Why did JT not organise a search?

If you had just seen an egg-man carrying a bundle - SORRY - a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas - and then just a few minutes later an alarm is raised that a little girl was missing - would not your natural reaction be to organise the search? Would you not tell everyone what to look for, the direction of the walk and then fly off - grabbing anyone and everyone asking if they had seen man with said description!?? The whole of the Tapas crew could have instantly been sent off on the search together with hotel staff and others that were in the immediate vicinity??

But no - remind me again what JT did immediately on discovering Madeleine had 'been taken'!!??

NoStone wrote:If you had just seen an egg-man carrying a bundle - SORRY - a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas - and then just a few minutes later an alarm is raised that a little girl was missing - would not your natural reaction be to organise the search? Would you not tell everyone what to look for, the direction of the walk and then fly off - grabbing anyone and everyone asking if they had seen man with said description!?? The whole of the Tapas crew could have instantly been sent off on the search together with hotel staff and others that were in the immediate vicinity??

But no - remind me again what JT did immediately on discovering Madeleine had 'been taken'!!??

erm...I think she kept her mouth shut, in case Kate got upset.

Perhaps if they'd just found all their valuables missing and JT remembered seeing a man carrying a bag marked 'swag'? Would she not have mentioned it because it might be too painful?

She could not have been very convinced she had witnessed an abduction could she?

But then again we have to remember - different people react to different situations in different ways. Perhaps she went for a jog in order to consolidate what she had seen in her mind.

So with the key witness to an 'abduction' not that convinced what she had seen suffieient to go chasing after - what else is left inn support of the 'abduction thesis'??

NoStone wrote:She could not have been very convinced she had witnessed an abduction could she?

But then again we have to remember - different people react to different situations in different ways. Perhaps she went for a jog in order to consolidate what she had seen in her mind.

So with the key witness to an 'abduction' not that convinced what she had seen suffieient to go chasing after - what else is left inn support of the 'abduction thesis'??

another thing if ir WAS gerry carrying maddie wouldnt JT KNOW what gerry looks like???portugal has street lights id assume

I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

yep resorts do inhouse laundry!!!

NoStone wrote:If you had just seen an egg-man carrying a bundle - SORRY - a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas - and then just a few minutes later an alarm is raised that a little girl was missing - would not your natural reaction be to organise the search? Would you not tell everyone what to look for, the direction of the walk and then fly off - grabbing anyone and everyone asking if they had seen man with said description!?? The whole of the Tapas crew could have instantly been sent off on the search together with hotel staff and others that were in the immediate vicinity??

But no - remind me again what JT did immediately on discovering Madeleine had 'been taken'!!??

It's a very good point NS, but these aren't normal people and we're all nutters for pointing out the obvious.

margaret wrote:

NoStone wrote:If you had just seen an egg-man carrying a bundle - SORRY - a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas - and then just a few minutes later an alarm is raised that a little girl was missing - would not your natural reaction be to organise the search? Would you not tell everyone what to look for, the direction of the walk and then fly off - grabbing anyone and everyone asking if they had seen man with said description!?? The whole of the Tapas crew could have instantly been sent off on the search together with hotel staff and others that were in the immediate vicinity??

But no - remind me again what JT did immediately on discovering Madeleine had 'been taken'!!??

It's a very good point NS, but these aren't normal people and we're all nutters for pointing out the obvious.

btw what is a egg man i have never heard of that expression is it another human speciman?

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

remember he was an egg with no face but then he had hair at the front and sides but longer at the back, then he was swarthy....

Here's eggman



You'd have thought such a 'distinctive' person would have been found by now.

margaret wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

remember he was an egg with no face but then he had hair at the front and sides but longer at the back, then he was swarthy....

hmmm coulda been humpty dumpty!!!!!

So at the time - on that fateful night - there was nothing that immediately convinced JT that she had witnesses an abduction. What she reported subsequently was that she dreamed of -sorry - came to her cognative memory.

NoStone wrote:So at the time - on that fateful night - there was nothing that immediately convinced JT that she had witnesses an abduction. What she reported subsequently was that she dreamed of -sorry - came to her cognative memory.

instead of screaming out shes been abducted wouldnt the better thing to do be to ook under beds in cuboards in the bath etc kids especally toddlers love to hide if i was a parent i would have thought that first

NoStone wrote:So at the time - on that fateful night - there was nothing that immediately convinced JT that she had witnesses an abduction. What she reported subsequently was that she dreamed of -sorry - came to her cognative memory.

About right, and then all of the sudden eggman was Robert Murat who is the spit of David Payne, you know him of the dubious goings on who has a 'pact' with his pals...

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

yep resorts do inhouse laundry!!!

