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

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query?  What did she ask him to provide?

Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.

Lizzy Hideho Taylor  NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with

And more...

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Richard D. Hall wrote: Why doesn't Liz show us the query?  What did she ask him to provide?

Exactly right.

It would be very helpful indeed if both HideHo/Liz and Isabelle McFadden could now post for us all:

a) the contents of their respective e-mails, and
b) what attachments or other information they actually sent him.

Lizzy Hideho Taylor  NOTE: I have spoken to the legal representative of Internet Archive and he will be emailing me with a message regarding their Wayback Machine and then will be passing the info to his team to check all the technical details.

I asked

*Why there was a pge existing for Madeleine on April 30th

*Why there was a link to download a poster from a website that did not exist until a few days later.

*Why the homepage for April 30th showed 'Latest News' for October 2007 (six months later) when all the preceeding pages had correct data

*Whether the source code/HTML could have been tampered with

And more...

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

@ HideHo and @ Get 'em Goncalo

That's very helpful - and very quick - thank you both very much!

And a lot more helpful than Portia's idiotic comment

Isabelle Maria McF ‏@QUEENdePORTUGAL  9 min
Just spoke 2Chris.There seems to be also different time stamps on posters.Will get us more info #mccann latest email

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

Let me start by saying that I'm a web development professional, and have been for 10+ years.

It's very unusual for such a simple data entry to be mistaken, such as the date entry on this record. There are issues with date formats in databases, for example, the American way of writing 4th of December 2012 is 12/4/2012, whereas in Europe we write this as 4/12/2012. This can result in weird or incorrect date values in databases.

So, although it appears that the record stored under April 30th is simple a record from sometime in December 2007, it is unlikely that such a simple mistake would occur for a brief period of time.

However, if you look at other records of the same site from similar dates in 2007, the dates of the news stories fit in with the date of the capture. It would therefore appear to be a mistake in the recording of these pages on or around April 30th 2007.

The stuff about javascript is a red herring - at the time, before dynamically-driven websites were commonplace, it was common for websites to load dynamic content via unusual means such as iframes, or javascript, however, looking at the source of the page in question, neither of these types of dynamic loading appear to be present.

On a final note - I, having posted a few times on this site, am not a believer of the theory that MM went missing much earlier than May 3rd. If, as this theory suggests, that there was an elaborate media plan in place to stage-manage a faked abduction on a world-wide scale, then I very much doubt that the CEOP website would have a) been on the list of planned outlets or b) been allowed to release information 4 days before it should have been.

Well well well.  The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way.  Two completely contradictory emails.  Allow me to believe Butler has been got at.  The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record.  Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date?  Thanks

No doubt there will be strenuous efforts to "prove" that the date is false.

But - so what?

The evidence is out there. Practically no-one believes the McCanns and their 'team'.

And why would they?

phil_burton wrote:Let me start by saying that I'm a web development professional, and have been for 10+ years.

It's very unusual for such a simple data entry to be mistaken, such as the date entry on this record. There are issues with date formats in databases, for example, the American way of writing 4th of December 2012 is 12/4/2012, whereas in Europe we write this as 4/12/2012. This can result in weird or incorrect date values in databases.

So, although it appears that the record stored under April 30th is simple a record from sometime in December 2007, it is unlikely that such a simple mistake would occur for a brief period of time.

However, if you look at other records of the same site from similar dates in 2007, the dates of the news stories fit in with the date of the capture. It would therefore appear to be a mistake in the recording of these pages on or around April 30th 2007.

The stuff about javascript is a red herring - at the time, before dynamically-driven websites were commonplace, it was common for websites to load dynamic content via unusual means such as iframes, or javascript, however, looking at the source of the page in question, neither of these types of dynamic loading appear to be present.

On a final note - I, having posted a few times on this site, am not a believer of the theory that MM went missing much earlier than May 3rd. If, as this theory suggests, that there was an elaborate media plan in place to stage-manage a faked abduction on a world-wide scale, then I very much doubt that the CEOP website would have a) been on the list of planned outlets or b) been allowed to release information 4 days before it should have been.

