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

by cloak'ndagger 19.06.15 10:18

Hideho you do appear to have forced a certain response from them

"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."

by Joss 19.06.15 10:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

I agree, maybe poor old Pat just needs to take an aleve and lie down in a darkened room, big grin

by Guest 19.06.15 10:30

Maybe a Government would not, but maybe CEOP or one or more of its people would

Cui bono?

by jeanmonroe 19.06.15 12:34

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

Did Pat 'support' the 'invasion' of Iraq to 'destroy all those W'sMD' S Hussein 'had'?

Like she had been 'TOLD' by US Government?

by Joss 19.06.15 12:38

jeanmonroe wrote:Did Pat 'support' the 'invasion' of Iraq to 'destroy all those W'sMD' S Hussein 'had'?

Like she had been 'TOLD' by US Government?

Possibly,

by **Richard D. Hall** 19.06.15 12:41

A "glitch" - priceless

... that explains it - we can all forget about it. lol

by **Richard D. Hall** 19.06.15 12:44

Hey my car just failed its MOT.

What seems to be the problem?

Oh I think the car has what is commonly referred to as a "glitch".

Ah yes, mine had one of those a few years back. Nasty little blighters them glitches. I went to Halfords, they have got some "glitch spray" made by Pifco, it's only £99.99 but it fixes all known glitches.

Noh it's ok I went to the Magic Box joke shop and bought a magic wand and this seems to have done the trick.

Pat Brown should stick to studying people.

by jeanmonroe 19.06.15 12:54

Richard D. Hall wrote:Hey my car just failed its MOT.

What seems to be the problem?

Oh I think the car has what is commonly referred to as a "glitch".

Ah yes, mine had one of those a few years back. Nasty little blighters them glitches. I went to Halfords, they have got some "glitch spray" made by Pifco, it's only £99.99 but it fixes all known glitches.

Noh it's ok I went to the Magic Box joke box and bought a magic wand and this seems to have done the trick.

Funnily enough, RBS, Nat West, Ulster Bank, never, NEVER, have 'a glitch' when their executives/traders huge, UK taxpayer 'funded', £million+ BONUSES are 'due' to be 'credited' to THEIR 'accounts'!

Weird that, innit?

by FH 19.06.15 13:08

I could postulate a simple reason for the discrepancy. System clocks are not always accurate.

On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM saved it.

There is absolutely no way to tell if the date from the CEOP system is accurate. Computer systems are not all synchronised to a definitive time source. They have internal clocks and when the battery dies, the internal clock does not always keep time correctly. When the file was archived on the CEOP site, the system clock could have been days/ weeks/months out in either direction. I'm not saying it was, or that it is likely it was, just saying it could have been and we have no way to tell.

There is a big gap (> 6 weeks) between the file being "archived" (is this a web publishing date?) on the CEOP system and the WBM crawler discovering it. It would be interesting to know if the WBM web crawler accessed the CEOP site in the intervening period, or not. This would tell us approximately when the file appeared real time.

What I don't understand is why WBM would alter the data. All they have to say is that the file was discovered by their web crawler on 17th June 2007. So it definitely existed on 17th June 2007. The date from the CEOP site is 30th April, but as WBM are not responsible for that server, they cannot comment on the accuracy of the date.

Why the need to change the data?

by Richard IV 19.06.15 13:08

Is the Waybackmachine the ONLY internet archiver or crawler?

Perhaps the same search could be done using another crawler machine. That`s if CR haven`t got there first !

From another site, it seems that CR have used this tactic before for their clients the Church of Scientology and got loads of stuff removed from the Waybackmachine - just google Waybackmachine scientology - there`s loads on it.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.06.15 13:14

Pat Brown is a member here. So please could we keep our comments respectful.

To be fair she has invested a lot of time and energy on the case - and right from 2007 has not been afraid to express her strong doubts about the official story.

She has also avoided the name-calling that has gone on between people supposedly of the same viewpoint on the case.

