A further letter to Christopher Butler, 18 June 2015

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.

by Joss 19.06.15 15:53

LG wrote: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.

From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

by happychick 19.06.15 15:58

roy rovers wrote: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.

But surely it's CEOP that should be worried, not wayback? I don't understand why wayback feels the need to come up with a "credible narrative". It's CEOP that needs to come up with a credible narrative.

Better still, just get the PJ on to the case. I was going to say Operation Grange then thought better of it. laughat

by LG 19.06.15 16:05

Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

by FH 19.06.15 16:07

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.

Apologies. I misread the date info. I see now it was archived on the 30th April 2007 and retrieved on 17th June 2015. Duh.

However , this does not rule out a server clock issue after the 30th April. The WBM probably have multiple servers processing the data. If only one had a failing/failed clock battery and it was powered off for maintenance or a fault, , the system clock would slow and the date would become incorrect. Under these circumstance the clock can loose days, week, even years depending upon the battery power / time it was off. When the server was re-booted it would come up with the wrong date (in the past) and it would take time to resync its clock to the correct date. This normally takes seconds/minutes depending upon how often it is set to poll the time server. Any data processed in the window before the system clock was synchronised to the correct time would have the wrong time stamp. Data correctly collected on the 30th would not be affected, so looking at that data wouldn't help. If there are an abnormally large number of files for the 30th compared to other days, then that might indicate a server time error. if there is time stamped news content from after the 30th, but the archived date was 30th, that would also indicate a clock error. If there is a date when there is no data, but there should be , that would most likely be the date the problem occurred.

It could also be a software error. I have seen those too. They are rare, but they do happen.

Sadly it would take a forensic investigation on the servers involved (assuming they have backup data from 2007), to determine what happened, if it was even possible. Obviously if it was a glitch WBM may well know from their records/log files, but whether they will divulge the info remains to be seen.

In rare moments I do wonder if this is all some social experiment to see how the "proletariat" behave. Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?

by Guest 19.06.15 16:08

LG wrote:
Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

Yes.

The time stamp is the date when the snap shot was taken.

So that people know what the web page looked like on that date.

by **Jill Havern** 19.06.15 16:20

FH wrote: Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?

I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

Stevo is the author of "Faked Abduction".

by Joss 19.06.15 16:36

LG wrote:
Joss wrote:From what i have read there is a 6-14 month lag time between the date a site is crawled and the date it appears on the Way Back Machine. I guess if it was crawled on the 30/4/2007 and appeared in October 2007 that would be around the 6 months lag time.

Whilst I have read what you wrote - I'm thinking my understanding is somewhat different....

The time lag, to me, represents the time it takes to appear on the Wayback Machine Website and that is why each entry is specifically dated (time) stamped.

Am happy to be proved wrong (still waring my arm bands (read out of my depth)).

According to BB you are right. Sorry, it looks like i misunderstood your question, smilie

by Joss 19.06.15 16:38

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
FH wrote: Things have been really quiet recently , then suddenly this CEOP web page info is made available. Where did it really originate? Are we being drip fed misinformation to divert us? If so, from what?
I asked Stevo about this yesterday and he sent me this message:

"Hi Jill, I was actually looking into CEOP. I've used the Wayback Machine since about 2000. I routinely look into it but just stumbled across the CEOP April 30 thing while looking for something else to do with SOCA."

Stevo is the author of "Faked Abduction".

Interesting. Wonder what Stevo thinks about it all now?

by **PeterMac** 19.06.15 16:41

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the most important lesson the Wayback Machine provides is that Internet content is easily copied and stored for future use. Such use may be legally adverse to a website owner but, by requiring legal review of website content, this risk may be mitigated. However, the use of such archived images may also be used positively to the benefit of the website owner by using the Internet Archive’s archive service to monitor its own intellectual property. As the majority of federal courts admit such evidence with reasonable authentication requirements, a website owner can never be too aware of its options.

Well quite

(Somewhere the stuff about the fridge is stored. All it needs in someone to unearth it.)