Textusa’s article, 30 Oct 2015, on ‘Sagresman’/Wojchiech Krokowski: A good article, excellent, original research, some great conclusions, but some wrong ones

Textusa’s article, 30 Oct 2015, on ‘Sagresman’/Wojchiech Krokowski: A  good article, excellent, original research, some great conclusions, but some wrong ones 

The lies by Nuno Lourenco claiming his daughter was nearly kidnapped (twice in one day) by Wojchiech Krokowski are a very important part of events leading up to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Textusa’s recent article on this gives us further valuable commentary on this subject, so I’m adding a few notes on her article here.   
 
 
A. Introduction

It was back on 4 November last year - over a year ago now - that, after much research on the alleged ‘sightings’ of abductors by Nuno Lourenco, Jane Tanner and the Irish Smith family, I first published a detailed article on CMOMM explaining my thesis that Nuno Lourenco’s claims that Wojchiech Krokowski tried to kidnap his three-year-old daughter was a tissue of lies from start to finish. I said it  was manifestly fabricated. I went on to suggest that the description of Wojchiech Krokowksi was used as a ‘template’ description for the descriptions by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by the Smith family of ‘Smithman’. I stand by all those conclusions.

The article gained a modest amount of interest. It has had 9,700 views and 61 replies to date. Sat the same time, I ran a poll, to test opinion on the forum. So far, 32 have voted; 24 (75%) thought that Nuno Lourenco was lying; just 8 (24%) thought Lourenco was telling the truth.

Five months later, in April this year, Richard D. Hall brought the claim that Nuno Lourenco's statement was a deliberate fabrication to a wider audience with his documentary film, ‘The Phantoms’: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

…in which he identified not only ‘Sagresman’, ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’ as phantoms, but also Operation Grange’s ‘Crecheman’, first revealed on BBC Crimewatch’s McCann Special on 14 October 2013. His film has now been seen by over 100,000 and has received similar critical acclaim to his first film: ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’.

On 25 October, the Sunday People published a major article featuring Wojchiech Krokowski, titled: “Madeleine McCann detectives examine man’s pictures after Sunday People probe”. This finally brought the topic of Wojchiech Krokowski to a much wider audience, and the thread featuring this news story already has over 10,000 views on CMOMM.

On the same date, following publication of the People article, I ran a second poll on whether Lourenco was telling the truth. This time 35 have voted, with 28 (85% of those with an opinion one way or the other) saying he was a liar, and only five insisting he was telling the truth. Two were undecided.

And five days later, on 30 October, Textusa/Maria Santos finally addressed the issue of Krokowski, in a major article titled simply: ‘Sagresman’ which, despite its length, I suggest is well worth a read.  
 
 
B. Points of agreement between Maria Santos and myself and Richard Hall

Maria’s article agrees with myself and Richard Hall on these fundamental points:

1  That Wojchiech Krokowski and Nuno Lourenco are very significant figures in this entire story of the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann

2  That Nuno Lourenco’s story is a tissue of lies from start to finish, and

3  That Nuno Lourenco was working to a script.

I will at the end of this article to points of difference with Maria.


C. The absurdity of Nuno Lourenco’s fabricated story

One thing I tried to emphasise in my original article was how ludicrous Lourenco’s tale was. Maria’s analysis: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

…is fuller than mine was, with many new points added, in her typically minute and detailed analysis of every sentence in Lourenco’s statement. For anyone who still thinks that Lourenco was telling the truth about the two attempted kidnappings in one afternoon, I thoroughly recommend that you read Maria’s article - Sections 2 to 15. 

Here are three paragraphs from her article which summarise what she says:

"We won’t go much into what Nuno Lourenço alleges to have happened on the beach between him and Wojciech Krokowski. We will just say that it is as ridiculous as what he later has to say about what is supposed to have happened in the Praça da República.

“To say he hears three or four clicks coming from a camera held by a strange middle aged man fully clothed on the beach pointing it to his children and do nothing is absurd.

“To say he continues to hear the clicking continuing as the man took “more pictures of 2 children of male gender” sons of a couple next to him and to say he limits his reaction to only looking at said stranger with camera in a “spiteful and aggressive” manner is absurd”.


D. Maria Santos’s visit to Sagres

Another very good reason for reading Maria’s article is that she has actually made a detailed visit to Sagres, to the scenes of the two alleged kidnappings, that is, Mareta Beach and the pastry shop in the village. She has taken many photographs. She has added a series of aerial photographs and diagrams, all of which bring these places to life and help us to visualise the utter impossibility of Lourenco’s story being true. It’s a truly excellent and original bit of research and I congratulate her on it.  


