Re: Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 8:24

whatsupdoc wrote:You can do it, aquila.

It just needs a copy & paste of the ceops url into your browser thingy...as they say on TV... ( into the search box of the wayback site)

I followed your instructions and got a timed out message.

by whatsupdoc 17.06.15 8:28

I've tried it again and it works ok.

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

...then put the ceops url in their search box. Click on 2007 and the 30th April and you get...

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

by **tigger** 17.06.15 8:30

CEOP: (wiki)

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is a command of the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA), and is tasked to work both nationally and internationally to bring online child sex offenders, including those involved in the production, distribution and viewing of child abuse material, to the UK courts.[1] The centre was formed in April 2006, and was absorbed into the NCA on 7 October 2013 by the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Contents [hide]
1 Purpose and

CEOP combines police powers with expertise from the business sector, government, specialist charities and other interested organisations.

CEOP is made up of police officers with specialist experience of tracking and prosecuting sex offenders working with people from organisations including the NSPCC and Childnet, Microsoft and AOL. Partnerships have been set up across non-government bodies, including: Action for Children, NSPCC, Barnardos; business (Microsoft, AOL, Serco, Vodafone etc.) and UK Government departments (Department for Education; Home Office; Foreign and Commonwealth Office etc.). CEOP works with organisations such as The Scout Association, the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, BT, and Lycos to widen the scope of its work.[citation needed]

Budget[edit]
The CEOP's Home Office funding was frozen in 2010 and reduced by 10% over the subsequent three years. Staff numbers were increased during this period according to the CEOP, though former employees dispute this.[2] In 2012-13 the budget was £6 million[3] and there were 109 posts, which included 13 seconded police officers.[4] Additional money and resources came from the NSPCC, Google, Microsoft and BAE Systems Detica.[5]
Unquote

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

And:
Jim G was the Director of CEOP and had previously led Operation Ore which was handed a list of over 7,000 UK citizens downloading childporn. On that list were :-

"Operation Ore has already ensnared the majority of those in categories one and two. They include teachers, barristers, solicitors, university lecturers, hospital consultants, a deputy prison governor, a senior Treasury civil servant and 50 policemen (including two involved in the investigation into the murder of two girls in Soham, Cambridgeshire, last year)."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In 2006/2007 Operation Ore was under attack from the press for being over zealous.

by whatsupdoc 17.06.15 8:44

Just to add...

I clicked on the latest news for 30th April and nothing mentioned about Madeleine...

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

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 8:45

whatsupdoc wrote:Just to add...

I clicked on the latest news for 30th April and nothing mentioned about Madeleine...

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

I just got 'timed out' again.

by Doug D 17.06.15 8:45

Truth For Madeleine site has the following with a bit of a ‘techi’ screen:

The Wayback Machine is a website at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It stores billions of web pages and serves as a historic reference to web pages and web sites of yore.

CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is a British police affiliated organisation who have been involved with this case since the earliest days.

Today a link was found that indicates foreknowledge on the part of CEOP.

In the Wayback Machine, a page was grabbed from the CEOP website on April 30, 2007 at 11:58:03 (link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

The page says “Help Find Madeleine McCann” and it features an old photo of Madeleine taken before her holiday in Portugal.

The Wayback Machine has grabbed billions of pages dating back to the 1990s.

What were CEOP doing advertising Madeleine as missing on their website, 3-days before she was reported missing to Portuguese police?

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

Sharon Mehlorn on the original FB site has posted a letter up she has written to CEOP asking for an explanation, which will no doubt be forthcoming and explain how ‘the system’ manages to pre-date itself.

Unfortunately, what we need is a techi we can actually trust to give a truthful answer to whether this is correct or not.

by macdonut 17.06.15 9:03

This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 9:14

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

Steve Marsden has been proved wrong about this sort of thing a number of times before - jumping to hasty and incorrect conclusions.

However, if he were right, it would lend support to those who, for example, claim that the 'Last Photo' was probably taken on Sunday 29 April

by **PeterMac** 17.06.15 9:17

They haven't managed to 'whoosh' it yet.

Have a look, and make your own copies and screenshots

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

(It would, incidentally, fit with the Last Photo's having been taken on 29th April, as we know)
Wouldn't it be poetic if CEOPS were the source of the downfall.
But might this revelation show why Gamble has been so defensive, and gave up any semblance of professional detachment ?
The date is shown very clearly top right.

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

by whatsupdoc 17.06.15 9:18

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

Agreed , macdonut. So we have two versions for the 30th April. The version I found did have references to October 2007 so at least one entry on 30th April was incorrect if not both.

I noticed the html code in Doug D post was a comment and the date could have been edited in and captured.

by Lands_end 17.06.15 9:19

A fairly simple bit of coding can alter dates and times. Who the hell needs CEOP anyways. Haven't parents often in the past been given that responsibility?

by sallypelt 17.06.15 9:46

I don't know if there is any truth in this, but if it turns out to be true, then it may explain Murat's sudden return to Portugal on 1st May 2007. It would also tie in with the "jemmied shutters" cock-up". Could this have been all planned, but it all went wrong when Jeremy Wilkins saw Gerry McCann fiddling with the shutters on the night of the 3rd of May?

