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

VeraWannabe wrote:On [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if you hovver over the little blue arrow in the rh corner to take you to the previous website snapshot, then it displays the date 30/4/2007 11:58 on your cursor, and also displays the URL in the bottom bar...

So there was definitely another snapshot - which has been removed overnight...

Who archives the webpages of web.archive.org.......................??  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I bet it has if what we suspect might be true. It wouldn't be the first time something in the McCann charade has been "whooshed"".

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.

The McCanns and their friends have made many, many slips. This would be just one of a huge number.

The unjemmied shutters; the conflicting accounts of what they did that evening; the changing testimony. And so on. 

Many of the photos are suspect. 

Kate's book is a web of lies, imo.

So it's not surprising that another one has been uncovered as it appears to have been.

Joss wrote: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!

Yes - a bit like the unreliable sniffer dogs. The Mcs managed to unearth one case in the States where the judge deemed that the dog evidence couldn't be used as it wasn't reliable enough but in the end the murderer admitted what he had done and the dogs had been correct.

j.rob 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.

The McCanns and their friends have made many, many slips. This would be just one of a huge number.

The unjemmied shutters; the conflicting accounts of what they did that evening; the changing testimony. And so on. 

Many of the photos are suspect. 

Kate's book is a web of lies, imo.

So it's not surprising that another one has been uncovered as it appears to have been.

They probably know they will never be held accountable in any way for Madeleine's disappearance so probably don't care. They have never been held to account in 8 years so far through it all. For all the people that think they are complicit in what happened, there are also many who defend them, and then there are probably a lot that have long ago lost interest in the case and could care less about it. There are many other more newsworthy things going on in the world right now that are probably more concerning to the public IMO.

j.rob wrote:

Joss wrote: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!

Yes - a bit like the unreliable sniffer dogs. The Mcs managed to unearth one case in the States where the judge deemed that the dog evidence couldn't be used as it wasn't reliable enough but in the end the murderer admitted what he had done and the dogs had been correct.

Exactly.

I cant help but find this whole thing is a distraction designed to deflect from stuff like Amaral filing his appeal.

HelenMeg wrote:I cant help but find this whole thing is a distraction designed to deflect from stuff like Amaral filing his appeal.

Not sure what it really is? It could be something or it could be nothing, but either way, i guess that most likely nothing much will come from it knowing this case.

Been scouring the web looking for any reports of this in the press and media. Can't find a single report about it except on Twitter. Maybe somebody will come along and prove me wrong. It's certainly a very strange thing to have been unearthed after all this time in this never ending mystery.

Doug D wrote: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.]

It wasn't my intention to kick off a discussion about the Telegraph report, I don't even know when that particular write-up was first published, apart from being 4th May 2007.  I was using it as an example of what I think might be an archival default timing.  If you look at the Telegraph reports published during the same period you will see that qute a number specify the same time i.e. 12:01 am.

The topic seems to have taken on a life of it's own but I still wonder that the CEOP would be so stupid as to make such a potentially explosive error and why has it taken eight years for someone to notice?  Still as I say what do I know, I'll leave it to the experts.

Thanks however for providing the link to past discussion which I will read as a matter of interest.

PeterMac wrote:

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.]" />

Remember how at that time also all articles who spoke of a "3 year old" had to be upgraded to a "4 year old".

If you believe in the neglect or not, the story was neglect and these idiots apparently think that it is OK to leave a 4 year old babysit her younge twin siblings.

Doug D wrote: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.

Hi Doug
Or you could have missed the point. Techie this techie that - leave it to the techies. I suggested one way it could have happened further up the thread and there are no doubt countless others. The main thing is from a sanity point of view do you seriously believe that CEOPs created this on 30 April 2007 and then hushed it up? Think how many people would need to be in on it and kept quiet since? Or maybe they got in the crew that filmed the faked moon landings in a hanger and kept quiet about that ever since as well.
Lol

Dear roy of the rovers,

There is a definite anomaly here that may indicate something happened before May 3rd 2007.

And also there is evidence that someone is trying to disappear it since questions were asked.

It's interesting.

Don't you think?

BB.

It is very interesting that it appears to have been tampered with since yesterday 
They have eyes and ears everywhere which if this were a run of the mill missing person just wouldn't be the case

Probably reading our little musings

Joss wrote:TFWIW, Just read this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
Interpret as U wish..I've spoken to Wayback Rep He stands by date apparently so do courts. I've sent to PJ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That email appears to be genuine. 

In any event, there are many other pointers that the "abduction" of Madeleine McCann was a pre-arranged hoax.

j.rob wrote:

Joss wrote:TFWIW, Just read this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
Interpret as U wish..I've spoken to Wayback Rep He stands by date apparently so do courts. I've sent to PJ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That email appears to be genuine. 