E. Was Nuno Lourenco working to a script?

Maria seems to be in full agreement with myself and Richard Hall on this. For example, she says:

“Note, the potential abductor even makes his life much more difficult by parking in between 2 cars, which means that he has to manoeuvre to get out of there. Go figure. Either quite a stupid abductor, or a very poor script writer. We opt for the latter”.

And then this:

“The man has to start the engine and has to manoeuvre to get out of the parking space, the drive away in a very narrow “S”, the escape route we have shown above and which is the only way out of Praça da República. This would allow for many to see and register the licence plate of the car. A car that the man had rented in his real name so quickly traceable to him, as fact it would prove to be. All of the above done in front of the girl’s father and mother, all in the space (except the “S” bit) of a tennis court.

“Very, very poor scriptwriting we must say.

“We hope that the reader can now picture how we laughed out loud when envisioning the above while sitting in the Marreiros esplanade and discussing this”.

So, we are all in agreement that Nuno Lourenco was working to a script. What Maria doesn’t offer, however, and which is vital to understanding matters relating to Lourenco and Krokowski, is any discussion of who might have written this script and when they did so. Maria is committed, and always has been, to the view that something serious happened to Madeleine after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. She must therefore assume that any script that Nuno Lourenco was given must have been devised only after  something happened to Madeleine.

My own view is that a script, involving a description of Krokowski, was given to both Nuno Lourenco and to Jane Tanner well before the evening of 3 May, and clearly must have involved others who devised these two very significant fabrications. 


F. When was Nuno Lourenco’s car photographed in the square at Sagres?

A major question in all of this is how did Lourenco’s car come to be photographed in the square at Sagres? -  and when was this photograph taken? 

Maria writes: 

“But, one may ask, and one should, if all was as we say it was then how could the rented car have been photographed on the 29th in the Praça da República?

“In our opinion it wasn’t.

“In our opinion it was photographed on the 4th, explaining Nuno Lourenço’s insistence to show when the photograph was taken: “this time he was able to take a photo of the vehicle, which he supplied to the police and that he exhibits now, insisting [fazendo questão] in showing the time, 18H08 of 29/04/2007 as registered on the phone”.

“The first and evident fact is that Nuno Lourenço photographs a vehicle that has been rented by Wojciech Krokowski. And he describes Wojciech Krokowski to perfection. Which means he simply didn’t choose a vehicle randomly. It was that one he wanted to photograph. 

“Second fact is that the photographed car is on Praça da República, meaning that Wojciech Krokowski had been indeed in Sagres and had been in that particular town square”. 

Maria continues: “All that is left to be found is a volunteer to send PJ up this creek.
 
“Nuno Lourenço is chosen. He supposedly is not in Praia da Luz and he has a daughter the same age as Maddie. Wojciech Krokowski parks the car in Praça da República on the 4th and Nuno Lourenço photographs it. The cellphone data is manipulated so [that the] photo is registered as taken on the 29th.” 

Now then, Maria uses the phrase: ‘Nuno Lourenco was chosen’. I agree with that choice of phrase. But it still begs the question of who chose him, was it more than one person who chose him, and when did they do so? 

Maria says that the photo was not taken on Sunday 29 April as claimed by Lourenco. She says that the date and time stamp was altered so as to give the date of 29 April to fit in with the bogus story of the alleged kidnapping at Sagres that day. I agree with all those conclusions, and would add that this reminds us, of course, to the discussion about the ‘Last Photo’ which now suggest that it could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not Thursday 3 May as claimed. 

I part company with Maria however where she says that the photo was definitely taken on Friday 4 May and that Krokowski must have driven it there.  

Assuming that Lourenco was handed a script by a group of plotters (as Maria seems to agree), then anyone could have driven Krokowski’s car to Sagres, not necessarily Krokowski himself. And the photograph could easily have been taken on another day before 4 May. All we can say with certainty is that a photograph of that car must have been in Lourenco’s camera before he ’phoned the police early on 5 May. And that before that, that someone had altered the date and time stamp to read ’29 April’, a matter which he unnecessarily draws the police’s attention to. And that Lourenco was primed to say that Krokowski had attempted to kidnap his daughter twice on that Sunday. 

In fact it is very possible that Krokowksi never went to Sagres at all that week.  

G. Was there a pre-arranged plan?
 
Maria adds weight to the pre-planning involved in Lourenco’s fabrication in these words:
 
“Maddie disappears on the night of the 3rd, Wojciech Krokowski has to leave Portugal early on the 5th and as he’s staying in Burgau and flying out in Faro, so the only day to link him to Nuno Lourenço is the 4th. Reason why Wojciech Krokowski is in Sagres that day.

