Why did JT not organise a search?

Iris wrote:

Autumn wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Not many people know this, but the Eggman went on to become a celeb and entered into the world of showbiz, hiding in plain sight, as you can see!

Expect a spate of sightings of him around Easter!

I think he did have a car. I saw it in the car park at Tesco.

OMG!

Iris wrote:What should they be searching for, a man carrying a bundle of clothes that might have been a child? Because that's what the initial description was.
It was only later that the "bundle of clothes" managed to morph into a pair of PJs with a child inside them. Carried by a man who suddenly grew a face.
If Jane's "descriptions" are any sort of benchmark, she'd have trouble organising a piss up in a brewery.

But the timeline says she saw a stranger carrying a child. Clearly this information written by GM? did not reach JT or her initial statement to the police. Maybe she had not be told to be so specific which explains why she had to change her story subsequently - to make her statements fit with the timeline. Just another flaw in the 'abduction thesis'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnpil_pRUiw

All together now: I am the walrus, I am the eggman.

The lyrics are slightly more intelligible than the Tapas 9 statements.

sorry to upset anyone but I have it on good authority eggman met an untimely death!

Don't worry: I think most of us are hard-boiled by now.

AnnaEsse wrote:Not many people know this, but the Eggman went on to become a celeb and entered into the world of showbiz, hiding in plain sight, as you can see!

Looks like Kate's had two kids by him too!!!

margaret wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Not many people know this, but the Eggman went on to become a celeb and entered into the world of showbiz, hiding in plain sight, as you can see!

Looks like Kate's had two kids by him too!!!

Gerry does not appear to have guessed!

AnnaEsse, what a curious way to carry your child. Gerry carries Amelie more or less normally, but not all that securely. Kate however, instead of getting Sean to lean against her left shoulder, closer to her body, is leaning away from him and her hand hold on his bottom doesn't look at all secure. Looks like she does this carrying of her child under protest so to speak.
Now that was why it was way too much to go to the Millennium restaurant, because they had to carry the twins, two very fit 38 year olds who went running most days, played tennis.
It's lovely to carry a child close to you- basically a big walking hug. This looks like anything but.

tigger wrote:AnnaEsse, what a curious way to carry your child. Gerry carries Amelie more or less normally, but not all that securely. Kate however, instead of getting Sean to lean against her left shoulder, closer to her body, is leaning away from him and her hand hold on his bottom doesn't look at all secure. Looks like she does this carrying of her child under protest so to speak.
Now that was why it was way too much to go to the Millennium restaurant, because they had to carry the twins, two very fit 38 year olds who went running most days, played tennis.
It's lovely to carry a child close to you- basically a big walking hug. This looks like anything but.

Just thinking about how I carry a small child. I sit the child on my hip, get him/her to wrap their legs around and hold quite securely, as the woman is doing in this photo. It never looks very safe to me to have the child just sitting on an arm.

.

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:AnnaEsse, what a curious way to carry your child. Gerry carries Amelie more or less normally, but not all that securely. Kate however, instead of getting Sean to lean against her left shoulder, closer to her body, is leaning away from him and her hand hold on his bottom doesn't look at all secure. Looks like she does this carrying of her child under protest so to speak.
Now that was why it was way too much to go to the Millennium restaurant, because they had to carry the twins, two very fit 38 year olds who went running most days, played tennis.
It's lovely to carry a child close to you- basically a big walking hug. This looks like anything but.

Just thinking about how I carry a small child. I sit the child on my hip, get him/her to wrap their legs around and hold quite securely, as the woman is doing in this photo. It never looks very safe to me to have the child just sitting on an arm.

.

Anna don't be shy, is this a picture of you with your child, do you not want to give your age away

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:AnnaEsse, what a curious way to carry your child. Gerry carries Amelie more or less normally, but not all that securely. Kate however, instead of getting Sean to lean against her left shoulder, closer to her body, is leaning away from him and her hand hold on his bottom doesn't look at all secure. Looks like she does this carrying of her child under protest so to speak.
Now that was why it was way too much to go to the Millennium restaurant, because they had to carry the twins, two very fit 38 year olds who went running most days, played tennis.
It's lovely to carry a child close to you- basically a big walking hug. This looks like anything but.

Just thinking about how I carry a small child. I sit the child on my hip, get him/her to wrap their legs around and hold quite securely, as the woman is doing in this photo. It never looks very safe to me to have the child just sitting on an arm.

.

Anna don't be shy, is this a picture of you with your child, do you not want to give your age away

Not me! My daughter is around the age that woman looks!

wjk wrote:

Iris wrote:

Autumn wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Not many people know this, but the Eggman went on to become a celeb and entered into the world of showbiz, hiding in plain sight, as you can see!

Expect a spate of sightings of him around Easter!

I think he did have a car. I saw it in the car park at Tesco.

OMG!

Thanks for that guys!

So to summarise then

JT either:-

1) Saw a man carying a bundle. Once the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing she did not think of this sufficieciently impotrtant to raise her own alarm and initiate a search based on what she had seen. She did cnsider it important enough to mention to the police however - some time after.

Q) Why then did the author of the timeline write tha Jane had seen a stranger with a child? They could not have spoken to JT about it as she would have said egg-man with bundle. Is someone writing a script? OR

2) She saw a man carrying a child. If this was the case then why did she not orgnise a search for this an when the alarm was raised that Madeleine had been 'taken' This fis with the written time line.

Q) Why if she had seen a man carrying a child did she tell the police she saw an egg carrying a bundle??


None of it fits together whereas the truth always does.