Without going into detail, she and I, as she knows, disagree about what did or didn't happen on the afternoon and evening of 3 May, and on whether Smithman was Gerry McCann or was a fabrication.

We have agreed to disagree without either accusing the other of being anything other than honest in intent.

On the question of what accounts for a 'dummy' McCann page having apparently been picked up by archive.org at 11.58am and 3 secs on 30 April 2007, initially I accepted that Lizzy (HideHo) and the Christopher Butler bloke from archive.org must be correct in ascribing this to some kind of 'glitch' in the system.

But the more I have read here - and in another place by a poster called 'Resistor' in particular - from those who seem to have the technical competence to comment, the more I am unpersuaded that this can be written off as a mere 'glitch'.

How many 'glitches' have Wayback had over the years?

As others have pointed out, it is reminiscent of Eddie and Keela being right in hundreds of cases, but suddnely wrong when they go to Praia da Luz.

I am really hoping that HideHo will come on line later and answer my specific questions up the thread

by Guest 19.06.15 13:24

HideHo has been online all morning. I've been awaiting her reply to your posts too.

What's going to happen next with regard to WBM's discrepancy? Will they disclose the results of their investigation to HideHo? Hopefully they will provide a clear and honest explanation.

ETA: HideHo has just logged out.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.06.15 13:24

FH wrote:What I don't understand is why WBM would alter the data...Why the need to change the data?

Suppose they were told (as they were by HideHo) - by someone who has known the case inside out for 8 years, something like this:

"Look, Madeleine McCann was first reported missing at 10.00pm on 3rd May. So how comes your web search comes up with a finding of a McCann html file three days earlier, 30th April? How could a government organisation like CEOP possibly develop a 'dummy' page on Madeleine McCann three days before she went missing? This is an international case, you might look very stupid if you don't provide an accepatale and full explanation".

Suppose he then rapidly searches 'Madeleine McCann' on the net and discovers two things: (A) It's one of the very biggest international stories of the past decade, and (B) It's true, she didn't go missing until about 10pm on 3 May.

THEN: Utter panic! We've got this badly wrong! How can we get out of it?

SOON AFTER: I know! We'll put it down to a 'glitch'

by Guest 19.06.15 13:25

FH wrote:On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM saved it.

Er.. the archive date isn't based on the date of the server containing the web page.

It's supposed to be the way the page looked on the internet the date and time of archive.

It is possible that wayback machine server had a wrong date.

But that would mean they have lots of pages stored incorrectly for that day.

I found a Daily Mirror page archived on the 30th April 2007 that was correct, so it was archiving other things correctly that day.

by **PeterMac** 19.06.15 13:27

Or they could say -
WayBack is spot on. Evidence provided by the search engine is used in court proceedings and has never been successfully challenged
You will have to ask CEOPS.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.06.15 13:30

I think at this stage of the game I will publish a letter I sent to Christopher Butler at about 9.45pm last night, to which I have not yet had a reply:

===========================================================================================

To: Mr Christopher Butler
Office Manager
Archive.Org

18 June 2015

Dear Mr Butler,

Further to two e-mails you have sent out today to others regarding a page on the CEOP website, which have caused a great deal of interest now that they have been widely posted on the internet, I am now writing to make a more specific enquiry about the data you hold from this website:

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

I trust you will not be burdened with too many enquiries of this type. If you are able to assist, and since this is a matter which might eventually require evidence in the form of an affidvait or by way of a statutory, signed declaration or similar, could you please also let me know if you would be willing to put any statement in such a form and if so what the fee would be - many thanks.

The page in question from the CEOP website is named:

mccann.html,

therefore the full URL is

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

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?

2. Can you also confirm what the contents of the page read on that date?

3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

I realise you have already provided this information to somebody else recently but I need it to be independently confirmed.

Can you also please indicate that you have personally checked the information you have provided today with a suitably technically qualified person.