Wasn't Mathew Oldfield back in his apartment washing sheets after his child had been sick ? Maybe he had a sideline going and it was somebody bringing their laundry over to him

margaret wrote:Here's eggman



You'd have thought such a 'distinctive' person would have been found by now.

You would indeed, margaret.

The McCanns versions' of events and their close mate Jane's alleged sighting of Gerry and the abductor simultaneously, are so remarkably dire and unbelievable that if Scotland Yard's 'Review' concludes their story stacks up; then SY will be exposed as corrupt and complicit in a cover up, or as a bunch of totally inept jackasses. Either or, and I rather doubt its the latter. Time will tell, but there will be no going back for SY's reputation if they go with the McFlow.

margaret wrote:Here's eggman



You'd have thought such a 'distinctive' person would have been found by now.

Think we have Ambassador Buck to blame for this one, insisting the PJ release known details & a photofit of the suspect ... lmao:

I have a copy of an early article - an exclusive interview with a journalist , I think from the Times and Gerry MCann , which states GM told the jouralist that he didn't speak to Jane T. following her sighting for 48hrs I think .

Slightly off topic
Why did Jane Tanner point out Murat, when with the help of the police artist the pictures of Eggman and the others were produced and none of them looked anything like Murat??

Seems to me that Jane is in trouble, will her friends help her....



http://thetapas9janetanner.blogspot.com/2012/02/jane-tanner-and-framing-of-robert-murat.html

mossman wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

yep resorts do inhouse laundry!!!

Wasn't Mathew Oldfield back in his apartment washing sheets after his child had been sick ? Maybe he had a sideline going and it was somebody bringing their laundry over to him

That was O'Brien.

@Anna....yes, at the time the 'carrier' was described as carrying what could have been a rolled up carpet/laundry bag which transmogrified itself into Maddie complete with frilly edged pyjamas.

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

You just have to laugh at how ridiculous this whole scam is....No-one with an IQ above their age can take these 'stories' & sightings seriously they are just preposterous

From a bundle of laundry to a child wearing Maddies pyjamas...Love it!!

I cannot believe the mccanns & their cronies believe people actually are taken in by their fairytale. Sometimes its like reading a fiction book by Enid Blyton when reading the facts

jd16 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

You just have to laugh at how ridiculous this whole scam is....No-one with an IQ above their age can take these 'stories' & sightings seriously they are just preposterous

From a bundle of laundry to a child wearing Maddies pyjamas...Love it!!

I cannot believe the mccanns & their cronies believe people actually are taken in by their fairytale. Sometimes its like reading a fiction book by Enid Blyton when reading the facts

jd16 dont forget the fridge that Gerry took to the local tip because it broke!!!!

ELI wrote:

margaret wrote:Here's eggman



You'd have thought such a 'distinctive' person would have been found by now.

Think we have Ambassador Buck to blame for this one, insisting the PJ release known details & a photofit of the suspect ... lmao:

I have a copy of an early article - an exclusive interview with a journalist , I think from the Times and Gerry MCann , which states GM told the jouralist that he didn't speak to Jane T. following her sighting for 48hrs I think .

48 hours? That's let me see, not until Saturday evening 10 p.m. he had a word with her. In between he seems to have spoken to pretty well everyone else including his family, the Ambassador and so on.
Really, the most ridiculous thing about all this is JT feeling it would be too upsetting to mention an abductor. I you find say your plasma screen missing and a friend has seen someone carrying a screen just five minutes earlier, surely you'd mention it? Or would that be too upsetting too?
Besides, the description of the way the child was carried makes for a very sore back in no time, why did she go for that very unnatural way to carry a child?
Maddie would have weighed 3 - 4 stone? Next to impossible to maintain such a pose, standing or walking.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

jd16 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:I remember the very earliest reports that said JT had seen a man 'carrying a bundle that could have been a child.' There was much speculation on fora at that time that it could have been someone carrying a bundle of laundry. 'The bundle that could have been a child,' eventually became a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas.

You just have to laugh at how ridiculous this whole scam is....No-one with an IQ above their age can take these 'stories' & sightings seriously they are just preposterous

From a bundle of laundry to a child wearing Maddies pyjamas...Love it!!

I cannot believe the mccanns & their cronies believe people actually are taken in by their fairytale. Sometimes its like reading a fiction book by Enid Blyton when reading the facts

jd16 dont forget the fridge that Gerry took to the local tip because it broke!!!!

I know its just so stupid. Who anywhere in the world in any culture takes a broken fridge to a tip on holiday!! If they wrote it in a film Id lose interest as it would be too far fetched to keep the imagination going

tigger wrote:

This is Robert Murat!!!!!!! Can't you see!!!