ RM & JT possible connections/ Robert Murat's Uncle Ralph Eveleigh providing the CCTV footage of the couple (WK & partner) visiting his [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]/Royal Blue Solimar balcony chairs(as in eye make up photo?)/and more connections no doubt.
 
Who knows? Nothing in this case is ever what it seems.
 
Only thing with the descriptions is it could be just about anyone. I would suggest beige/light coloured trousers to be the norm on holiday, similarly cloth type jacket, sun glasses, average height, longish hair, etc. Could be me!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

 
As for NL’s statement, I agree it looks to be a bit of a retro-story, although the events could have generated the recollections. I think the ‘abduction’ bit is probably wishful thinking, as if you seriously thought you had just prevented your child from being kidnapped, there is no way you would just throw away the car number and not inform the police.

eta 'didn't look like a tourist' - had a camera & looks like a tourist to me in the above photo.

Doug D wrote:eta 'didn't look like a tourist' - had a camera & looks like a tourist to me in the above photo.

...don't forget the 'classic shoes'

Tony Bennett @ Tue Nov 04 2014 11:18 am

Sorry to digress, it will only use use up small space so I'm sure all will forgive me for going off topic for a wee moment.

　

Your mention of the beach bar at Burgau jogged my memory about the forensic samples collected from Aparthotel Sol e Mar, Burgau, in particular I refer to the hairs that were analysed and reported as being identical to that of Robert Murat and Jane Tanner or from a person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.

　

It would be appreciated if you please direct me to where this has been discussed on the forum previously. Thank you.

What went on at the Solimar / Sol e Mar apartments at Burgau is hardly off-topic, Gollum.

Try these two thread for starters:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Otherwise search under 'Burgau'

Tony Bennett wrote:What went on at the Solimar / Sol e Mar apartments at Burgau is hardly off-topic, Gollum.

Try these two thread for starters:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Otherwise search under 'Burgau'

Thanks a million, I will browse at my leisure.  This area of the case has intrigued me forever but I hesitate to comment without some detailed knowledge.  I seem to miss a lot by not following the forum regularly.

Gollum wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:What went on at the Solimar / Sol e Mar apartments at Burgau is hardly off-topic, Gollum.

Try these two thread for starters:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Otherwise search under 'Burgau'

Thanks a million, I will browse at my leisure.  This area of the case has intrigued me forever but I hesitate to comment without some detailed knowledge.  I seem to miss a lot by not following the forum regularly.

If you look at Richard Hall's documentary film, he actually drove into the grounds of the large villa owned by Murat's aunt and uncle, Ralph and Sally Eveleigh, and filmed there. Not sure which episode though. They allegedly owned the beach bar where Sagres Man=Krokowski and his wife spent much of their time (when not - allegedly - snapping pics of young girls on Europe's westernmost, most exposed and windy beach - not the place or the time of year to find lots of infants to photograph)

Tony - perhaps Nuno Lourenco saw something and reported it including a description to his hosts at the time but not to the police. His hosts then both passed it on to the McC's and encouraged him to report it to the police. He might have messed up /added a few details after the passage of time by the time he reported it. So Nuno Lourenco need not have been a co-conspirator for your theory to work.