KROKOWSKI - 2: Nuno Lourenco's account of how Wojchiech Krokowski nearly kidnapped his child

I am glad that today the Sunday People has highlighted the important character in the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann: Wojchiech Krokowksi.

I would like your help please in conducting a forensic examination of the account Nuno Lourenco gives of how his 3-year-old daughter was - allegedly - nearly kidnapped by the man we now know as Wojchiech Krokowski.  

I will add a poll to gauge opinion. I would find it very helpful if you could at least give your reasons for however you have voted.

At issue is whether Lourenco's statement is true or not.

I have left out the earlier alleged incident on the beach, where Lourenco says Krokowski was taking lots of pictures of children, so that we can concentrate on the alleged kidnapping incident. 

These are a few facts to bear in mind:

1. We know for absolutely certain that the man Lourenco said tried to kidnap his daughter was Polish businessman Wojchiech Krokowski.

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

2. We also know that he had booked a one-week holiday for him and his wife, 28 April to 5 May 2007, staying at the Solimar apartments in Burgau.

3. Note the specific reference made by Nuno Lourenco to the 'date and time stamp' - a reminder of the 'Last Photo', perhaps 

4. This incident is said to have taken place on Sunday afternoon (29 April). Lourenco did not go to the police about it until the following Saturday morning (5 May).

5. Krokowski and his wife left Praia da Luz on the morning of Saturday 5 May.  

Thanks in advance for your help, here's the extract from Lourenco's statement (acknowledgement once again to pamalam):

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

     
Nuno Lourenco - On how Wojchiech Krokowski allegedly nearly kidnapped his daughter (EXTRACT from his statement to the PJ) 

1. For this reason, he supposes that his children were photographed to be abducted or to be used for illicit reasons.

2. He began looking at the individual indignantly and aggressively and the same individual taking the pictures then left the area.

3. 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.

4. This individual also got on his knees on the sand to take additional pictures.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. He noticed that the individual constantly looked at the children and entered the shop, but left immediately after.

9. At this moment, his daughter, began racing around the tables as they were ready to leave.

10. Seeing this, the individual began to walk rapidly toward the witnesses daughter crossing the witnesses family as they were departing.

11. 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.

12. This same individual left toward the back of a kiosk which exists in the area.

13. Shaken by this situation, and without the least doubt that the individuals 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.

14. This did not work however, as the witness had his finger on the lens of the mobile camera.

15. 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.

16. The witness noted the registration plate on a piece of paper which he eventually discarded, as will be explained later in this statement.

17. This individual was accompanied by a woman, sitting in the passenger seat.

18. 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.

19. 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...

[SNIPPED]

Fabricated... Who'd wait a week to report the attempted kidknapping of their child?  Smells of back fitting to suit an agenda just for that reason imo.

Thing that's always stuck out for me is the fact that Lourenco claims to have taken note of the car registration and then threw it away !?!  Potentially vital evidence but he throws it away?  Plus, although Lourenco seemed to pay a good deal of attention to the movements of the stranger with the camera yet it didn't occur to him to confront the man?  I would if I caught a stranger with a camera taking an interest in my child/ren.

He was very shaken by the incident so took photographs of the stranger using his mobile phone - which didn't work because he had his finger over the camera lens?  If you don't look at the phone screen how do you know what you are photographing - if you do look at the phone screen you will realize you've got your finger on the lens.  Pull the other one! 

Curious how so many incidents occurred on the periphery that weren't reported to the police until a later date.

The camera/finger bit is just garbage.

This whole story is nonsense in my opinion.