In any event, there are many other pointers that the "abduction" of Madeleine McCann was a pre-arranged hoax.

The screenshot above shows the page as it was "captured" on April 30.
We've now been told that this was an "error" and that it should have been a different date, after May 7.
The only trouble is, if you go to the link now, there are TWO photos of Madeleine on the page:

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

So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
When was the second photo of Madeleine added?
Why doesn't only one photo of Madeleine appear in the new link?
Why don't two photos of Madeleine appear in the April 30 link above?
Hmmm.

canada12 wrote:So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?

Good point.

Yes, I saw the one photo/two photo thing.

Goodness... this has suddenly got even more twisted in the last two days.

The redirected page is not the same as the original page?

BlueBag wrote:

canada12 wrote:So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?

Good point.

Yes, I saw the one photo/two photo thing.

Goodness... this has suddenly got even more twisted in the last two days.

So is it CEOP that's messing with things?

I agree with Richard D Hall that HiDeHo shouldn't have asked that question. It's like the media alerting the 'abductor's' that the net is closing in.

Doh.

No wonder things are being tampered with.

Squeaky bum time for Jim.

HiDeHo wrote:I'm sorry, I realise I won't be popular but this is how I see it...

Incorrect webpages got on the April 30th date...and WBM admitted to it being incorrect.. Leaves what explanations?

* Hacking
* WBM are complicit in changing the data for the benefit of the McCanns (even though they have no idea who they are)
* WBM automated web crawler and subsequent indexing processes were incorrect.

I know where most of my bets lay

@ HideHo

What do you say, please, to the claim that someone at CEOP created (shall we say) a 'dummy' web page with the URL:

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

on or before 11.58am on Monday 30 April 2007?


On one website where I am the named webmaster/domain name registrant etc. (nothing to do with Madeleine McCann by the way), our web developer uploaded a 'dummy' website which was inactive for months before we 'went live' and put it out on the internet for all to see. It was to help us build the site with input from three or four of us. 

The point was, we had a URL that was secret just to those of us building the site.

But if I have understood this correctly, these archiving sites scan crawl the web and 'see' these 'dummy' sites (or, in this case, a 'dummy' page), which are not yet 'live', is that not correct?


ALSO: Do you now say that this statement, made initially by Chrisopher Butler, is an incorrect statement of fact? Is it false please? - and, if so, in what respect?

QUOTE

The record you've identified

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

is the record we have

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

and the time [that the archive.org site crawled the web and found this URL - T.B.] April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

HiDeHo wrote:
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


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.]

Thanks for this.  Hope you enjoyed the rest of it!

Butler says the real date for Mccann.html is 31st July.

So they redirected the 30th April page to 13th May.

Yeah.. right.

Tony Bennett wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:I'm sorry, I realise I won't be popular but this is how I see it...

Incorrect webpages got on the April 30th date...and WBM admitted to it being incorrect.. Leaves what explanations?

* Hacking
* WBM are complicit in changing the data for the benefit of the McCanns (even though they have no idea who they are)
* WBM automated web crawler and subsequent indexing processes were incorrect.

I know where most of my bets lay

@ HideHo

What do you say, please, to the claim that someone at CEOP created (shall we say) a 'dummy' web page with the URL:

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

on or before 11.58am on Monday 30 April 2007?

I have a further question about the above for @ HideHo or anyone else please:

QUOTE

The record you've identified ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) is the record we have for the URL [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the time April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

What exactly do you say happened at 11hrs, 59mins, 3seconds AM, GMT, on Monday 30th April 2007?

Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

snipped

Recently, in the Madeleine McCann case comes a prime example of what kind of thing can go on in the minds of a jury. Someone checked the Wayback Machine, an Internet thing that allows you to check what happened on a particular day on the Internet in the past and they came up with a page labeled April 30th with an announcement by the governmental agency, CEOP - The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is a command of the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) - of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. All hell has broken loose on the Internet....many, including some folks who have written books and made films on the case....are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]that Madeleine McCann did not die or disappear on May 3rd, the date Kate McCann claimed she found her daughter missing after doing a check on her children, but, instead Madeleine was already gone days before which therefore proves that there is some huge conspiracy afoot which includes the government and a gaggle of accomplices, a conspiracy in which some shady super powerful people did something to Madeleine McCann and then had the McCanns and their friends (and other possible accomplices) carried on a hoax for days in Praia da Luz, pretending Maddie was alive until May 3rd at which point they staged a really pitiful fake abduction so that all would think that she disappeared on that date and not that something happened to her days earlier! In spite of all the "proof" folks have been batting about - a "fake" last photo and "forged" creche records, stuff that some think proves Madeleine was already dead and gone by May 3rd - NOW there is DEFINITIVE proof with this April 30th CEOP page that Madeleine did not die or disappear on May 3rd and the government clearly is involved with some incredibly big hoax with the McCanns in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Oh my god, I have a really bad headache.

