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

by **Tony Bennett** 18.06.15 9:13

Richard D. Hall wrote:The man who will know, the man who probably created the page or instructed somebody to create the page is Jim Gamble.

Exactly right, which is why the issue of determining whether or not that page was indeed created on 30 April matters so very much.

It would fit all that we know about Gamble's heavy personal involvement in the Madeleine McCann case, discussed here on CMOMM:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (10,190 views to date)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (11,490 views to date)

...and would make Jim Gamble and many others guilty of a most serious criminal conspiracy

by jeanmonroe 18.06.15 9:31

Mark Willis wrote:
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?

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?
----------------------------------------------------------------

DCI Redwood said: "................that one reading of the evidence indicated the abduction had "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance".

thinking

"..........that would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance".

Ah yes, DCI Redwood, but BY.......................'whom'?

CEOP?

by **Jill Havern** 18.06.15 9:32

Don't forget this one, Tony:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (10,680 views to date)

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 9:36

HiDeHo asked archive.org this question ...

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

Why oh why oh why ask that question???

There are many people on here who suspect Madeleine "disappeared" days before 3rd May, so why ask such a loaded question? By asking the question in this fashion, this may have been why they have now put what looks like a crude fix into their system. It's possible they saw what you said, looked up the story online and realised the official version is that the story broke on 4th and therefore just put in a fix accordingly.

I don't profess to "KNOW" when Madeleine "disappeared". Based on evidence I would say it is not established she disappeared 3 days after 30th, it could have been well before then.

by Guest 18.06.15 9:42

I agree with you there, Richard

Nonetheless, isn't this sheer evidence that there's a smelly rat being unearthed right now, and that the smell is so bad it has even set WB on tenterhooks?

They must be really considering their position right now, especially since their own credibility -and so their market value- hangs in the balance, as so succinctly explained some posts before.

I expect they now declare spontaneous mr Butler a loose cannon and fire him

And then we'll know for sure where we stand on this issue

by phil_burton 18.06.15 9:43

I'm sorry Richard D Hall, I subscribe to your theories and admire your work on a lot of subjects, but on this particular one I think you're wrong.

The "green text" in the html, the folder naming convention and all other date stamps would come from the exact same source within the crawler. It still appears to be a simple mistake, for example if the particular server that the crawler was running on had its base date set incorrectly, this would affect any programs running on it.

It is a strange coincidence given everything else we've seen during the McCann case, but still, it's far more likely to be an incorrect date than any conspiracy.

With regards to certainly files/pages redirecting on a certain date - this doesn't neccessarily indicate anything nefarious - servers and content management systems can be setup to react in different ways to requests for files that don't exist. In most cases this is 404, but in some, this can be a 302 or 301 redirect, which in the case of the WaybackWhen site means they don't archive it - something which you can see if you use the time machine to search for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (or .gov.uk, can't remember which).

Again, as an professional in this field - I still see nothing to suggest it's anything but a simple mistake/error and coincidence

by **Richard D. Hall** 18.06.15 9:50

As a professional in this field also I disagree with you. Somebody has posted an archived website from the same date and it appears the time stamping was working perfectly that day. Regarding the redirect, you are saying that they may have deleted the entry in the 30 April folder so their system then automatically redirects to the next folder. Yes that is possible also, that they just deleted the contents of the mccann.html file, or deleted the actual file in the 30 April folder and redirect happens by default. But this still means it would have been manually changed. I do not know what they have done, but their system is reporting different results for that date now than it was for presumably the last 8 years before the queries were raised, therefore it appears they have changed something "by hand".

by whatsupdoc 18.06.15 10:00

Phil, you sound just like Clarence M with your...

"I still see nothing to suggest it's anything but a simple mistake/error and coincidence".

If an archive server had a date / time problem that would render it useless.

I don't think there was a prob with the date/time which runs off standard online clocks but I do think there has been tinkering in the last couple of days.

by Guest 18.06.15 10:09

Richard D. Hall wrote:As a professional in this field also I disagree with you. Somebody has posted an archived website from the same date and it appears the time stamping was working perfectly that day. Regarding the redirect, you are saying that they may have deleted the entry in the 30 April folder so their system then automatically redirects to the next folder. Yes that is possible also, that they just deleted the contents of the mccann.html file, or deleted the actual file in the 30 April folder and redirect happens by default. But this still means it would have been manually changed. I do not know what they have done, but their system is reporting different results for that date now than it was for the last 8 years before the queries were raised, therefore they have changed something "by hand".

I agree.

The redirect has happened since people have been asking questions.

Something dodgy is going on.

by Guest 18.06.15 10:13

I expect the 30th April 2007 date highlight to also disappear as soon as they realise the redirect fix didn't entirely fix it.

by Guest 18.06.15 10:16

So, it's not fair to point to HiDeHo's asking questions: questions were being asked anyway already

But what IS noteworthy is the reaction: as if stung by a bee, things that have been dormant for 8 years have been set in motion

So who is the guardian of all things mcCann, who is drawing the strings of the operation?

