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

Richard D. Hall wrote:There's only an inconsistency if you believe the official story.

I didn't say what was inconsistent.

It was better worded this time.

Phyllis Tyne wrote:Richard D Hall's post above gets to the core of it I feel - HiDeHo and others have unwittingly alerted Wayback to an “error” that would be of enormous consequence and they have subsequently made changes simply on the basis of “that can’t be right” rather than thinking “What if it is?”.

I think it should be CEOP's lawyers arguing the toss rather than a bunch of well-intentioned amateurs on a web forum.

An October home page in an April folder can't be right that's for sure.

Regardless of the mccann.html file the WBM is in error.

WLBTS is talking a good game over the road but my understanding is that he is a games coder and I wouldn't necessarily take the word of a games coder on a web issue for the same reason that I wouldn't let a heart surgeon remove my brain tumour.

Anyway, WLBTS used to love Occam's razor - SO, if you were to apply Occam's razor to this chain of events, which do you think would be the least likely explanation?

Phyllis Tyne wrote:WLBTS is talking a good game over the road but my understanding is that he is a games coder and I wouldn't necessarily take the word of a games coder on a web issue for the same reason that I wouldn't let a heart surgeon remove my brain tumour.

Anyway, WLBTS used to love Occam's razor - SO, if you were to apply Occam's razor to this chain of events, which do you think would be the least likely explanation?

That this "glitch" or whatever it is smells of week old sea bass. But i will certainly have the crow pie lined up if wrong,

Is it possible that the later (October) pages are in the wrong index (folder) and when the main McCann.htm page reconstructs / replays this at the retrieval point it constructs a page which has items from the future, as such

" Get'emGonçalo Today at 12:47pm

They can blame Stevo [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

Many a true word is spoken in jest!

Richard IV wrote:Head honcho is a Brewster Kahle - if no joy with Chris Butler, maybe contact BK, he`s on twitter. Just a thought.

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

BREWSTER'S MILLIONS?

That could be what he'll have to pay out in compo for wrongful convictions if his WBM is dodgy.

The big problem with what the WBM are now saying about the DATE being incorrect is that:

All of the first 3 dates on the /mccann.html calendar, on the 17 June 2015, linked to the same page i.e. all showed their respective dates 30 April; 13 May; 22 May 2007 at the top and all linked to the identical Find Madeleine page with a single photo of MBM on it, positioned left of centre.

Bottom right (next to) the photo was the caption 'Photograph of Madeleine Mccann' - this would appear to me to be an alt tag to mark the position of the second photo which CEOP planned to upload at some future time. Note the caption disappears on the later appeal pages which show 2 photos.

The first calendar date, on /mccann.html, to show the 2 photo appeal page was the 13 June 2007.

All of the first 3 calendar date appeal pages were changed on the 18 June 2015 to show the later 2 photo appeal page, with 30 April appeal page now showing as 13 May. 

My points are these:

If the correct grab date was the 31 July 2007, the 'incorrect' appeal page, on the WBM only, from the 30 April would have shown both of the photos in place. It only showed one, with an alt tag in the place of the second photo.

If we then go with the date of 3 May 2007 as being significant, the CEOP web site uploaded a dedicated page /mccann.html at some point between I would say 4 May and its shown grab date on the WBM of 13 May. This 13 May 2007 appeal page had only one photo - we've seen it clearly and it only changed to 2 photos on 18 June 2015. Remember the 'incorrect' 30 April grab has theoretically not happened as the web page was, theoretically again, not in existence at this time. The 13 May 2007 appeal page with 1 photo then remained unchanged at the next WBM grab on the 22 May 2007. So, there would have been 2 grab appeal pages with 1 photo, post the 3 May. Both with metatags to support the upload of the original 13 May page at a date after the 3 May.

So, no malicious interference, but a mistake by the WBM in July 2007, would have given the following:

30 April - appeal page showing 2 photos and with metadata from some later date
13 May - appeal page with 1 photo and showing metadata after 3 May
22 May - copy of 13 May above as no changes had been made to appeal page on CEOP site

The page from the 31 July displayed as 30 April would not have existed to copy through to 13 May and anyway as the 2 pages were not identical on the 13 May the WBM would have done a fresh grab even if it had existed.

BUT, we know the 30 April appeal page was only displaying 1 photo. As such, it had to be a WBM grab pre-13 June 2007.