I'll get my coat!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 10:48

This information - which appears to be credible - was posted on Twitter in the last hour, and is circulating rapidly:

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

Moreover, a second expert has proclaimed that the correct date for this page being uploaded is 10 May, some time in the morning I think.

A third has suggested that it is the Wayback Machine that has 'mis-interpreted' Javascript code that explains why a false date of 30 April appears.

Steve Marsden ('Stevo') has led us up the garden path and back down again several times before with sensationalist information like this.

On balance, I'm inclined to think that it is Stevo, despite all his much-vaunted 'tecchie' abilities, who probably has a lot of explaining to do, rather than CEOP

by Liz Eagles 17.06.15 10:54

Tony Bennett wrote:This information - which appears to be credible - was posted on Twitter in the last hour, and is circulating rapidly:

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

Moreover, a second expert has proclaimed that the correct date for this page being uploaded is 10 May, some time in the morning I think.

A third has suggested that it is the Wayback Machine that has 'mis-interpreted' Javascript code that explains why a false date of 30 April appears.

Steve Marsden ('Stevo') has led us up the garden path and back down again several times before with sensationalist information like this.

On balance, I'm inclined to think that it is Stevo, despite all his much-vaunted 'tecchie' abilities, who probably has a lot of explaining to do, rather than CEOP

I think it's a load of old hogwash too.

by NickE 17.06.15 11:43

This is an article from "PR Week" dated May 9, 2007.

"Mark Warner hires Bell Pottinger May 09, 2007

Mark Warner, the holiday company at the centre of the Portuguese kidnap story, is using the Bell Pottinger Group for help with the crisis.

Head of issues and crisis management Alex Woolfall is on location in Portugal and reports directly to MD *David Hopkins.

Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz.

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

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 12:17

This looks very interesting.

I would say that it is not down to CEOP to say how the date could have been mistaken earlier on the web.archive.org website.

The people that need to be asked are web.archive.org. Their server cuts and pastes the websites of the internet and archives them on it's own servers. So only they can say if the date is real or could be different from the day the page was archive.

Does anyone know how to contact web.archive.org to put this query to them.

When I try and click on this it times out also. Therefore it may have been taken down?

I think it would be wise to ask a query of web.archive.org NOT in relation to Madeleine McCann, but as a general generic query about the date appearing on the archived page. Is it always the exact date the page was archived? - Can it vary? Why can it vary?

Asking CEOP is not going to get you a truthful answer.

by Rogue-a-Tory 17.06.15 12:19

Trouble with all these red herrings and hares running is that they give TM the perfect opportunity to discredit any evidence that goes against their version of events - no matter how strong or compelling that other evidence may be.

Sadly that process isn't a two way street as Zapata proved to be the case.

by **tigger** 17.06.15 12:24

The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.

by Rogue-a-Tory 17.06.15 12:35

tigger wrote:The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.

That's the salient point with all the photos used in the search. You'd wish to use the most recent one and of the holiday.

A picture of a girl from a room in Rothley Towers means nothing to someone that may have seen Madeleine in the Algarve during that fateful holiday. Yet one by the pool, on the beach or in the play area etc is much more likely to provoke a memory from a holidaymaker or a local.

The big question is did they have one, if not why not? If so why not use it?

by **tigger** 17.06.15 12:46

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
tigger wrote:The photograph isn't going to help find a 4 yr old if once again a much earlier photograph is used.
Even if the date is wrong, where did all these photographs come from and who made the choice as to which one to send/select?
Jon Corner sent photos and videos to the media on the night of 3/4 - later (I think a few days later) he opened a 'protocol' according to Kate which would enable press etc. to download photographs.
That's the salient point with all the photos used in the search. You'd wish to use the most recent one and of the holiday.

A picture of a girl from a room in Rothley Towers means nothing to someone that may have seen Madeleine in the Algarve during that fateful holiday. Yet one by the pool, on the beach or in the play area etc is much more likely to provoke a memory from a holidaymaker or a local.

The big question is did they have one, if not why not? If so why not use it?

I'm just wondering that the whole point of taking Maddie to PdL was to create a bunch of suitable photographs 'on location' so to speak. As there aren't any, not even the 'last one' imo it supports an unforeseen accident early in the week.

May also explain why tbe Donagal photos were released very early, at least some holiday snaps even if it wasn't PdL...

May also explain the triumphant 'last photo' which photo they say is their last memory of Maddie, not the actual child, just the picture.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.06.15 12:49

Richard D. Hall wrote:Asking CEOP is not going to get you a truthful answer.

It loooks like this debate has a long way to run.

Extraordinarily, people have taken to making donations to Goncalo Amaral on the GoFundMe site just to say whether the claims about the CEOP page being uploaded on 30 April are correct or not.

I think we are going to have a very robust debate between all the tecchies who claim to know about these things, while us uneductaed 'plebs' look on.

