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

by Syn 22.06.15 10:21

Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about
I agree. If CB stands by his email to IM then he sure is contradicting that email. And it makes him look inept if he has now changed his tune. So yes, an explanation is warranted IMO.

For heavens sake, I posted a screenshot of Chris's third email to Isabelle pages ago. This clearly explains why you are seeing 13th May at the moment.

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

by HKP 22.06.15 10:30

@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

by Joss 22.06.15 10:43

Syn wrote:
Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about
I agree. If CB stands by his email to IM then he sure is contradicting that email. And it makes him look inept if he has now changed his tune. So yes, an explanation is warranted IMO.
For heavens sake, I posted a screenshot of Chris's third email to Isabelle pages ago. This clearly explains why you are seeing 13th May at the moment.

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

I don't see a date for May, lol

by Syn 22.06.15 10:43

HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

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

by Joss 22.06.15 10:46

Syn wrote:
HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

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

They still don't explain Why & How that happened? So how many errors do WBM actually make?

by HKP 22.06.15 10:49

@Syn. I was looking on a mobile device and it cut the image, apologies for the confusion.

by Syn 22.06.15 10:54

Joss wrote:
Syn wrote:
HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
They still don't explain Why that happened. So how many errors do WBM actually make?

They are still working on it and according to TB earlier in this thread, they will issue a statement when they have resolved the issue. I have no idea how many errors like this are made, probably thousands across the years and we have no way of pinpointing them.

by Syn 22.06.15 10:54

HKP wrote:@Syn. I was looking on a mobile device and it cut the image, apologies for the confusion.

No worries HKP :)

Right back to work for me :)

Laters all

by Guest 22.06.15 11:07

Richard D. Hall wrote:I would tend to agree. The screenshots from before they changed their system do not prove to me that mccann.html did not exist on 30 April 2007. What they show is that a different page, which had the same archive date (30 April) probably contained data from October 2007. People are inferring from this that mccann.html must also have contained data from October 2007. But I don't see that it automatically follows. It is down to WBM to explain why mccann.html had an archive date of 30 April 2007. They have not as far as I can see explained in detail how this was the case and until they do, it is feasable that mccann.html was archived on that date.

Richard you have to admit that at least some of the data in the 20070430 115803 folder was wrong... the home page at the very least.

This shows that the WBM is in error and logically infers that the other pages with that time stamp are not reliable.

I know why you are clinging to this, so was I, but I see these pages in that index can prove nothing.

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 11:11

It seems possible the home page yes, based on the screenshots. This may infer there was an issue with other files but does not prove it. We need an explanation as to why that file had that date from WMB.

by Guest 22.06.15 11:13

Richard D. Hall wrote:Infer but does not prove. We need an explanation as to why that file had that date.

Yes I would like an explanation too.

But the WBM has made at least one mistake for this timestamp, yes?

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 11:16

If the screenshots are valid. But looking at screenshots to diagnose an issue is like looking at the outside of your car to decide whether it is functioning ok. We need to look under the bonnet. Only WBM can do that.

What I am saying is there are many possible reasons why the index page showed October dates. Whatever the reason is, it may have nothing to do with the mccann.html file, and the initial archive date being held for that file may still be correct.

I await an explanation. And I also await an email reply from WBM (which I sent 5 days ago - that is if the date stamp on my outgoing email is correct).

by Latetothecase 22.06.15 11:49

It would be very interesting to know about cases where people have been convicted based on evidence from the WBM, as their much boasted usefulness 'every week' in legal cases claims. The potential can of worms in terms of compensation towards miscarriages of justice could be huge if they bow to pressure to say it was a mistake if it isn't.

by Lord Guest 22.06.15 11:57

A couple of questions, if i may, delete if u wish

1 - IF the the Apr30 mccann.html page now re-directs to the nearest mccann.html archive WHY is it NOW going to Apr27 ? That date has NO archive for the mccann.html page ?

2 - And why doesnt the date codes list July 27th in the original Apr30 mccann.html source code ?

3 - IF the mccann.html was archived on July 27th WHY is the second image (which was in place by May13th) broken ? Surely the MUCH later July archive would have the graphic in it and therefore it would have been resolved ?

Not buying it...delete the file, amend the database, claim incorrect, claim error, nothing to see here, move along please

Hi, by the way, been watching - keep it up

by **Jill Havern** 22.06.15 12:04

Lord Guest wrote:A couple of questions, if i may, delete if u wish

This section has been opened up to guests and you're welcome to add to the debate thumbsup

by HKP 22.06.15 12:06

@Lord Guest. It's all over the place now that they are investigating and 'fixing' the supposed errors. They seem to have links pointing to all sorts of dates now

by Lance De Boils 22.06.15 12:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:I got left behind about 40 pages ago.

Could somebody summarise, in a sentence or two, what the heck the situation is with this now?
1. The Wayback Machine/archive.org, interrogated recently (16 or 17 June), produced a 'capture' of a page on the CEOP website with a URL endng in madeleine.html

2. The page allegedly had an old photo of Madeleine on it, and a brief message in 4 languages

3. 'Stevo' (Steve Marsden), via Isabelle McFadden, asked Christopher Butler, Office Manager, if that was a wholly accurate capture, and he said: 'Yes, of course'

4. HideHo 'phoned him and said: 'Do you realise that this is a case of interntiomal importance and that Madeleine only went missing on 3 May and so your claimed 'capture' must be in error

5. Butler said: "Goodness, so it must be", and told HideHo and McFadden "We made a mistake"

6. Wayback are fixing their mistake

7. The tecchies are divided into two opposing camps. One camp says, "The date of capture is correct, and what they captured is correct". The other camp says, "It's an obvious mistake, because later news items are found on the 30 April page, and that's just not possible

8. Lots of very interesting technical arguments have been put forward by both sides but we don't have an agreed solution yet.