Also, if the 30 April was a mistake, why the need to replace the 13 May and 22 May original appeal pages on 18 June 2015? Why not just link the 30 April calendar date (until such time it could be removed) to the original 13 May 2007 appeal page?

IF the WBM didn't make a mistake and it did somehow managed to get in to the CEOP site and read (possibly) a draft page dated 30 April then the 30 April; 13 May; and 22 May archived pages would all look identical and would presumably all have the same incriminating metadata. They would all have to be removed/replaced - which is what has happened.

 The implications of the WBM having made a time/date mistake are massive but the implications of the original captures being correct are equally so.

I have two questions and would be most grateful if anyone has the answers. Forgive me if they have been answered and I missed it. Please be kind enough to point me in the right direction. TIA.

1. Who took the 'fuzzy' screenshot of the April 30th, 2007 WBM capture of the CEOP homepage showing links to CEOP press releases from several October 2007 dates, including the 23rd?

2. Did anyone else take screenshots of April 30th, 2007 capture of the CEOP homepage showing links to these same October press releases and did you also save the date code?

The 'blue bubble' calendar link to the April 30th, 2007 capture of the CEOP homepage is still there--interestingly, with the exact same time stamp as the mccann.html page---but now it redirects backwards to the capture taken on the 27th.

IMO, the 30th capture is where WBM crawlers originally found the link to the the prematurely live mccann.html page and so captured it at the same time. Also interestingly, there are no October 2007 calendar links to the CEOP homepage past the 12th so how could WBM have fortuitously placed a page it never captured into the April 30 file? The press release is legitimate but see if you can spot the 'tells' of illegitimacy on the 'fuzzy' CEOP homepage screenshot...

whodunnit wrote:IMO, the 30th capture is where WBM crawlers originally found the link to the the prematurely live mccann.html page and so captured it at the same time. Also interestingly, there are no October 2007 calendar links to the CEOP homepage past the 12th so how could WBM have fortuitously placed a page it never captured into the April 30 file? The press release is legitimate but see if you can spot the 'tells' of illegitimacy on the 'fuzzy' CEOP homepage screenshot...

If you go to page 2 of this thread, two posters included the link to the WBM 30th April 2007 11:58:03 CEOP home page showing October and invited us all to check it out and see that it was wrong.

They were members more astute than the rest of us and they saw this straight away. I was slow on the uptake of what they were saying but when the penny dropped that was it for me.

It was definitely showing October at that point and has since been deleted by WBM - hence the redirect to the nearest capture in the calendar.

I have no reason at all to doubt the screen shots.

The WBM made an error for at least one page in that folder and that puts all the other pages with the same timestamp in doubt.

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.

This is from page 2 of this thread, the day before WBM deleted the folder.

Steve Marsden also acknowledged the October data in the folder in the original Facebook thread.

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

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

The argument is since all of the links on the page were to October press releases then the capture must have been an October page that somehow got  misfiled in the April 30 folder, correct? [poor April 30, just a dumping ground for all the orphaned pages]

Since the latest date on the capture is October 23,  the October page that has been captured and filed in the April 30th folder must at least be from October 23, perhaps a day or two later, correct?

There are no October 2007 captures past the 12th, so again, how did the WBM wrongly file a capture it never made? Put another way, if WBM never captured an October page past the 12 then the page didn't exist to misfile.

whodunnit wrote:The argument is since all of the links on the page were to October press releases then the capture must have been an October page that somehow got  misfiled in the April 30 folder, correct? [poor April 30, just a dumping ground for all the orphaned pages]

Since the latest date on the capture is October 23,  the October page that has been captured and filed in the April 30th folder must at least be from October 23, perhaps a day or two later, correct?

There are no October 2007 captures past the 12th, so again, how did the WBM wrongly file a capture it never made? Put another way, if WBM never captured an October page past the 12 then the page didn't exist to misfile.

I have no idea, but it did - WBM have to explain that.

Possibly a whole capture after 23rd October went into the April folder.

The April 30th 2007 11:58:03 folder had at least one error.

This is a fact and you can check it out on Steve Marsden Facebook page previously linked.

At this point WBM will have to be subpoenaed in order to obtain a true accounting of these captures, and any communications with CEOP pertaining to requests for removal or changes..Frankly, I'd be curious to see ALL communications CEOP had with WBM over these specific pages but there exists no authoritative body with subpoena powers who have the will to investigate these matters.