Ah - an expert! Fantastic! 

What do you believe happened to Madeleine McCann?

Do you believe what her parents say happened to her?

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well.  The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way.  Two completely contradictory emails.  Allow me to believe Butler has been got at.

Farter- Cucked?

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well.  The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way.  Two completely contradictory emails.  Allow me to believe Butler has been got at.  The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record.  Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date?  Thanks

Richard, you have contradicted yourself with regards to this issue on the forum today too unless my English comprehension is way out of kilter.

How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive.  Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect.  As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works.  It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site.  By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

Richard D. Hall wrote:How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive.  Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect.  As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works.  It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site.  By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

Ah - interesting!

Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

????????????

j.rob wrote:

Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

????????????

With a male avatar, I meant. 

:wink4:

Richard D. Hall wrote:How have I contradicted myself? - We need to see the actual print out which showed the date of 30 April for archive.  Then ask the question, why would it be incorrect.  As we have seen earlier in this thread, a simple test on my website shows that the archiving date works.  It does not give a date 3 days before I updated the site, the archive date given is the date I changed the site.  By the way I too was a full time web developer from 2002 to 2008.

To quote you:

Richard D. Hall wrote:Well well well.  The tentacles of British Intelligence don't half extend a long way.  Two completely contradictory emails.  Allow me to believe Butler has been got at.  The original email mentions an attachment which is the actual computer record.  Can you please post a screenshot of the attachment of the computer record which showed 30 April as the archive date?  Thanks

..............................................................................

Is everything a conspiracy? This morning was a post from someone called Steve Marsden and Twitter is on fire with some sort of 'revelation'.

This afternoon you questioned the validity of this and later declared Mr Butler of Wayback as an expert (btw as an aside I do check my gas bills sent to me from customer services).

Now you are saying Mr Butler has been got at by British Intelligence.

No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy.  Consider what is resting on the result of that data?  If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police.  This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure.  So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could.    Computers do not make mistakes.  They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data.  How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email.  I agree everything isn't a conspiracy, but there has been no explanation given as to why the record originally recorded 30 April.

Portia wrote:Dear mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

Portia - I think you mean un-WALL, or de-WALL with reference to Tony's avatar pic of Nicola WALL?


I believe Tony got the wrong end of the stick and thinks you were insinuating that he is Richard D Hall.


I'm sure he'll see the amusing side of this though, seeing as he has been accused of being many other people on this site.   

Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy.  Consider what is resting on the result of that data?  If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police.  This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure.  So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could.    Computers do not make mistakes.  They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data.  How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email.  I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.

But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.

I don't credit Gamble with much savvy but would he and/or his former 'team' really be so stupid as to make such a crass error?

I'm a total simpleton on matters of technology but could this be only some sort of default time used by the CEOP website?  Some while ago I located the initial report of MBM's disappearance in the Telegraph, the article was timed at 12:01 am 4th May 2007 which could indicate that the Telegraph was alerted within two hours of Kate raising the alarm.  I don't think for a moment that was the case, I believe there is a more rational explanation for the timing shown by the Telegraph.

This anomaly doesn't appear to apply to all UK press outlets but I have noticed this is not the only instant where the Telegraph shows the same time, I think for archived articles although I can't be sure.  Unfortunately the original report seems to have disappeared from the archives so I can't post up to confirm.

ETA:  Voila!  Found it..

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

aquila wrote:

Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy.  Consider what is resting on the result of that data?  If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police.  This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure.  So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could.    Computers do not make mistakes.  They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data.  How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email.  I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.

But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.

Read Butlers first email, this is evidence.

