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

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 link.]


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 link.]



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 link.]


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 link.]


(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 link.]
 

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 link.]

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 link.]

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.

Source code from mccann.html from archive.org archive - originally on the CEOP website.  This is the file sent as an attachment by Christopher Butler of archive.org to Isabelle Mcfadden.  I have removed the central part of the file as the important bit is at the end.  The text in green in the red box is code which has been added to the file mccann.html, by a script. The text in green at the bottom is added on the day and time the file is read and archived.  The date in this file is a record of when it was archived.   This means the file mccann.html with the title "Help find Madeleine McCann" existed on the CEOP website on 30 April 2007.  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 The method by which the page is dated is right there inside the file itself.  This file has been sitting on their server since 30 April 2007.  If the 30 April date stamp is erroneous why is that so?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Notice the directory naming convention.  The number 20070430115803 is in fact a directory created on the archive.org server for files archived on 30/04/2007 at that time.   The file would not be stored in this folder if it had been created on a later date.  So not only do we have the date embedded in file itself with the date 30/04/2007, we also have the file sitting in the subfolder 20070430115803 which is for files archived on 30/04/2007 at that time.  This means that folder was created on that date and that file was put in that folder on that date.  I cannot see why their system would create a folder with an old date, then add the wrong date to the file.  These folders are not created by people, they are created automatically by the server checking highly reliable real time clocks on web servers, which create the folder name based on the string sent back from the clock.  The most logical, likely explanation for both the directory name and the date in the file is they were created on 30 April 2007.  If they were created on that date it means CEOP was hosting a file called mccann.html on that date or before.

Thx R.D Hall.

"Slowee,Slowee?"

WHO was CEO of CEOP on 30th April 2007?......................J Gamble

WHO has 'supported' the McCann's 'avidly'?........................J Gamble

WHO was CEO at CEOP when 'a minute for Madeleine' video was 'produced'?...............J Gamble

CEOP, with J Gamble as CEO, 'NEVER' produced 'a minute for xxxxx' for any other 'missing' child.

WHO has admitted that CEOP 'were on the ground', and 'competing' AGAINST 'other agencies' within hours of Madeleine being 'reported missing'?................J Gamble.

WHO will NEVER 'say', publicly, 'Madeleine McCann WAS ABDUCTED'?.....................J GAMBLE!

WHO 'will' be 'shocked to the core' if 'proven' the McCann's had anything to 'do with' Madeleine's 'disappearance'?....................J Gamble.

The email sent to Liz by archive.org seems questionable.  Look at the directory path quoted, it still has the 30 April 2007 date stamp encoded in the directory structure.

Here is an example from my own site, we see the three dates all match, the directory path, the embedded code and the date.  This page was archived on 2nd March 2013 at 18:16:16, and this is reflected in both the code in the file and in the directory name.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The email Liz has been sent seems incorrect.  Because the directory name does not match the date.

They say "we are still investigating the issue" huh? - does that mean, "We realise we are opening up the biggest can of worms we've ever come across, so we just want to give ourselves some breathing space to consider our position on what we do" ?

Richard D. Hall wrote:The email sent to Liz by archive.org seems questionable.  Look at the directory path quoted, it still has the 30 April 2007 date stamp encoded in the directory structure.

Here is an example from my own site, we see the three dates all match, the directory path, the embedded code and the date.  This page was archived on 2nd March 2013 at 18:16:16, and this is reflected in both the code in the file and in the directory name.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The email Liz has been sent seems incorrect.  Because the directory name does not match the date.

They say "we are still investigating the issue" huh? - does that mean, "We realise we are opening up the biggest can of worms we've ever come across, so we just want to give ourselves some breathing space to consider our position on what we do" ?

Thanks Richard for your technical explanation of how this internet stuff works. And as we know too nothing is ever
as it seems in McCannland. Or as G. McC says "confusion is good".

@Richard Hall

To a simple question regarding first archived date of 30/4/2007 (with McCann hmtl) it does seem odd that he (Chris Butler-Web.Archive Office Manager) sent one answer to IM (1st enquirer) but an-other (different) answer to Liz HDH (2nd enquirer).  

I would say the first answer to IM is a straight forward one (simply explanation of archived record).  Whereas the answer to HDH is a pondered/deliberated upon one (based on implication given by HDH) vs not straight forward one (to IM).  

I'd say sequentially his reply to 2nd enquirer HDH is a consequential outcome-reply after he'd deliberated his/or company's position, and I agree with you, it does seem CB saying they're investigating is about giving the company breathing space.  

However, if his answer to HDH is correct, then the reputation of Web.Archive.Com is brought into question.  His admission that they made error (meaning the archiving date-data was erroneous or interpreted erroneously) that calls for internal investigation won't look good for the company's credibility.  Effectively he's admitting that even Web.Archive can be wrong. This would have a hugh impact for Web.Archive's business reputation for obvious reason because not only they are opening themselves up for questioning on their reliability from every website holder, it also will have an impact in other area since his statement to IM maintains that their archived data can be useful to aid in Court Cases is now brought into question.