I remain convinced that mccann.html existed on April 30.

whodunnit wrote:I remain convinced that mccann.html existed on April 30.

Do you concede that the WBM is imperfect in at least one instance of the 30th April 2007 11:58:03 folder?

BlueBag--"Do you concede that the WBM is imperfect in at least one instance of the 30th April 2007 11:58:03 folder?"

Not yet, not until I have thoroughly explored every angle. As WBM was of great and reliable use to me a few years back I am unwilling to concede their entire business model is a complete shambles.

For one thing, if the April 30 capture of the CEOP home page actually belonged to October [by golly, NOTHING pertaining to Madeleine on the CEOP website is where it belongs] as has been asserted then why doesn't it redirect to the correct date in October rather than to April 27, a time when the mccann.html page and the index page with it's link to it positively did not exist?

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 link.]

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

I'd be more interested in how many errors Wayback made at the time it got the 30 Apr date into the system in error.  That's what the tekkies have to clean up.  Not just the CEOP data but everything that was wrong from that particular crawl.

whodunnit wrote:For one thing, if the April 30 capture of the CEOP home page actually belonged to October [by golly, NOTHING pertaining to Madeleine on the CEOP website is where it belongs] as has been asserted then why doesn't it redirect to the correct date in October rather than to April 27, a time when the mccann.html page and the index page with it's link to it positively did not exist?

The home page for  27th April is now being displayed for the same reason that the mccann.html one is currently showing 13th May as explained  in the screenshot below.  They have taken it out of the archive until they have fixed the issue so in the meantime Wayback will show the next archive closest in date to April 30 for now until the issue is resolved. Once they have reindexed the blue circles on 30th April for both pages will disappear. When the issue has been fully resolved they will put the archives that have been removed back into the WBM and we will see nothing for 30th April and will see mccann.html dated 31/07/07 and the home page dated 07/10/07.

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


Hope this helps :)

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'.

Not in real life.  Has your utility company ever sent you a dodgy bill?  Has your bank ever failed to credit your salary on time?  Has your ATM system ever been down just when you needed it?  Does your Internet provider have perfect 24*7 availability?  Have you ever tried putting a transaction through on your card, and the system rejected it in error?

I've had all of these, and probably more.  None of the companies died a death as a result.

1  Wayback works out what happened.  2 Wayback does clean-up.  3 Wayback does PR.

None of the steps involves reporting to enquirers on the Madeleine case.

Syn--"Hope this helps :)"

Actually, without a proper technical explanation for why these specific pages and apparently no others were all filed improperly it just sounds like a lot of historical revisionism is going on. Whooshing, in the parlance of this case. But thanks for trying. :-)

whodunnit wrote:Syn--"Hope this helps :)"

Actually, without a proper technical explanation for why these specific pages and apparently no others were all filed improperly it just sounds like a lot of historical revisionism is going on. Whooshing, in the parlance of this case. But thanks for trying. :-)

:)  

According to TB WB have said they will give a statement once the issue has been resolved so we will hopefully get the whys of why it happened then :)

PS  This is probably what the October home page will look like with similar news content  when they have fixed the issue (From the National Archives)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Elça Craig wrote:

Not in real life.  Has your utility company ever sent you a dodgy bill?  Has your bank ever failed to credit your salary on time?  Has your ATM system ever been down just when you needed it?  Does your Internet provider have perfect 24*7 availability?  Have you ever tried putting a transaction through on your card, and the system rejected it in error?

I've had all of these, and probably more.  None of the companies died a death as a result.

1  Wayback works out what happened.  2 Wayback does clean-up.  3 Wayback does PR.

None of the steps involves reporting to enquirers on the Madeleine case.

Non of these have as goal preserve a certain part of history, and have a such provided evidence in court cases.

In the absence of ANY evidence that the April 30th glitch affected any pages other than Madeleine related pages at CEOP, I'm going on the assumption that when CEOP discovered it's faux pas on the 30th it was in the midst of hastily making a revision of it's own, and making a right proper mess of it, when WBM captured it red handed BEFORE the link to and mccann.html itself could be removed.

Elça Craig wrote:

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'.

Not in real life.  Has your utility company ever sent you a dodgy bill?  Has your bank ever failed to credit your salary on time?  Has your ATM system ever been down just when you needed it?  Does your Internet provider have perfect 24*7 availability?  Have you ever tried putting a transaction through on your card, and the system rejected it in error?