9, My summary may be wrong, and I invite correction if I am wrong

Thanks very much, Tony.

by Guest Lord (sounds better 22.06.15 12:36

I know i am new to posting here but been reading forum for a while so excuse the rudeness of my corrections, mainly terminology, to Tony's (waves) points in post above.

1 - 1. The Wayback Machine/archive.org, interrogated recently (16 or 17 June), produced a 'capture' of a page on CEOP's online servers with a URL ending in mccann.html

2. The page [remove - allegedly] had an old photo of Madeleine on it, a broken un-resolved 2nd image and a brief message in 4 languages

6. Wayback are fixing their mistake, badly. Links to the now-missing (but screengrabbed, unlike the fridge) April 30th Mccann.html file STILL exist, including some alt-tags

9, My summary may be wrong, and I invite correction if I am wrong - done 8.5/10 yes

PS - I am happy to upload MY April 30th screengrab which shows the full URL and broken second image however i cant see how to - insert link button doesnt seem to allow local upload and link to FB graphic not working for me either

by **Jill Havern** 22.06.15 12:40

Guest Lord (sounds better wrote:PS - I am happy to upload MY April 30th screengrab which shows the full URL and broken second image however i cant see how to - insert link button doesnt seem to allow local upload and link to FB graphic not working for me either

Probably because you're a guest. You'd need to register if you want full access to everything.

Or if you're on facebook you could send it to me there and I'll upload it for ya.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.06.15 12:41

Guest Lord (sounds better wrote:I know i am new to posting here but been reading forum for a while so excuse the rudeness of my corrections, mainly terminology, to Tony's (waves) points in post above.

1 - 1. The Wayback Machine/archive.org, interrogated recently (16 or 17 June), produced a 'capture' of a page on CEOP's online servers with a URL ending in mccann.html

2. The page [remove - allegedly] had an old photo of Madeleine on it, a broken un-resolved 2nd image and a brief message in 4 languages

6. Wayback are fixing their mistake, badly. Links to the now-missing (but screengrabbed, unlike the fridge) April 30th Mccann.html file STILL exist, including some alt-tags

9, My summary may be wrong, and I invite correction if I am wrong - done 8.5/10

PS - I am happy to upload MY April 30th screengrab which shows the full URL and broken second image however i cant see how to - insert link button doesnt seem to allow local upload and link to FB graphic not working for me either

@ Lord Guest

Many thanks for stopping by with the corrections.

Can you not save the screenshot as a picture - and then use the 'Host an Image' icon (17th from left)?

by **Jill Havern** 22.06.15 12:41

That doesn't work Tony, it tells the person to log in.

by Joss 22.06.15 12:42

Lord Guest wrote:A couple of questions, if i may, delete if u wish

1 - IF the the Apr30 mccann.html page now re-directs to the nearest mccann.html archive WHY is it NOW going to Apr27 ? That date has NO archive for the mccann.html page ?

2 - And why doesnt the date codes list July 27th in the original Apr30 mccann.html source code ?

3 - IF the mccann.html was archived on July 27th WHY is the second image (which was in place by May13th) broken ? Surely the MUCH later July archive would have the graphic in it and therefore it would have been resolved ?

Not buying it...delete the file, amend the database, claim incorrect, claim error, nothing to see here, move along please

Hi, by the way, been watching - keep it up

IMO, its because they have messed it up for some reason since they were alerted to it, and no further explanation yet. Which also IMO looks rather suspect.

by jeanmonroe 22.06.15 12:46

Latetothecase wrote:It would be very interesting to know about cases where people have been convicted based on evidence from the WBM, as their much boasted usefulness 'every week' in legal cases claims. The potential can of worms in terms of compensation towards miscarriages of justice could be huge if they bow to pressure to say it was a mistake if it isn't.

I asked about 'that' ('convictions') in what seems a 'lifetime' ago, on this 'topic'.

Just, er, 'one' ONE, 'error/mistake' and 'reputation/all credibility' GONE, in an instant!

Years and years to build a 'reputation', a SINGLE 'second' to destroy, a 'reputation'.

by **Jill Havern** 22.06.15 12:47

jeanmonroe wrote:
Latetothecase wrote:It would be very interesting to know about cases where people have been convicted based on evidence from the WBM, as their much boasted usefulness 'every week' in legal cases claims. The potential can of worms in terms of compensation towards miscarriages of justice could be huge if they bow to pressure to say it was a mistake if it isn't.

I asked about 'that' ('convictions') in what seems a 'lifetime' ago, on this 'topic'.

Just, er, 'one' ONE, 'error/mistake' and 'reputation/all credibility' GONE, in an instant!

Years and years to build a 'reputation', a SINGLE 'second' to destroy, a 'reputation'.

They can blame Stevo laughat

by Guest Lord 22.06.15 12:53

Ok. will do. who do i send it to - forum owner would be Jill, is that correct ?

Whilst replying i will add my theory as to what i think has happened.

The way i and other programmers (maybe Steve or Richard will confirm) designed websites was to build site locally then upload and check - IE check all links to graphics (that pesky broken un-resolved image, imo) worked and site was agreeable to customer, charge, get paid then make "live" (by changing say shalimar.html to index.html). I think, possibly, this was a work-in-progress (hence the un-resolved missing second image). I had never encountered or even thought about a crawler capturing my site for posterity, or legal challenges, as the wbm blurb says.

It was waiting to be properly linked to, ie given the green light. Maybe the sitemap link was enough for it to be crawled or maybe the crawler grabs all html and associated files but grabbed it was, apparently

Dont know how much further this can run without more detailed explanation from wbm

Am awaiting source code from Stevo