Apparently a donor to GoFundMe called 'IW' made a small donation to say that the Madeleine page was indeed uploaded (if that is the correct term) to the CEOP site on 30 April.

This what followed on GoFundMe:

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION PREVIOUS POST BY 'IW'
Please note the information in previous post re Wayback Machine is incorrect. It really should be removed if possible asap. Thank you5

Then:

£5
INCORRECT INFORMATION POST BY 'IW'
Omitted to add, re Wayback Machine, correct date is 10.05.2007 @ 20.16 hrs. Thank you

Then IW came in again to correct his original mistake:

£5
I W
Please delete my previous comment as it is incorrect!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!

Then someone else has popped up in the last hour to say this on GoFundMe:

£5
Staying Anon This Time
I am staying anon this time as things are hotting up! Re: the 'IW' comment - seems correct to me so what's going on? Is the second 'IW', retracting the archived link to CEOP, the same person who posted the first comment? Just checked the link. The first dated 'snapshot' for MBM's disappearance on the CEOP website by this very large computerised archive is indeed the 30 April 2007 (time may be US at 11.58.03). As I understand it the archive automatically searches sites worldwide i.e. all carried out by a computer program not some fallible human . After the 30 April there are 2 more 'snapshots' of the CEOP page in May on the 13th and 22nd. I can see none for the 10 May and the calendar is clear - the snapshot dates are highlighted in light blue. The final snapshot date shown on the archive is 4 Sept 2009. I suspect the previous 2 comments refuting the evidence is a knee jerk panic reaction from some quarter. Please check the link for yourselves before it disappears into the ether. Seems really significant folks! This is what the archive states as part of its function: 'The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come.' Seems legit to me.

Meanwhile it has been fervently asserted elsewhere:

FILE ARCHIVED ON 11:58:03 Apr 30, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 10:35:10 Jun 17, 2015.
JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C. SECTION 108(a)(3)).

The full hierarchic name of the page contains a date - the first of May:

[url=http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_143454070346413&key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&libId=ib0o8knb0100g3d9000DA17edw48k&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk%2Ft800p30-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007&v=1&exp=53%3ACI1C54F%3A3&type=U&out=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20070501000000*%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fceop.gov.uk%2Fmccann.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk%2Ft800p15-ceop-show-maddie-is-missing-on-30th-april-2007&title=CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007 - Page][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/url]

It looks like the snapshot was taken at 11:58:03 pm and written a couple of minutes later.

And this has appeared elsewhere:

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

...with a poster asking how something can be 'saved' that was (it is said) clearly uploaded on 30 April

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

I shall let the tecchies slug it out between themselves...and I very much doubt there will be agreement between them at the end of this raging debate

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 12:59

It needs a definitive statement from those who control the Wayback website. The computer code which retrieves web pages and then saves them is on their server. This code is usually not visible for the world to see, it is internal. So only people with access to that code who understand the code will be able to make an accurate statement on this.

by **Richard D. Hall** 17.06.15 13:06

In layman's terms if you want to know when a library first put a particular book on its shelves, the person who will know is the chief librarian, not the publisher of the book.

by Rufus T 17.06.15 13:21

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys. If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

I agree it looks very much as though the screenshot was taken later in 2007 possibly at the end of October, but for some reason it has been incorrectly archived as 30th April.

by Joss 17.06.15 13:24

WHAT WAYBACK DOES

The Wayback Machine is a front end to the Internet Archive's collection of public Web pages. It includes more than 100 terabytes of date—a huge collection with huge storage requirements. The Wayback Machine provides access to this wealth of data by URLs. It is not text searchable—a user needs to know the exact URL of a particular Web page, or at least the Web site, to be able to enter the archive.

Upon entering an Internet address, the Wayback Machine presents a list of dates showing when that particular page has been archived. A check on the home page for the Library of Congress finds archived pages from November 9, 1996 through yesterday. There are far fewer pages in the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 archives. In 2001, there was a copy from almost every other day.

Click on one of the displayed dates to see the archived page. The asterisk after some of the dates is used to designate when the Internet Archive detected a change in the page. So presumably, all those listings without an asterisk should be exactly the same as the first page before them that has an asterisk.

Note that the URL for the archived page begins with web.archive.org. Unlike the cached files at Google, the Wayback Machine also includes most image files in the archive. Thus, the images are not being drawn from a current server, but from the Internet Archive itself. This means that the archived page will display much more accurately how the page appeared on that particular date.

In addition, all the links on an archived page point not to the original linked location, but to other pages in the Internet Archive. So while the Wayback Machine is not searchable, it can be browsed. Find an archived page from 1997, click on any of the links on that page, and the Wayback Machine will take you to the closest (in terms of date) archive of the page available. In this way, a user can browse a Web site as it appeared within a certain time period.

The location of the Wayback Machine itself has shifted around among several URLs during its first few months.

Both [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] worked in the past, but at this point, they all redirect to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the home of the Internet Archive itself.

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

Re-formatted by a Mod