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

If people do not trust my website with the date, they can do this test with other websites that display the date they are updated.  But from this one example it looks as though the archive date is the same date the page was updated.

Coo!

Just seen this post by Stevo on facebook Steve Marsden The file retrieved and archived ends in mccann.html. That means the file/page existed on April 30, 2007 regardless of what the page contained.

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

The page also links to this leaflet

Interesting response below.

TFWIW, Just read this:

Isabelle Maria McF ‏@QUEENdePORTUGAL 19m19 minutes ago
Interpret as U wish..I've spoken to Wayback Rep He stands by date apparently so do courts. I've sent to PJ #mccann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Wow, slamdunk!

So, now we know what was in the CATS file?

And at least one good reason someone saw fit to whoosh the contents?

Now, who's going to tell Mother?

Mother Hall, that is

Richard D. Hall wrote:Wow, slamdunk!

Hi Richard, Yeah i guess we will see. A follow up tweet by Isabelle says she is letting the PJ deal with it.

Interesting times ahead

Portia wrote:Interesting times ahead

Yes i think so.

Joss wrote:

Portia wrote:Interesting times ahead

Yes i think so.

indeed!  [strokes beard emoticon]

Tony Bennett wrote:

macdonut wrote:This is a red herring I think guys.  If you look at the full ceop page as allegedly archived on 30th April:

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

You'll see quite a number of news stories and links that are, in fact, dated in October 2007.

While I don't profess to understand how the web archive works, it clearly isn't accurate, at least on this occasion.

Steve Marsden has been proved wrong about this sort of thing a number of times before - jumping to hasty and incorrect conclusions.

However, if he were right, it would lend support to those who, for example, claim that the 'Last Photo' was probably taken on Sunday 29 April

Someone made the point earlier in this thread that the contents of a page may change over time, however the URLs, including the McCann URL was available on 30th April 2007.

An expert is most definitely required here.

An expert seems to have already made the statement. See earlier post.  Christopher Butler from archive.org.

The only expert that would be able to give this is somebody from archive.org as only they know how their code works.  The man has already spoken.  He says the mccann page on the CEOP website was copied from the internet to their archive on 30 April 2007 11:58.  I think somebody who represents their archive service, and by the looks of it is aware of previous court cases on such issues would probably know enough.  Perhaps you can ask if he is qualified to make this statement.  Do you question your gas bill because it was sent by a customer service person.  If the email is valid, it looks pretty damning to me. It blows the Smith sighting out the water and the McCann's story out the water - if the email is correct.

Screen shot thanks to Isabelle Mc Fadden

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

Is this the Christopher Butler that Isobelle is referring to? If so, he appears to be an office manager and not a technician:


Chris Butler Office Manager

An unrepentant dilettante, Chris has successfully parlayed his twin degrees in Environmental Science and Film Studies into a near decade of slumming around various non-profits in the SF Bay and Detroit Metro Areas. During that time, he has fought with and cleaned up after little kids, made sure the supply cabinet wasn't out of paperclips, and helped manage high-level legal issues and inquiries from federal and international law enforcement. As a fan of things that are preposterously good, Chris' involvement with the Archive has been a natural fit. The interests of the moment are tai chi, other "internal" martial arts, and pushing the socially-acceptable limits of film snobbery.

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

Are there any other web archiving sites that can be checked as well?

There is more information on Christopher Butler:


USA December 27 2012
In a complaint filed in the Atlanta Division of the Northern District of Georgia on December 19, 2012, James Williams and Laurie Williams (“Williams”) filed a complaint against the Columbus Bar Association (“Columbus”) seeking cancellation of Columbus trademark registration, damages, and an injunction. To avoid confusion, we disclose that the Columbus Bar Association is the bar association in Columbus, Ohio, not Columbus, Georgia.    
The Williams have published a website known as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] continuously since May 31, 1997. The complaint asserts that Columbus has been marketing, offering for sale, and selling services under the marks LAWYERFINDER, LAWYERFINDER.COM, and/or COLUMBUS LAWYER FINDER.COM and has further federally registered as trademarks LAWYERFINDER.COM (Registration No. 3,933,108) granted on March 15, 2011, and COLUMBUS LAWYER FINDER.COM (Registration No. 3,699,866) granted on October 20, 2009.  In support of their use, the complaint attached an affidavit from James Williams as Exhibit A and an affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive, operator of a service known as the Wayback Machine.¹ An image from the current Williams’ website is reprinted below:
Click here to see image.
The Williams’ website provides users throughout the United States with a searchable directory of advertisements as well as informational legal articles and other services. On June 16, 2000, the Williams filed trademark application Serial No. 78/013019, which was ultimately abandoned by their failure to timely respond to an office action. A new trademark application, Serial No. 85/484175 was filed by the Williams on November 30, 2011, but was suspended by letter dated June 15, 2012, for pending civil proceedings.
The complaint assets that Columbus commenced publication of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on June 5, 2008, more than eight years after the Williams began using the LAWYERFINDER mark.  After adoption of its marks, Columbus began marketing “confusingly similar” services on a national basis including the licensing of “LAWYERFINDER” to other organizations, including Cincinnati LawyerFinder, Clark County LawyerFinder, New Haven Lawyerfinder, and Pittsburgh LawyerFinder.  An image from the home page of the Columbus website is reproduced below:
Click here to see image.
The complaint alleges irreparable harm has been suffered as a result of the Columbus announcement and launch of an advertising campaign confusing the public and creating misimpressions that the Williams are unauthorized users of Columbus’ marks.
The complaint asserts fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) based on Columbus’ knowledge or access to knowledge of the Williams’ mark, as their website had been active for more than a decade before Columbus’ first use of the accused marks. The complaint asserts that Columbus did not disclose the Williams’ use of the mark to the USPTO and a Columbus agent wrongfully attested that “no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or ins such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”  The complaint also asserts that Columbus’ sworn declaration that it was using the mark LAWYERFINDER.COM in commerce on September 20, 2010, was false.  The Williams ask that Columbus registrations of LAWYERFINDER.COM (Reg. No. 3,933,108) and COLUMBUS LAWYER FINDER.COM (Reg. No. 3,699,866) be cancelled.
The complaint further asserts unfair competition and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, unfair competition under O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55 and Georgia common law, Georgia trademark infringement under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 and Georgia common law, and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq. (specifically O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-372(a) and 10-1-373(b)(2).  In addition to cancellation of the registrations, the Williams seek an injunction, lost profits, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
The case is Williams v. Columbus Bar Ass’n, No. 1:12-cv-4382, filed 12/19/12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story.


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

Lance De Boils wrote:Are there any other web archiving sites that can be checked as well?

Lance, there is no end to the information if people care to look for it. I would rather have the absolute truth regardless of what that truth is.

Mr Butlers email is a print out from a record.  In other words it has been taken from their system without human interference.  It is a record from their database.  Maybe we can ask somebody from archive.org who has a few letters after their name to send the same email and you will believe it.  I am sure this evidence alone is enough to warrant the police to start their own enquiries to archive.org.  You would be better getting a statement from a director of the company rather than an "expert".  The experts work for the directors, but the buck stops with the director.