I would be very grateful for this information.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ

Tel: 0044 1279 635789

by Richard IV 19.06.15 13:38

But how do you know Christopher Butler will tell the truth? He may have already been got at by CR in a similar fashion to how they got all the Scientology stuff removed from Waybackmachine.

by whatsupdoc 19.06.15 13:54

BlueBag wrote:
FH wrote:On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM saved it.
Er.. the archive date isn't based on the date of the server containing the web page.

It's supposed to be the way the page looked on the internet the date and time of archive.

It is possible that wayback machine server had a wrong date.

But that would mean they have lots of pages stored incorrectly for that day.

I found a Daily Mirror page archived on the 30th April 2007 that was correct, so it was archiving other things correctly that day.

Thanks for the info on the Daily Mirror, BlueBag. I think that clears up any doubts about incorrect server operation. Saving screen shots before and after midday would be helpful.

Thanks to Tony for making the enquiry to archive.org
Changes have been made to the records and I don't think it's right.

by Guest 19.06.15 13:58

whatsupdoc wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
FH wrote:On the 17th June 2007 the WBM web crawler found a page called McCann.html on the CEOP site that was dated 30th April and WBM saved it.
Er.. the archive date isn't based on the date of the server containing the web page.

It's supposed to be the way the page looked on the internet the date and time of archive.

It is possible that wayback machine server had a wrong date.

But that would mean they have lots of pages stored incorrectly for that day.

I found a Daily Mirror page archived on the 30th April 2007 that was correct, so it was archiving other things correctly that day.

Thanks for the info on the Daily Mirror, BlueBag. I think that clears up any doubts about incorrect server operation. Saving screen shots before and after midday would be helpful.

Thanks to Tony for making the enquiry to archive.org
Changes have been made to the records and I don't think it's right.

They could claim they had multiple servers doing the web crawling.

Lots of wriggle-room.

Will they admit it though considering that this companies data is used in court cases?

by HelenMeg 19.06.15 14:04

Portia wrote:Maybe a Government would not, but maybe CEOP or one or more of its people would

Cui bono?

I agree - I thought from what I have read that CEOP was run by Jim as his little empire - he didn't seem to have to answer to anyone - hence T May felt the need to stop that from happening. Jim & CEOP had close links to this case from the beginning for whatever reason.

Has anyone asked CEOP themselves about this webpage and its creation date? Is it not reasonable to question them regarding this?

by Gaggzy 19.06.15 14:05

Richard IV wrote:But how do you know Christopher Butler will tell the truth? He may have already been got at by CR in a similar fashion to how they got all the Scientology stuff removed from Waybackmachine.

If I was this Christopher Butler, from now on, I'd check underneath my car before getting in it; look both ways three-times-over before crossing the road; never leave my drink unattended while in the bar / restaurant, and maybe even seek out the local plastic surgeon! Oh, and make a public declaration that I have absolutely no intention of committing suicide.

'Watch your back, lad! Certain people LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED to hide the truth.'

by jeanmonroe 19.06.15 14:06

Will they admit it though considering that this companies data is used in court cases?
----------------------------------------------

Hmmm, er, let me think, for ONE 'second'

thinking

Erm..........NOPE!

by LG 19.06.15 14:13

I have asked this question on two FB groups - but as yet no one has been able to give me a satisfactory reply.

The file index.asp is from the backup on 30th April 2007 - as you can see it contains references to dates in October 2007 - why would that be?

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

Here is the same file taken from 13th October 2007 backup.

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

As far as I can tell, javascript runs html code to insert the Wayback Toolbar, which inserts the date of the backup.

Question 2 Where does this code take the date from?
(I would have expected this to be from the server clock (time of day) at the time of the back up).

I have checked this file on a fair few back ups and none of the contain dates in the future. They show pretty much as you would expect - the dates correspond to the date of back up on the tool bar).

This is the link to the 8,766 URL's Wayback has archived.

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

Going through the (pages and pages) it appears to me that there are a disproportionate number for 30th April 2007. This could be due to a full site back up - but I cannot prove this.

A couple of nights ago you were able to click on any file for that date (30/04/2007) and you could see the code for the page. They are obviously working on it as now that action gives the following.

