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

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.

sharonl wrote:

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.

I concur an expert is most definitely required otherwise it becomes a forum myth and how swiftly these things move.

The problem is procuring an expert who is willing to give more than a generic opinion.

Richard D. Hall wrote:An expert seems to have already made the statement. See earlier post.  Christopher Butler from archive.org.

Is Christopher Butler a senior person in the Wayback company or is he a 'customer services' representative?

Isn't it a bit premature to claim Christopher Butler as an expert on the basis of an email response?

This might not go down well with some people on the forum but I like to believe nothing and question everything.

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.]

Richard D. Hall wrote: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.

Don't get me wrong here. I'd like nothing more than something to trip up this whole farce.

Perhaps you can ask if Butler is qualified to make this statement as you seem to have deemed him an expert.

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 ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) granted on March 15, 2011, and COLUMBUS LAWYER FINDER.COM ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) 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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].¹ An image from the current Williams’ website is reprinted below:
Click [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by their failure to timely respond to an office action. A new trademark application, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was filed by the Williams on November 30, 2011, but was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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.

sallypelt wrote: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.]

Sounds like someone who does not have an axe to grind. He is a representative from the company who has provided the information that he was asked for.
 
Unlike the "experts" employed by the McCanns who were paid to lie come up with a certain version of events. Not to mention obfuscate, confuse, discredit and, in some cases, destroy.

Didn't the mccanns have A CEOP manual in the villa at Portugal?Im sure I read that somewhere.

sallypelt wrote:

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.

I absolutely agree.
I'd like to see this verified unquestionably.

Assuming this is correct (and the info on Chris Butler is getting better by the minute), wouldn't this news be a lovely welcome to London for KM & co at the end of their bike ride!

Lance De Boils wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

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.

I absolutely agree.
I'd like to see this verified unquestionably.

Secondeded.

Joannep43 wrote:Didn't the mccanns have  A CEOP manual in the villa at Portugal?Im sure I read that somewhere.

The Portuguese police certainly noticed that their bedside reading was not of the Jilly Cooper variety.

Doug D wrote:Assuming this is correct (and the info on Chris Butler is getting better by the minute), wouldn't this news be a lovely welcome to London for KM & co at the end of their bike ride!

I am sure everyone here (well, just about everyone) would be delighted if this was proven to be unquestionably correct.
 
No doubt twitter will have gone crazy with attempts at discrediting it and these attempts have got to run and run, otherwise the whole house of cards comes down very fast.
 
Quite how it gets proven ‘unquestionably’ remains to be seen, but from Sallypelt’s post above, for a starter I would like to see a positive outcome to this case based on the evidence provided:
 
‘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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].’
 
Was this claim successful and his affidavit shown to be factual and correct?
 
I’m struggling to find the outcome anywhere at the moment.

Doug D wrote:I am sure everyone here (well, just about everyone) would be delighted if this was proven to be unquestionably correct.
 
No doubt twitter will have gone crazy with attempts at discrediting it and these attempts have got to run and run, otherwise the whole house of cards comes down very fast.
 
Quite how it gets proven ‘unquestionably’ remains to be seen, but from Sallypelt’s post above, for a starter I would like to see a positive outcome to this case based on the evidence provided:
 
‘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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].’
 
Was this claim successful and his affidavit shown to be factual and correct?
 
I’m struggling to find the outcome anywhere at the moment.

Doug, a bit of "light reading" for you. Chris Butler of Wayback is mentioned in this article:

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

Let us know what you make of it

JS85A wrote:Interesting response below.

Interesting link on the twitter thread:

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

sallypelt wrote:

Doug D wrote:I am sure everyone here (well, just about everyone) would be delighted if this was proven to be unquestionably correct.
 
No doubt twitter will have gone crazy with attempts at discrediting it and these attempts have got to run and run, otherwise the whole house of cards comes down very fast.
 
Quite how it gets proven ‘unquestionably’ remains to be seen, but from Sallypelt’s post above, for a starter I would like to see a positive outcome to this case based on the evidence provided:
 
‘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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].’
 
Was this claim successful and his affidavit shown to be factual and correct?
 
I’m struggling to find the outcome anywhere at the moment.

Doug, a bit of "light reading" for you. Chris Butler of Wayback is mentioned in this article:

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

Let us know what you make of it

Snipped from above: 


(2) Christopher Butler [29] Christopher Butler is the Office Manager at the Internet Archive, which operates the Wayback Machine, a database that provides access to archived versions of the Internet. Mr Butler attaches documents about SYSTANE products obtained using the Wayback Machine. 

-----

Given how much fraud must happen on the internet (ahem - good quality wrist bands anyone?) I would imagine that the Wayback Machine might be a thorn in quite a few sides!!

I am not going to pretend that I understand how Wayback or internet archiving works. In fact I do not have a clue, but can someone, who knows how these things work, tell me if someone sent an embargoed document or flyer over the internet, would it have been picked up by Wayback? If so, and if this CEOP information is accurate, could this explain the date being 30 April 2007?

I still can't get it out of my mind that Murat's hurried return to Portugal on 1 May 2007 was just a coincidence.

Gee thanks SallyP!
 
Doug, a bit of "light reading" for you. Chris Butler of Wayback is mentioned in this article:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
 
[29]     Christopher Butler is the Office Manager at the Internet Archive, which operates the Wayback Machine, a database that provides access to archived versions of the Internet. Mr Butler attaches documents about SYSTANE products obtained using the Wayback Machine.
 
[4]
11.
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
 
………………………………………
 
Don’t understand a lot of it, but looks like he lost that one.
 
At least it shows that he is held up as an expert in more than just the one case though, which is promising.

Zora ‏@real_zm_ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Wayback machine have confirmed that the time stamps are incorrect. With thanks to Lizzy HDH [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


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