And why does he let us get away with so much sleuthing so far?

I mean: why are we still on air?

by aiyoyo 18.06.15 10:33

Richard D. Hall wrote:The man who will know, the man who probably created the page or instructed somebody to create the page is Jim Gamble.

No chance in hell to get an honest answer from him.
He will probably take a leaf out of CM and say there is an innocent answer to everything. If he's something to hide that's what he will say.

The only entity that one can hope to get a straight honest answer from is Wayback website.
So far the Wayback (webarchive.com?) seems to be undermining its own credibility by giving out varying replies.

Unless it is possible for Web Crawler to capture every created empty folder and later on when contents are written onto it, the folder and/or link just shows up the first created date and not content/s input/edit date/dates.

Suggestion - only way to find out is to test it out using your website.

by canada12 18.06.15 10:35

BlueBag wrote:I expect the 30th April 2007 date highlight to also disappear as soon as they realise the redirect fix didn't entirely fix it.

If this turns out to be more than a simple error, we now have an extremely well documented case of tampering with evidence. Stating the obvious, I know. But worth noting.

by sar 18.06.15 10:36

Portia wrote:So, it's not fair to point to HiDeHo's asking questions: questions were being asked anyway already

But what IS noteworthy is the reaction: as if stung by a bee, things that have been dormant for 8 years have been set in motion

So who is the guardian of all things mcCann, who is drawing the strings of the operation?

And why does he let us get away with so much sleuthing so far?

I mean: why are we still on air?

[Audible] "Click"

Our screens go to static

A white dot appears in the middle of the screen.

Then, nothing......except a loud knocking at the door!!!

by **PeterMac** 18.06.15 10:48

Don;t know if it has been posted before, but for posterity. . .

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

by Gaggzy 18.06.15 11:01

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.

I tend to agree.

But one thing is 100% certain, there will be entities at work with a claw-hammer trying their best to wrench that nail right out.

Hopefully, it is so far embedded into the wood it is impossible to remove and the house of cards will begin to tumble.

glee

by jeanmonroe 18.06.15 11:21

CEOP?

"Madeleine abducted by paedophile" 20070503220000 = 2007 MAY (05) 3rd 22 (hours) 00 (minutes) 00 (seconds) 'pm'

CEOP?

20070430115803 = 2007 APRIL (04) 30th 11 (hours) 58 (minutes) 03 (seconds) 'am' GMT.

CEOP?

CLEARLY 'EXPECTING' OPERATION 'PAEDOPHILE'?

by jeanmonroe 18.06.15 11:28

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

WHO is 'Madelaine'?

by Joss 18.06.15 11:35

So is the WBM data only incorrect on the McCScam entry for 30/4/07, or are there lots of other incorrect dates as well? And what happens with their stuff being used in legal cases then? Funny about that...... always exceptions and errors made in the McCScam case. Who would of thought!

by Joss 18.06.15 11:37

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

WHO is 'Madelaine'?

Oh you know Jeanmonroe, Its just another mistake, a spelling mistake.

by sallypelt 18.06.15 11:49

If the date on the file is an "ERROR" then let's sit back and wait for all the appeals against all court judgments where WBM has been used in evidence, because WBM is now useless.

The hand of the McCann's STRIKES AGAIN!

by roy rovers 18.06.15 11:51

If MM was on the CEOPS website on 30 April 2007 why didn't someone notice? Why didn't CEOPS themselves notice when she was reported abducted in Portugal on 3 May 2007? Oh I get it - CEOPS put it there so that they could subsequently cover up the fact that they put it there.
It's a sunny day - get out and have walk in the fresh air.

by Doug D 18.06.15 12:10

Roy Rovers,

I think you have missed the point.

As I understand it a McCann file called :

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

appears to have been created on, but would not have been published, to the www on that date.

However, the Wayback Machine scans the whole of the web and picked up the page on 30^th April and indexed it accordingly.

CEOP would not have known it had been scanned and indexed and just published the page to the general public at a later date.

However, since yesterday, some ‘whooshing’ and changes appear to have been carried out, to try and conceal this date.

As a non-techi, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

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

Please can someone e-mail Exaro with a link to this thread and some basic details.

I have e-mailed them with stuff previously, but am sitting in McDonalds (sorry!) and can’t get into my e-mails for some reason.

They must be worth keeping in the picture, as the only media organization seemingly prepared to do any digging.

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

Thanks.

by Joss 18.06.15 12:16

Wonder what the PJ will make of it all ?????

by Joss 18.06.15 12:19

roy rovers wrote:If MM was on the CEOPS website on 30 April 2007 why didn't someone notice? Why didn't CEOPS themselves notice when she was reported abducted in Portugal on 3 May 2007? Oh I get it - CEOPS put it there so that they could subsequently cover up the fact that they put it there.
It's a sunny day - get out and have walk in the fresh air.

Wish i could but its been pouring rain for the last 3 days, and its nightime here right now, lol, smilie