They say "we are still investigating the issue" huh? - does that mean, "We realise we are opening up the biggest can of worms we've ever come across, so we just want to give ourselves some breathing space to consider our position on what we do" ?

If CB reply to Liz HDH bears the intent you stated above, effective they are opening up a can of worms for themselves.   The question has to be - what his measured reply to Liz HDH weighs on?

In a nutshell, he reply to HDH is a measured one vs the unmeasured-straight-forward one to IM.
Only one of the replies can be correct.  If both his replies respectively to IM and Liz are accurate, he's brought Web.Archive's reputation into disrepute (effectively)!

Verdi (@10.57),
 
The Telegraph report you link to has similarly been ‘got at’, although still showing the 12.01 time on the 4^th May 2007.
 
The original report that has been ‘whooshed’ was only a few lines and fitted with a breaking news story of which there was little detail as yet.
 
Normally an amended story has an update time and date next to the original, but not in this case.
 
See thread:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have just tried the link...

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

which worked yesterday showing 30th April 2007 and now it shows 27th April 2007...

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

Looks like some tinkering going on...

When "coincidences" build up to the extent they have in the Mc case, then I think it is reasonable to deduce that, anything associated with those two, should be taken as deception, obfuscation and disinformation.
At this point I feel Richard has nailed it.

Mark Willis wrote:When "coincidences" build up to the extent they have in the Mc case, then I think it is reasonable to deduce that, anything associated with those two, should be taken as deception, obfuscation and disinformation.
At this point I feel Richard has nailed it.

Indeed, and if this new information is correct it is game over.

On that basis, I wonder if the original CEOP post was the kneejerk reaction to what really happened, then subsequently retracted having weighed the situation up and run things past a few brothers.

IMO

Richard D. Hall wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Notice the directory naming convention.  The number 20070430115803 is in fact a directory created on the archive.org server for files archived on 30/04/2007 at that time.   The file would not be stored in this folder if it had been created on a later date.  So not only do we have the date embedded in file itself with the date 30/04/2007, we also have the file sitting in the subfolder 20070430115803 which is for files archived on 30/04/2007 at that time.  This means that folder was created on that date and that file was put in that folder on that date.  I cannot see why their system would create a folder with an old date, then add the wrong date to the file.  These folders are not created by people, they are created automatically by the server checking highly reliable real time clocks on web servers, which create the folder name based on the string sent back from the clock.  The most logical, likely explanation for both the directory name and the date in the file is they were created on 30 April 2007.  If they were created on that date it means CEOP was hosting a file called mccann.html on that date or before.

If the Mccann page is wrongly dated due to a server setting error (unlikely but possible) then it is likely that everything archived that day will be wrong.

They should be able to produce evidence of other pages dated wrongly in that very folder - there will be a lot of them if they exist.

If they claim this was the only page then that will be suspicious.

Is it possible to check the contents of these pages that were archived at the same time?

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

There might be some date specific stuff on those pages.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:When "coincidences" build up to the extent they have in the Mc case, then I think it is reasonable to deduce that, anything associated with those two, should be taken as deception, obfuscation and disinformation.
At this point I feel Richard has nailed it.

Indeed, and if this new information is correct it is game over.

On that basis, I wonder if the original CEOP post was the kneejerk reaction to what really happened, then subsequently retracted having weighed the situation up and run things past a few brothers.

IMO

I'd go with that as a distinct possibility. The swiftness of the Telegraph 12:01am article and the unwarranted haste of so many British VIPs in Praia da Luz on the 4th; now this "revelation" all lends weight to the theory of some sort of pre-planning?

So, if true, it follows, was all of this premeditated and for what purpose? 
Does this fit in with rumours of the Mcs wanting to let relatives/others bring up MM?
Have to say, if that is the case, it does seem rather convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.
Money, stacks of it, constantly thread through this case. Another coincidence?

There appears to be a redirect going on on the way back machine.

When I hover the cursor over April 30th 2007 for the Mccann page it points at the April 30th directory that is shown in the emails and web page source in the previous posts.

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

When I click on the date I get this page from 13th May 2007

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

Has someone been fixing?

Doug D wrote:
The Telegraph report you link to has similarly been ‘got at’, although still showing the 12.01 time on the 4^th May 2007.
The original report that has been ‘whooshed’ was only a few lines and fitted with a breaking news story of which there was little detail as yet.
 

The Telegraph have got form for doing this.

