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

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 1:24

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?

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 2:03

[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.

by jeanmonroe 18.06.15 2:17

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.

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 2:40

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" ?

by Joss 18.06.15 4:26

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".

by aiyoyo 18.06.15 5:21

@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)!

by Doug D 18.06.15 6:09

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.]

by whatsupdoc 18.06.15 6:50

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...

by Mark Willis 18.06.15 7:05

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.

by Carrry On Doctor 18.06.15 7:23

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

by Guest 18.06.15 7:38

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.

by Guest 18.06.15 7:45

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.

by Mark Willis 18.06.15 8:02

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?

by Guest 18.06.15 8:09

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?

by **PeterMac** 18.06.15 8:15

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.]" />

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 8:26

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.

by Guest 18.06.15 8:27

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.

by Guest 18.06.15 8:30

This is the Winston Smith nightmare.

by Carrry On Doctor 18.06.15 8:33

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 !

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 8:39

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.

by Guest 18.06.15 8:46

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".

by **PeterMac** 18.06.15 8:48

BlueBag wrote:This is the Winston Smith nightmare.

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

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 8:50

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

by whatsupdoc 18.06.15 8:55

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.

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 9:00

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.

Log in for more topics