Richard D. Hall wrote:

aquila wrote:

Richard D. Hall wrote:No everything isn't a conspiracy, the Madeleine McCann case is a conspiracy.  Consider what is resting on the result of that data?  If proven it would be enough to arrest the McCann's, Jim Gamble, the Tapas 7 and possibly people in the British government and police.  This conspiracy is being protected by British Intelligence of that I am sure.  So it is not beyond the bounds of reason that new evidence like this would be quickly eradicated using whatever means they could.    Computers do not make mistakes.  They grab the time, and append it to a record and archive the data.  How many times does your computer get the date wrong on an email.  I agree everything isn't a conspiracy.

But it's not evidence is it Richard? It's a Tweet or FB post from someone and is yet to be proven.

Within hours of this information hitting the screens of Twitter, FB and forums this has become a hot topic with absolutely no substance and yet within a few hours of it arriving on our screens you have decided that someone called Mr Butler of Wayback is an expert and has been got at by British Intelligence.

I'm lost.

Read Butlers first email, this is evidence.

So on the basis of a 'first email' you are happy to say this is evidence?

I think we shall have to agree to disagree.

Computers do make mistakes in the sense of 'rubbish in rubbish out'. Whatever else this topic is it is a great conspiracy theorist test.

j.rob wrote:

phil_burton wrote:Let me start by saying that I'm a web development professional, and have been for 10+ years.

It's very unusual for such a simple data entry to be mistaken, such as the date entry on this record. There are issues with date formats in databases, for example, the American way of writing 4th of December 2012 is 12/4/2012, whereas in Europe we write this as 4/12/2012. This can result in weird or incorrect date values in databases.

So, although it appears that the record stored under April 30th is simple a record from sometime in December 2007, it is unlikely that such a simple mistake would occur for a brief period of time.

However, if you look at other records of the same site from similar dates in 2007, the dates of the news stories fit in with the date of the capture. It would therefore appear to be a mistake in the recording of these pages on or around April 30th 2007.

The stuff about javascript is a red herring - at the time, before dynamically-driven websites were commonplace, it was common for websites to load dynamic content via unusual means such as iframes, or javascript, however, looking at the source of the page in question, neither of these types of dynamic loading appear to be present.

On a final note - I, having posted a few times on this site, am not a believer of the theory that MM went missing much earlier than May 3rd. If, as this theory suggests, that there was an elaborate media plan in place to stage-manage a faked abduction on a world-wide scale, then I very much doubt that the CEOP website would have a) been on the list of planned outlets or b) been allowed to release information 4 days before it should have been.

Ah - an expert! Fantastic! 

What do you believe happened to Madeleine McCann?

Do you believe what her parents say happened to her?

I do not for one second believe the "official" version of events.

IMO she died in an accident between May 2nd and May 3rd and that it was covered up. I believe the Mccanns have friends in high places and were privy to information about those people, hence the protection they received.

Despite the early press coverage being critical of the Mccanns, once the money and power behind them became evident the press were bought and are little more than the couples PR mouth pieces now.

On this particular subject I believe it's a red herring unfortunately, I see nothing to make me believe this is a genuine snapshot from that day, but I do see evidence of it being a simple mistake.

The only 2 ways the truth will come out of this whole sorry affair are:

1) a body is found
2) something changes the landscape of the investigation, maybe a slip by one of the T9 or finally a reconstruction

Gaggzy wrote:

Portia wrote:Dear Mr. Bennett, would you do me, and maybe some others, a huge favor and un-Hall, or de-Hall yourself?

I'm sure you're much more interesting as a man

Portia - I think you mean un-WALL, or de-WALL with reference to Tony's avatar pic of Nicola WALL?

I believe Tony got the wrong end of the stick and thinks you were insinuating that he is Richard D Hall.

I'm sure he'll see the amusing side of this though, seeing as he has been accused of being many other people on this site.   

@ Gaggzy    Thank you very much first of all for a laugh and secondly for giving me a brief opportunity to explain my avatar.

Portia is unfortunately from a foreign country and it is understandable that she confused a hall and a wall.

Let me explain.

A 'Hall' is a place of welcome or meeting where one will meet interesting people and find out lots of good quality information about them.