Does it take 30 policemen looking into the 'abduction' over a year to examine and question these discrepancies, discrepancies that occurr right at the beginning of the 'abduction' and therefore must have been events examined in the very first pages of the review??? It seems that the groundwork has not got this far yet but boxes of potential evidence have found there way - all the way - back from Spain!!??

NoStone wrote:So to summarise then

JT either:-

1) Saw a man carying a bundle. Once the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing she did not think of this sufficieciently impotrtant to raise her own alarm and initiate a search based on what she had seen. She did cnsider it important enough to mention to the police however - some time after.

Q) Why then did the author of the timeline write tha Jane had seen a stranger with a child? They could not have spoken to JT about it as she would have said egg-man with bundle. Is someone writing a script? OR

2) She saw a man carrying a child. If this was the case then why did she not orgnise a search for this an when the alarm was raised that Madeleine had been 'taken' This fis with the written time line.

Q) Why if she had seen a man carrying a child did she tell the police she saw an egg carrying a bundle??


None of it fits together whereas the truth always does.

Does it take 30 policemen looking into the 'abduction' over a year to examine and question these discrepancies, discrepancies that occurr right at the beginning of the 'abduction' and therefore must have been events examined in the very first pages of the review??? It seems that the groundwork has not got this far yet but boxes of potential evidence have found there way - all the way - back from Spain!!??

I seem to recall that the timelines (both of them on the covers of Maddie's book) were written in the present tense, which reads like a script to me.

AnnaEsse wrote:

NoStone wrote:So to summarise then

JT either:-

1) Saw a man carying a bundle. Once the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing she did not think of this sufficieciently impotrtant to raise her own alarm and initiate a search based on what she had seen. She did cnsider it important enough to mention to the police however - some time after.

Q) Why then did the author of the timeline write tha Jane had seen a stranger with a child? They could not have spoken to JT about it as she would have said egg-man with bundle. Is someone writing a script? OR

2) She saw a man carrying a child. If this was the case then why did she not orgnise a search for this an when the alarm was raised that Madeleine had been 'taken' This fis with the written time line.

Q) Why if she had seen a man carrying a child did she tell the police she saw an egg carrying a bundle??


None of it fits together whereas the truth always does.

Does it take 30 policemen looking into the 'abduction' over a year to examine and question these discrepancies, discrepancies that occurr right at the beginning of the 'abduction' and therefore must have been events examined in the very first pages of the review??? It seems that the groundwork has not got this far yet but boxes of potential evidence have found there way - all the way - back from Spain!!??

I seem to recall that the timelines (both of them on the covers of Maddie's book) were written in the present tense, which reads like a script to me.

Except no one told JT she was supposed to have seen a man with child Anna!!???? Very telling!

NoStone wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

NoStone wrote:So to summarise then

JT either:-

1) Saw a man carying a bundle. Once the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing she did not think of this sufficieciently impotrtant to raise her own alarm and initiate a search based on what she had seen. She did cnsider it important enough to mention to the police however - some time after.

Q) Why then did the author of the timeline write tha Jane had seen a stranger with a child? They could not have spoken to JT about it as she would have said egg-man with bundle. Is someone writing a script? OR

2) She saw a man carrying a child. If this was the case then why did she not orgnise a search for this an when the alarm was raised that Madeleine had been 'taken' This fis with the written time line.

Q) Why if she had seen a man carrying a child did she tell the police she saw an egg carrying a bundle??


None of it fits together whereas the truth always does.

Does it take 30 policemen looking into the 'abduction' over a year to examine and question these discrepancies, discrepancies that occurr right at the beginning of the 'abduction' and therefore must have been events examined in the very first pages of the review??? It seems that the groundwork has not got this far yet but boxes of potential evidence have found there way - all the way - back from Spain!!??

I seem to recall that the timelines (both of them on the covers of Maddie's book) were written in the present tense, which reads like a script to me.

Except no one told JT she was supposed to have seen a man with child Anna!!???? Very telling!

The timelines appear to me to have been written in a hurry. Parts were in the present tense, including Tanner's 'sighting', but they have used the past tense too.

And why have they given such prominence in their timelines underlining that 'All Shutters were down in Apartments 5A,B an D'? In fact why mention the shutters at all? One of the sentences is written in mixed tenses. Jane Tanner 'checked' on Ella but 'sees' stranger with child.

I'm looking for an exchange of images relating to egg man.
It's just a frivolous request. Some posters came up with age advanced pictures of egg man having turning into a chicken/cockerel.

If anyone knows where to find it? I've already tried all sorts of searches - egg, eggman, egg chicken etc.

Google eggman mccann,then images

is it this lol

If there wasn't clear evidence that Humpty Dumpty was long since broken beyond repair, I think we'd have had our man!

Wintabells wrote:why 'stranger'?

why not 'man'?

Because there was a need to hide the identity if the person either because they knew who it was or they didn't exist.

Nice one matthew.....where did you get that one from?

Eggdentity parade?

Who did that chrissie.......

One point I would make was when JT was being interviewed on the Panorama programme. She is asked about her sighting and says "I know what I saw", what if she IS telling the truth and her sighting has been so ridiculed that no one believes her any more.?

It was in today's Metro newspaper, totally unrelated story. I did giggle on the train, got a few strange looks

http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/12/lindt-big-egg-hunt-2013-find-the-eggs-hidden-in-britains-biggest-cities-and-win-a-years-supply-of-chocolate-3412381/

I honestly can't take anything any of them say seriously, too many contradictions and I would never have let that ridiculous etch a sketch picture go out with my name on it.