“But to put PJ really on Wojciech Krokowski’s heels Nuno Lourenço must call the authorities only on the 5th. He has to allow Wojciech Krokowski time to fly out of the country before warning PJ.
 
“If he called PJ on the 4th, the police would quickly track the man down, talk to him and find out he had nothing to reveal and abandon there and then any and all investigation concerning the man. The false lead would not even survive a day.

“We have written before that immediately after Maddie’s disappearance there followed a critical period when it was absolutely required to keep PJ distracted with false leads under the penalty they could focus their investigation on where they shouldn’t, which would be on Praia da Luz and on the people holidaying there in the off-season.

“Once Wojciech Krokowski flew out of the country he would become a false lead that would continue to be followed.

“Long-distance investigations always involve a degree of bureaucracy and time wasted doing it and he would have left the country just before he was to be considered a person of interest to the case.

“There had to be a reason to call authorities and that could only be arranged on the 4th and authorities could only be called on the 5th after he left, as they were”.


I agree with the burden of this analysis, namely that it was necessary to create this additional ‘sighting’ of Krokowski by Lourenco on 4 May.
 
However, I do not agree with Maria’s assumption that ‘Maddie disappears on the night of the 3^rd’, nor do I accept that it is proven that Krokowski was actually in Sagres in 4 May. All we know is that his hired car was photographed there that day, but how it got there, we don’t know.
 
Moreover, Maria does not mention how Lourenco’s description of Krokowski is an almost perfect match with Jane Tanner’s of Tannerman, given to the PJ the day before, nor does she deal with how influential it was on the PJ’s thinking to get two near-identical descriptions of an abductor within less than 24 hours.    
 
But what Maria’s article has done for me is to help make up my mind on the vexed question of whether Krokowski was a willing or unwilling ‘patsy’, a question on which I was undecided. The new material and analysis that Mari offers tips the balance IMO very much towards suggesting that, for whatever reason, Krokowski was aware of this fabricated story and co-operated with it.
 

H. The role of Robert Murat’s uncle, Ralph Eveleigh
 
Here, Maria’s Portuguese helps us to some extent with some translation issues. She writes:
 
“But there is one person pivotal and shows that there is a network behind this story: the bar owner.

“He is the one who provides the independent validation to Nuno Lourenço’s otherwise absurd tale. He is the one that makes the pieces of the story to come together so making it very clear it was all a collective effort.

“The bar owner, we repeat not employee, who nudged PJ into finding the FNAC Chiado CCTV image we believe was Ralph Eveleigh, Robert Murat’s uncle.

“If not him then it would be someone close to him as the Eveleighs owned that bar at one time. It’s possible the person who spoke to police may have been renting from Ralph Eveleigh and be referred to as proprietário (owner) because although a rentor he would effectively be the owner of the business using the rented space. 
 
“We suggest that Nuno Lourenço and Wojciech Krokowski are part of - or connected to - that circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason, one they did all for it not to be known”.
 
Maria here refers to a ‘network’. She places at the centre of this network Ralph Eveleigh, Murat’s uncle. I agree with Maria that there was a ‘network’. I agree that Ralph Eveleigh is at the centre of this network, but I would place his nephew Robert Murat at the cent as well.
 
Maria refers to ‘a circle of people who were there enjoying off-season holidays with a very specific reason’. Sticking to those strict words, I am able to agree with what Maria has written. However, as I understand it, Maria includes within that circle dozens, maybe a hundred or more, guests that week who had all come for the purpose of enjoying an ‘adult’ swinging holiday. I do not see the evidence to support that. But I am able to conceive of a rather smaller network, or ‘circle’, of people with a common interest whose interests were threatened by whatever happened to Madeleine. 
 
I would like to have seen more reference in Maria’s article to Robert Murat himself, for example:
* Hairs of his haplotype and Jane Tanner’s being found at the Sol e Mar apartments where Krokowski was staying

* The building and current maintenance of the Sol e Mar apartments being connected with Murat and his father

* Murat’s rapid departure from England early on Tuesday 1 May   
I. Points of disagreement between Maria Santos and myself and Richard Hall


To summarise the important areas of disagreement between Maria, and myself and Richard Hall, these are:

* I think something serious happened to Madeleine before 3 May

* I suggest there was a plot involving the Lourenco fabrication, the ‘Tannerman fabrication and the ‘Last Photo’ manipulation which was conceived before 3 May

*I think it is possible that Wojcheich Krokowski was never in Sagres at all that week.


J. Grounds for optimism, or not?

Maria ends her piece with these words: “We see no reason to be other than optimistic”. 