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

If some kind person could kindly put me out of my misery, answers in words of one syllable would be much appreciated, as I'm no expert.

Thank you.

by **Richard D. Hall** 19.06.15 14:26

The page contains dynamic content. In other words the page contains the addresses of other files, held elsewhere on the CEOP website which it pastes into the page when the page is displayed. So when other pages or images are updated elsewhere on the CEOP website it means what is displayed by mccann.html also changes. The content is being pulled from elsewhere when the page is constructed into your browser. The hard coded HTML page does not contain these dates.

I have got a copy of the HTML code. The only dates in the page after 30 April are ones that the archive server has inserted when new versions of mccann.html are archived. It modifies the old file by adding a link to the next archived version of mccann.html, therefore this will contain the date of future archives. But there are no dates in the original html code, as far as I can see.

by **Richard D. Hall** 19.06.15 14:59

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

Here it is as plain as the nose on your face. The directory (or folder) name even has the current date encoded into it. This is proof that a file called mccann.html was copied from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 30th April 2007 at 11:58:03

Evidence exactly like this has been used successfully in court cases in the past.

Operation Grange should be quarantining the offices and computers of CEOP, to preserve further evidence which could show they had knowledge of this case 3 days before anyone is supposed to have been informed. And also how and why they may have had this knowledge.

by LG 19.06.15 15:35

Thank you for your reply Richard. My question actually related to the index.asp file.

I (sort of) understand the difference between static and dynamic. To me dynamic code would also be used to used to personalise a web site (such as Welcome Lizi,) ie taking data from another source to add to the static page as you said (ie frequently changing information).

I can see the a href= which relate to the hyperlinks to other pages.

If you would be so kind as to publish the dynamic code on any of the index.asp pages - I'd be much obliged.

(ATM I can't get me head around why previous and post 30th April back ups look like "static" pages).

help

by Joss 19.06.15 15:35

An interesting article on WBM and its use in litigation etc.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 19.06.15 15:40

Gaggzy wrote:
Richard IV wrote:But how do you know Christopher Butler will tell the truth? He may have already been got at by CR in a similar fashion to how they got all the Scientology stuff removed from Waybackmachine.

If I was this Christopher Butler, from now on, I'd check underneath my car before getting in it; look both ways three-times-over before crossing the road; never leave my drink unattended while in the bar / restaurant, and maybe even seek out the local plastic surgeon! Oh, and make a public declaration that I have absolutely no intention of committing suicide.

'Watch your back, lad! Certain people LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED to hide the truth.'

=========================

And keep my dogs inside too, and my cousins; just see what befell dr. GA

by roy rovers 19.06.15 15:45

Never having heard of the Wayback Machine until a few days ago I am afraid its shortlived reputation is already irreparably damaged in my eyes. They don't seem to know whether they're coming or going. No wonder they are working behind the scenes at Wayback to come up with a credible narrative. If was a defence attorney on a future case where Wayback evidence is being used I'd point to this one.

by **PeterMac** 19.06.15 15:49

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
at page 256

B. Screen Shots as Evidence
1. Federal Rules of Evidence
The main evidentiary issues that arise when submitting screen shots into evidence relate to hearsay and authentication. Hearsay is defined as a statement that “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing” and “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”34 An archived screen shot from the Wayback Machine is a written assertion of what a web page looked like on the date provided. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay that may cover this situation.
First, most courts reject a hearsay objection to testimony generated by a machine, such as a screen read of a clock.35 Here, the Wayback Machine is archiving screen shots taken by automated web crawlers from the date and time indicated. Therefore, it could be argued that they meet the machine exception to hearsay. Another possible exception may be found in FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2), which provides that an opposing party’s statement offered against the opposing party is not hearsay.36 This exception could be applied because the contents of the party’s website may be deemed an admission.

edited to ad

If you go through this document, and it is a long and legalistic one, try using the "find" command and putting "date"
So far as I can see there is no instance of the date's having been challenged.