A 'Wall' by contrast is something nasty that you come up against like 'talking to a brick Wall'.

So, 'Hall' = good; 'Wall' = bad.

Especially in this case.

My avatar of DCI Nicola Wall connects with my current signature, and my not-too-subtle message is this:

"Wall is bound by the abduction remit - don't expect her to do anything different from what DCI Redwood or didn't do"

I called starting at 5am EST and continued calling in case there was someone to respond before their opening time of 9am. Just before 9am San Francisco Internet Archive (Midday Toronto time) answered and I was advised Chris from the legal department would not be there until 9.30am (5.30pm UK time)

I called back at PST 9.45am (UK 5.45pm) and spoke to Chris for approximately 30 minutes.

I first asked whether there could be a mistake on the page dates.  He acknowledged that certain circumstances do create some issues and that it is  automated.

I explained an overall description of the case and urged him that it was 'high profile' and in need of an urgent reply to prevent any damage that may be done by speculation.  I also advised him of the importance for the answer to be correct as it could have serious implications

He acknowledged that he had returned an email to someone else but it was not based on the information that I had given him.

I 'gave him the CEOP website page which had several dates available for Madeleine page including April 30th


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


I pointed out to him that the link on the page was for the Help Madeleine website for downloading a poster. A website that did not exist until days later.

NOTE: THIS SCREENSHOT WAS TAKEN JUST NOW AND CLICKING ON THE APRIL 30TH DATE BRINGS UP THE PAGE FOR MAY 13TH.  IT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED.


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



I then directed him to the HOME page for April 30th and pointed out that it had 'Latest News' for Ocober 2007 (six months later than the date) also that the home pages prior to April 30th and after April 30th had articles appropriate for the timestamp date.  ONLY April 30th appeared questionable.


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


He acknowledged that the pages did not appear to be correct and that he would get his team to look at them immediately

I asked him to please send me an email with initial information about the validity of the dates and to please let me know the answers to the following questions as well as the above:

Why does a page exist for Madeleine on April 30th when she didn't disappear until three days later?

Is it possible for the source code/HTML to be tampered with?

Why did the source code have the same date of April 30th


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


(possibly more)


I continued to urge him about the importance, not only of the results but also of the time as it needed an answer quickly to avoid further speculation.

He assured me, although extremely busy day, he would work on it immediately and send me the first email so I could post it.

Our conversation ended about 10.20am EST (3.30pm UK time)

Once off the phone I saw the email that Isabelle had received and realised the time of his email was the reason he hadnt called me back earlier 



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

Knowing he had realised there may, indeed, be some issues with the timestamp I posted on HDH to let everyone know that an updated email was due based on further knowledge than the initial email was based on, and I added a few points that I had brought up with him.

I realised that the first email was gaining steam and that it had been sent to the PJ so I emailed again to once more urge a response of any kind because of the first email (to Isabelle) being taken as final result.

I waited for the email but it had not arrived by about 2pm EST (7pm UK time)

I called again but was told he was in a meeting and once again asked the person I was talking to to ask Chris to send ANYTHING to update the first email, or at least to let me know when I would expect one.

At 3.17pm EST (8.17pm UK time) more than 5 hours after Isabelle had received her email I received the following email. Posted and Twittered (I dont Tweet, I Twit and run) 

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

Since then I have seen all sorts of suggestions, from discrepancies with the time and Isabelle receiving hers after me, to some claiming the Archive were 'got at' by the McCanns and goodness knows what else....

I have tried to be precise about timings and what was said to diffuse as much as I can any further discrediting, though I would guess I will get it regardless.

For further proof of the receipt time  I have included a screenshot of my inbox.


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

Now, hopefully that is enough information unless you want to know about my breakfast which is still pending at 6.45pm! 

You really only needed to ask one question,

What is the earliest date their servers copied mccann.html file from the CEOP website?  That's it.

All the other waffle is irrelevant.

As far as I can see that question has not been answered specifically, but it is quite blatant if you read the next two posts.