The reason for her optimism is set out in these paragraphs, in which she again suggests that a network, or ‘circle’ of swingers is perpetuating the undoubted cover-up that exists in this case:

“The wider circle, the one that really matters, the one that is sustaining - not deciding - the whole edifice of this hoax has finally been told that it is time for them step on the stage and face the lights. And that it’s time for them to face the public’s reaction.

“[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has been told to send the clear message that the time to play cops is over. No more binder paper carrying in the cobbled streets of the Algarve for the cameras. They “are now following a small number of focused lines of inquiry” and we get to know that the “enquiry has not reached a conclusion, there are still focused lines of investigation to be pursued.”

“And the lines are not only focused but that they “still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case.”

“Or in other words, it’s time for the Met to close shop and to start coming to conclusions.

And it’s not forgotten to remind all that “Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues” and that “the Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police”.


I am unable to agree, as Maria suggests, that the Met Police have been ‘told’, in a ‘clear message’, using the Wojcheich Krokowski story in the Sunday People, that ‘the time to play cops is over’ and that it is time for the ‘swinging conspiracy’ to be exposed.

I am unable to agree, based on all that I’ve read in the past 4½ years, that the Met Police and PJ are closely collaborating in a genuine pursuit of the truth and of those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.

I think it is far more probable that the Sunday People story is a prelude to an announcement that in some way Krokowski’s photographs of his week in Praia da Luz confirm, rather than disprove, the claim that Madeleine was abducted.

I still think it is far more likely that this continues to be an expensive charade designed to influence public perception that an abduction occurred.

For that reason I cannot share Maria’s optimism.

 
K. Final word

Section 3 of Maria’s article has a section pointing up two errors in Richard Hall’s ‘Phantoms’. First, she points out that Lourenco is Portuguese, not Spanish as apparently stated in his film. Second, she notes that Richard used the wrong photograph of a grey car when referring to Lourenco’s hired car. The matter at issue was how Lourenco could have photographed Krokowski and his wife in an empty grey car (both the ‘wrong’ car and the ‘right’ one show an unoccupied car). Since Maria fully agrees with Richard’s interpretation that Krokowski’s story is an obvious fabrication designed to put the PJ off the scent, it is somewhat churlish of her to spend a whole long section highlighting these two errors and failing to acknowledge the successful impact Richard has made by putting out his film earlier in the year and bringing what we might now call ‘The Krokowski Deception’ out into the open for the 100,000-plus who have already been enlightened on the Krokowski deception  on the internet.

But my final word is to advise members here to read Maria’s article, and with the helpful analysis and original material she has supplied, (a) to fix in your minds that the Sagres kidnapping story is one almighty hoax, and (b) start thinking exactly who might have been involved in perpetrating that hoax.

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

Related link: CMOMM on facebook
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well that's quite explosive for November 5th !

The CEOP - working across the UK tackling child sex abuse, on and offline.  Representatives for the CEOP were among the first to arrive in PdL during the first week after Madeleine disappeared.  WHY?  The helmsman for the CEOP, one Jim Gamble openly declared his support for the McCanns and propagated the abduction hypothesis, despite the absence of any evidence or intelligence to suggest an abduction.

Precisely the same time that Gerry McCann made his first jaunt back to the UK on 21st May 2007, the CEOP with Jim Gamble at the helm, launched an appeal for holidaymakers in and around PdL to send photographs - was this appeal confined to the UK or did it extend across Europe?  This is how it was reported by the BBC on 22nd May 2007..

Making their appeal for photographs, UK police said they wanted pictures that included strangers in the background, but not family or empty scenic shots.

Photos can be uploaded via a website - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The photographs will be cross-referenced against a database of pictures of UK paedophiles and other criminals, with police able to check 1,000 an hour.

Any relevant information will then be passed on to the Portuguese police.

Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said: "No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important.

"We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May, who have photographs that might help our work."
----------

For the moment Ignoring the fact that said photographs harvested by the CEOP were never forwarded to the PJ, what is Jim Gamble's interest in this case.  It didn't appear to fall within the remit of the CEOPs function so where/how does he fit in this drama?  Why confine his (twas he, not the CEOP by name) exercise to the UK, trying to match photographic footage with know paedophiles and other criminals within the UK? 

See where I'm going with this?

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

A quick résumé..

Early May 2007 (within two days I think) CEOP staff arrive in PdL to support the McCanns.

Mid May 2007 - Jim Gamble then Chief Executive of the CEOP launches plea in UK, urging holiday makers to send their holiday photographs to the CEOP, ostensibly to help the Portuguese investigation.  Whether this was sanctioned by the PJ is a matter of conjecture.  If not, effectively the CEOP were acting illegally by interfering with an active Portuguese investigation.  Whatever, there is no indication that any of the photographic footage was ever forwarded to the PJ.