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

I am not sure if a web crawler can detect a new page if there is no hyperlink to that page on the main website.  But if it can, then it is possible that they created the mccann.html page on CEOP website on 30th April, but it was invisible to the public as there was no link to it, nor any link sent out on email etc.  Only when a link is placed on the CEOP or other website to the actual file would people know about it.  I am not sure if web crawlers can pick up new files that have been created but not linked to.  So perhaps the file was created on 30th ready to go but they thought it was not visible.  I sometimes do this when I want to release something on my site at a particular time.  I will create a file, but not give a link to it on my site, then when I want to publish I just at add a link to the file on the "Recent Updates" list.  Perhaps someone on here knows if a web crawler can archive unlinked new web pages?  I know it is possible to create a link that is visible to a web crawler but not to the naked eye, sometimes done for Search Engine Optimisation purposes.

I found another page archived on the 30th April 2007

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

Looks good to me.

It archived a story from the mirror news page that had been around for 2 days (28th April).

So it seems archiving was working OK on 30th April 2007.

This is the Winston Smith nightmare.

Richard D. Hall wrote:I am not sure if a web crawler can detect a new page if there is no hyperlink to that page on the main website.  But if it can, then it is possible that they created the mccann.html page on CEOP website on 30th April, but it was invisible to the public as there was no link to it, nor any link sent out on email etc.  Only when a link is placed on the CEOP or other website to the actual file would people know about it.  I am not sure if web crawlers can pick up new files that have been created but not linked to.  So perhaps the file was created on 30th ready to go but they thought it was not visible.  I sometimes do this when I want to release something on my site at a particular time.  I will create a file, but not give a link to it on my site, then when I want to publish I just at add a link to the file on the "Recent Updates" list.  Perhaps someone on here knows if a web crawler can archive unlinked new web pages?  I know it is possible to create a link that is visible to a web crawler but not to the naked eye, sometimes done for Search Engine Optimisation purposes.

Richard you may be able to test if a web crawler has picked up any of your unpublished pages ? Would these not be held locally on your PC until uploaded ?

Please excuse my ignorance on these matters !

No, the file is online on your internet host, but there is no way of getting to the page because there is nowhere for people to click to find the page.  They would have to type the full path in their browser to find the page, and to do that they need to know the filename.  I think I can test this to see if an unlinked file does get archived or not.

Richard D. Hall wrote:No, the file is online on your internet host, but there is no way of getting to the page because there is nowhere for people to click to find the site.  They would have to type the full path in their browser to find the page, and to do that they need to know the filename.  I think I can test this to see if an unlinked file is archived.

It may "hoover up" everything unsecured in the folder that contained the web page being archived - linked or not.

You can be lazy on a web page and put pictures and things on the page without a full URL.. it will look in the containing folder. 

Maybe they were using a "catch all".

BlueBag wrote:This is the Winston Smith nightmare.

Or to put it in Newspeak, "this is the Winston Smith dream"

The man who will know, the man who probably created the page or instructed somebody to create the page is Jim Gamble.

Richard D. Hall wrote:I am not sure if a web crawler can detect a new page if there is no hyperlink to that page on the main website.  But if it can, then it is possible that they created the mccann.html page on CEOP website on 30th April, but it was invisible to the public as there was no link to it, nor any link sent out on email etc.  Only when a link is placed on the CEOP or other website to the actual file would people know about it.  I am not sure if web crawlers can pick up new files that have been created but not linked to.  So perhaps the file was created on 30th ready to go but they thought it was not visible.  I sometimes do this when I want to release something on my site at a particular time.  I will create a file, but not give a link to it on my site, then when I want to publish I just at add a link to the file on the "Recent Updates" list.  Perhaps someone on here knows if a web crawler can archive unlinked new web pages?  I know it is possible to create a link that is visible to a web crawler but not to the naked eye, sometimes done for Search Engine Optimisation purposes.

I was thinking along the same lines, Richard as I was dubious about the url that Roy Rovers quoted on Page 1 ...

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

The timestamp is zero followed by a wild card.  With no link to the mccann.html, the usual index.asp goes out.
If the link is made on 13th May then maybe the mccann.html is then recorded on the hard drive on the server in the 30th April folder.

It sounds like you have used this idea and it is possible to show on a website that it works. It reminds me of CEOP having an empty CAT file on the McCanns standing by in case they needed it.

BlueBag wrote:There appears to be a redirect going on on the way back machine.

When I hover the cursor over April 30th 2007 for the Mccann page it points at the April 30th directory that is shown in the emails and web page source in the previous posts.

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

When I click on the date I get this page from 13th May 2007

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

Has someone been fixing?

Yes it looks like archive.org have simply redirected.  This means they may have added some re-direct code into the file mccann.html in the 30 April folder to redirect to the mccann.html file in the 13th May folder.  Very naughty.  Extremely naughty in fact.  Possibly attempting to pervert the course of justice naughty.  This world we live in just never ceases to amaze me.