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall. And this comes from a person who DOES believe there is evidence to support a theory that Madeleine came to an accidental death in the vacation flat and the McCanns did false report and cover up her death.




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

Neither would Government sanitise a CATS file...........................would it?

Tony Bennett wrote:
QUOTE

The record you've identified ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) is the record we have for the URL [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the time April 30, 2007 11:58 and 3 seconds AM GMT.

UNQUOTE

What exactly do you say happened at 11hrs, 59mins, 3seconds AM, GMT, on Monday 30th April 2007?

Having initially missed this thread, I've finally managed to catch up.

For me this is the key, (and only?), question - where did the database entry come from that recorded finding that page on the 30th April 2007?  The time stamp is the Internet Archive's record of when they performed the crawl so nothing to do with server timestamps etc.

Without going into details of locking, multi-threading etc, there are all sorts of ways a software error could result in an incorrect database entry, particularly during changes to data, but that's much less likely with what is effectively a sequential log of timestamped events.

I think talk of the page being stored in a dated folder etc is a bit simplistic - they must capture the original page and then work on deltas.  The page you end up seeing is a mix of a server-side dynamically created page using the info beyond the /web/ to generate it, (if only to add their header, Javascript and meta-data), and heavy use of page redirects for media etc.

For example the first image of Madeleine on the 13th May page has in the page source the following URL: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
However what is actually served is a 6th June copy: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Whatever they've done to "correct" it still believes there is a 30th April 2007 entry since it still shows on the summary page.  If you edit the URL to other dates that weren't crawled it will still serves up a page by redirecting to the closest hit.  However choosing a date prior to the 30th April and watching the network requests, (e.g via F12 in a browser), you see an initial request to get mccann.html from the chosen date, followed by an HTTP "302 Moved Temporarily" redirect to the 30th April, followed by a further redirect to the 13th May.

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall.

I would just observe that Pat Brown's reasoning above is linked to her unswerving belief that Madeleine died some time after she had 'high tea' with her parents and the nanny at around 5.30pm to 6pm on 3 May.

This was also the settled belief of Goncalo Amaral as expressed in 'The Truth About A Lie'. Amaral was persuaded of the truthfulness of all those who gave evidence about this event. So, presumably, is Pat Brown.

Because Pat Brown has closed her mind to other possibilities, and is perhaps unfamiliar with the extraordinarily close nexus between the McCanns and Jim Gamble, who was the head of CEOP on 30 April 2007, she is unable to see why, to some people, the idea that Jim Gamble or a colleague might have - covertly - set up a 'dummy' page about Madeleine on 30 April 2007 makes perfect damn sense  

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Pat Brown having a bit of a moan about Stevo's find:

snipped

Recently, in the Madeleine McCann case comes a prime example of what kind of thing can go on in the minds of a jury. Someone checked the Wayback Machine, an Internet thing that allows you to check what happened on a particular day on the Internet in the past and they came up with a page labeled April 30th with an announcement by the governmental agency, CEOP - The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is a command of the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) - of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. All hell has broken loose on the Internet....many, including some folks who have written books and made films on the case....are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]that Madeleine McCann did not die or disappear on May 3rd, the date Kate McCann claimed she found her daughter missing after doing a check on her children, but, instead Madeleine was already gone days before which therefore proves that there is some huge conspiracy afoot which includes the government and a gaggle of accomplices, a conspiracy in which some shady super powerful people did something to Madeleine McCann and then had the McCanns and their friends (and other possible accomplices) carried on a hoax for days in Praia da Luz, pretending Maddie was alive until May 3rd at which point they staged a really pitiful fake abduction so that all would think that she disappeared on that date and not that something happened to her days earlier! In spite of all the "proof" folks have been batting about - a "fake" last photo and "forged" creche records, stuff that some think proves Madeleine was already dead and gone by May 3rd - NOW there is DEFINITIVE proof with this April 30th CEOP page that Madeleine did not die or disappear on May 3rd and the government clearly is involved with some incredibly big hoax with the McCanns in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Oh my god, I have a really bad headache.

Clearly, there is just a glitch on the Wayback site because it just makes no damn sense. Common sense - which seems to be missing in this case - should tell anyone that the government is not going to accidentally put up a webpage that a child is missing three days before the parents report her missing to the police. If a conspiracy is SO big that the government is in on the disappearance, they are hardly going to do something so incredibly stupid. The whole idea just makes my head hurt and want to slam it into a wall. And this comes from a person who DOES believe there is evidence to support a theory that Madeleine came to an accidental death in the vacation flat and the McCanns did false report and cover up her death.




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

Is P. Brown really so naive that she doesn't think Governments cover things up and lie, lol?