Early October 2007, after the McCanns had been made Arguidos, the UK press quoted Jim Gamble to have said ..

"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."

[we I assume to mean he and the CEOP]

November 2009 - Minute for Madeleine video - produced by Jim Gamble, CEO of the CEOP

January 2010 - Jim Gamble CEO of the CEOP invites Gerry McCann to deliver the closing speech at a one day conference organised by the CEOP entitled  'Taken: Sexually-motivated child abductions'.

Whether the CEOP had suspected paedophiles in sight or not, they had no jurisdiction nor authority to descend upon Portuguese soil as an independent unit representing the UK police.  There are always procedures that must be followed so, with that in mind, I venture to suggest they were invited to be in attendance at that very early stage of the investigation - possibly with a view to steering the investigation in a particular direction, the same direction that the McCanns themselves were propagating.

Above all else Jim Gamble is a seasoned police officer, he should know instinctively that you do not presume innocence nor guilt without hard evidence, sufficiently robust to be presented before a court of law.  However you prefer to think about evidence v. no physical (?) evidence the fact remains that there was/is no evidence, intelligence or even hint that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a anyone, least of all a paedophile.  The paedophile suggestion was initiated by the McCanns themselves and then propagated by their adherents, not by the PJ.   So again I ask - why did CEOP staff descend on PdL within hours of Madeleine's disappearance and why is it Jim Gamble's life long intention to defend the McCanns at all costs?

It's an acknowledged fact that the majority of cases of child sex abuse are within the family or someone close to the family.  The likelihood of a stranger with a penchant for minors, entering a place of residence with the sole intention of abducting and/or sexually abusing a three year old child, allegedly sleeping in the same room as it's siblings (children on a very short holiday) I suggest extremely remote if not impossible.

From your comments you have clearly been thinking quite a lot which is a good start at least, maybe you should think outside the box to see the clear picture.  Jim Gamble's behaviour as regards the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and his open support for the McCanns is unprofessional and inappropriate at best - suspiciously evil at worst.

@ Verdi "Jim Gamble's behaviour as regards the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and his open support for the McCanns is unprofessional and inappropriate at best "


More than unprofessional, it is panic stricken and guilt ridden in my opinion but who am I to judge.

I am inclined to believe that anyone who defends, befriends, or promotes the McC's (such as making Kate an ambassador for Missing Children) has a dirty great question mark above themselves.

Richard IV wrote:
More than unprofessional, it is panic stricken and guilt ridden in my opinion but who am I to judge.

I can't disagree with that - the question is WHY!

hentie wrote:I am inclined to believe that anyone who defends, befriends, or promotes the McC's (such as making Kate an ambassador for Missing Children) has a dirty great question mark above themselves.

Quite so !

@Tony Bennett wrote: 

"But my final word is to advise members here to read Maria’s article, and with the helpful analysis and original material she has supplied, (a) to fix in your minds that the Sagres kidnapping story is one almighty hoax, and (b) start thinking exactly who might have been involved in perpetrating that hoax."


Taking it back to the beginning, the emphasis has always been abduction and/or paedophilia.  Before the arrival of the PJ Gerry McCann was already hinting at a paedophile connection, he sowed the seed so to speak which rapidly germinated, grew and blossomed into an elaborate orchestrated distraction to divert from the truth - a phantom abductor with evil intent, with the help of Jane Tanner initially, who stole a child in the middle of the night never to be seen or heard of since.  Henceforth..

The arrival in PdL of the CEOP

Yvonne Wrights vague recognition of David Payne on the night of 3rd/4th May.

David Payne's description of MBM - 'Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine...   you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.


Gerry McCann's reflecting on his proud father moment when regarding his daughter Madeleine.

The inappropriate images of MBM released into the public domain.

Widespread implications of paedophilia by the Find Madeleine Campaign, citing numerous European countries and North Africa as prominent locations for organised paedophilia and child trafficking.

Jon Corner's comments about MBM -  'So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that..'

Kate McCann's documented distasteful reference to her little child in the hands of a child molester.

Robert Murat's sexual persuasions.

The Gaspar statements.

Lourenco's elaborate story about a stranger showing an interest in and covertly photographing children on a beach at Sagres, clearly with the intention of abduction.

Two empty CATS files - one in the name of Gerry McCann and one in the name of Kate McCann.

Continued support and assistance by the former Chief Exec. of the CEOP - Jim Gamble.

That's just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's more.

ETA:  A double bluff maybe?