I've had all of these, and probably more.  None of the companies died a death as a result.

1  Wayback works out what happened.  2 Wayback does clean-up.  3 Wayback does PR.

None of the steps involves reporting to enquirers on the Madeleine case.

Yes, so have I. Probably everyone who reads this has, too. But the point being made here, is there could be people languishing in prison due to the information held and used against them on the WBM, or were issued with crippling fines, etc.

I would imagine that every one of those convictions could be challenged if this is proved to be a 'glitch' in the McCann case.

@Gaggzy---"I would imagine that every one of those convictions could be challenged if this is proved to be a 'glitch' in the McCann case."

Not if it can be proven that this 'glitch' ONLY affects McCann related pages at CEOP. [and so far this appears to be the case] Then the question becomes 'WHY did this so-called glitch only affect McCann related pages at CEOP?' The implication being that someone has deliberately tampered with the historical record of this case. [and not for the first time]

With few apologies for repeating my earlier post,

"In summary....

This could be huge, yes?

The straw that finally blows the whole thing out of the water?



.....oh rats. Didn't we think the same thing when the dogs alerted? When the statements didn't match? When Madeleine's father had to return to the UK before they could dredge up a smidge of her dna? When etc etc....


What on (or under the) Earth has to come to light before this case is finally investigated properly? A body with a note attached to it saying 'it's my parents wot dunnit'?"

whodunnit wrote:@Gaggzy---"I would imagine that every one of those convictions could be challenged if this is proved to be a 'glitch' in the McCann case."

Not if it can be proven that this 'glitch' ONLY affects McCann related pages at CEOP. [and so far this appears to be the case] Then the question becomes 'WHY did this so-called glitch only affect McCann related pages at CEOP?' The implication being that someone has deliberately tampered with the historical record of this case. [and not for the first time]

I am pretty confident that if other websites had been affected then Wayback would have been notified by now - they've been around for years. Still waiting for that Mccann related 30 April 2007 glitch explanation lol

Gaggzy wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:

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'.

Not in real life.  Has your utility company ever sent you a dodgy bill?  Has your bank ever failed to credit your salary on time?  Has your ATM system ever been down just when you needed it?  Does your Internet provider have perfect 24*7 availability?  Have you ever tried putting a transaction through on your card, and the system rejected it in error?

I've had all of these, and probably more.  None of the companies died a death as a result.

1  Wayback works out what happened.  2 Wayback does clean-up.  3 Wayback does PR.

None of the steps involves reporting to enquirers on the Madeleine case.

Yes, so have I. Probably everyone who reads this has, too. But the point being made here, is there could be people languishing in prison due to the information held and used against them on the WBM, or were issued with crippling fines, etc.

I would imagine that every one of those convictions could be challenged if this is proved to be a 'glitch' in the McCann case.

Check the legal high-jump posted a few pages back that Wayback has to go through for its 'evidence' to be accepted in court.  The legal people are clearly far from convinced that if Wayback says it happened that way, they can accept it happened that way.  This is going to add a few inches to the height of that bar, but not a lot more.

Is, or is not, Wayback a not-for-profit org?  If not, flogging evidence for cash is not their business model.

Back to the legalese posted a bit back, did it not say that courts found that costs imposed on Wayback to reply to legal cases were excessive, and that records from original ISPs were preferred?  (Might have got that wrong, but I don't see it as central.)

I happen to think Bluebag is correct on this, for many a reason.

How does one test this theorem?

There is no point in looking at 30 April captures, and reporting that popular sites like BBC or YouTube turned up correctly on that date.  This proves that crawls on 30 April worked OK, and that does not test the theorem.

Bluebag has hinted at a search for other sites with the same datestamp/timestamp in Wayback.  Since another person in this thread has shown how to search in a restricted date range on Wayback, if anyone has a lot of spare time to expend, please feel to go for this route.  I think you have tons of data to sift through that will reveal next to nothing.

You are looking for another 30 April entry that Wayback has now pulled, so it redirects back or forward.  Just like the CEOP site.  Why?

Wayback could have cleaned up the CEOP 30 Apr entry by hand, which is very amateurish.  Or they could have found the crawl run that caused a lot of damage across their system, and pulled every single record for that crawl.  A half decent IT tekkie would do that, so I suspect every incorrect record for that crawl has now been dumped.  Only the re-index remains to fix the Wayback timeline.