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

by Gaggzy 22.06.15 22:07

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]

Yes, absolutely.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 22:18

@Elça Craig "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."

Well, this is perfectly reasonable speculation for why no other incorrectly indexed sites have been found on so far* but I will await the proof that this has been done. Until then, this so called glitch remains exclusive to Madeleine related pages at CEOP.

*As far as I can tell, nobody has shown evidence of ANY incorrectly indexed sites for ANY date whatsoever.

by Doug D 22.06.15 22:22

Probably being dense, as the ‘programmy’ stuff is beyond me, but if the CEOP ‘appeal to download holiday photos’ , (which according to the Guardian newspaper was made on 21^st May, which looks right), was captured on 23^rd May, why did the other basic ‘mccann.html’ page with the ‘poster’ appeal not get captured until, we are now being told, the ‘correct’ date of 31/7/07?

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

Sorry, but the poster appeal site must have been created somewhere between 30^th April and the latest , say 10^th May, so surely had to have been captured before July.

As with most things McCann, the ‘truth’ that we are trying to be fed stinks!

by **PeterMac** 22.06.15 22:22

Gaggzy wrote:
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]

Yes, absolutely.

This is exactly the "Curse of the Mccanns' glitch, a dreadful Gremlin, which causes police officers to make irrational decisions,
ALL of them from Britain, Portugal or wherever they come from
Which causes Public Prosecutors to go slightly mad, and to record dreadful and hurtful things in archiving reports,
and causes highly trained dogs to go berserk and to bark in places where there is nothing.
Which causes normally sane members of the public to stop believing the tripe spewed from the gullet of Mitchell
which causes cattle to abort, and frightens the horses . . .

by HKP 22.06.15 22:25

@whodunnit. Incorrectly indexed pages are in the 30/04 'McCann index (folder) they are actually frm October etc. or have I picked you up wrong?

by whodunnit 22.06.15 22:30

@HKP--"Incorrectly indexed pages are in the 30/04 'McCann index (folder) they are actually frm October etc. or have I picked you up wrong?"

As I said somewhere above, until I am shown irrefutable proof that an October CEOP page was incorrectly indexed to April 30, I will assume some amateur at was caught red-handed by WBM in the act of revising a page with info that was prematurely published and which they, apparently in a panic, realized needed to either be written over or removed altogether.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 22:38

@HKP--I'm sorry, that was a terribly awkward paragraph and I apologize.

Put more simply, I think an amateur at CEOP was caught by WBM in the middle of a panicked revision of the April 30th home page which contained a photo of Madeleine and a link to mccann.html.

I have seen NOTHING to suggest it was improperly indexed. I won't be 'happy' to find I am wrong, but I will certainly willing to concede the point if I am. So far I'm not seeing it.

I ran a blog for four years. Very often I would hit publish before a piece was perfectly 'clean'. I needed to see it on the page to spot the errors. If WBM had come along before I was done revising, which I'm sure it must have done at least once, it would have captured a work in progress.

by HKP 22.06.15 22:39

@whodunnit. Without meaning to be derogatory you can assume all you like it doesn't make you any more correct than others here. You have posted a theory which is almost impossible to verify or dismiss, only ceop could answer that specific accusation.

by HKP 22.06.15 22:48

@whodunnit. I can't keep up with the edits /changes due to being guest it sometimes makes posts look illconceved.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 22:56

@PeterMac--"This is exactly the "Curse of the Mccanns' glitch, a dreadful Gremlin, which causes police officers to make irrational decisions,
ALL of them from Britain, Portugal or wherever they come from
Which causes Public Prosecutors to go slightly mad, and to record dreadful and hurtful things in archiving reports,
and causes highly trained dogs to go berserk and to bark in places where there is nothing.
Which causes normally sane members of the public to stop believing the tripe spewed from the gullet of Mitchell
which causes cattle to abort, and frightens the horses . ."

The McCanns certainly not the first or last suspects and/or public figures to offer transparently deceitful explanations for prima facie evidence but they are definitely among the least believable.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 23:03

@HKP---"Without meaning to be derogatory you can assume all you like it doesn't make you any more correct than others here. You have posted a theory which is almost impossible to verify or dismiss, only ceop could answer that specific accusation."

I do not automatically take criticism as derogatory and you are correct, it's merely a theory of why this capture contained.

On the other hand, in every other instance besides this one, the date code of a WBM capture is prima facie evidence, or evidence that is 'accepted as correct until proved otherwise', of how a site looked on THAT particular date. Suddenly, McCanns enter the frame and the earlier confidence in the site is all out the window. I offer what I believe is a plausible explanation that doesn't call for trashing the entire site [WBM] on behalf of the McCanns.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 23:14

I am so sorry. See what happens when I don't have an edit button? ooops

Anyway. Bottom line is I've had no reason up until now to doubt the integrity of WBM's technical processes.

On the other hand, at the time CEOP was run by a man who doesn't think viewing child porn is a jailable offense, nevermind that failing to curb the demand for it means more children are victimized to produce it. In my mind this alone discredits him and his organization forever, no matter which aspect of himself or his organization we're talking about including the relatively innocuous website.

by HKP 22.06.15 23:15

@whodunnit. Whilst you do offer what could be described as a plausible explanation on the balance of probability others may rank higher. Given that Wayback reconstructs webpages (they term it replay) then this to me is more likely where the problem lies.

by whodunnit 22.06.15 23:29

As I've said, I'm no expert but is it not true that WBM uses the stored codes to reconstruct any given page? So unless it can be proven that WBM has stored corrupted codes, or corrupted codes that it stored, and ONLY to Madeleine related CEOP pages, I continue to assume mccann.html was captured on the date which is still stored in it's date code.

by Skyrocket1 22.06.15 23:32

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

I don't want to repeat so if you're interested please see my comment on page 73 re: why the 31 July 2007 is highly unlikely to be the true date for the mccann.html page (the appeal page) that was showing on the 30 April 2007.

As for the ceop.gov.uk home page from 30 April 2007 originating from 7 October 2007- this is as equally unlikely. Why would Christopher Butler make such a ridiculous statement? I agee that the ceop.gov.uk home page from 30 April 2007 was showing news from October 2007 (before it was changed on 18 June 2015). But the news items showing went through to the 23 October (which was a podcast available to view). The page could not have been grabbed on any date prior to the 23 October - the news items shown on it would not have existed on 7 October. I have no explanation for the existence of this October page on the 30 April home page but it was not grabbed on the 7 October and that was not the true date of the 30 April page.

by Guest 22.06.15 23:41

whodunnit wrote: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.

It's not.

It is a bit buggy.

Like all software.

As anyone who works in the IT industry well knows.

by Guest 22.06.15 23:43

Elça Craig wrote:
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.

Yes.. absolutely.

We have a very narrow view of this because of one issue.

WBM probably has a much larger issue.

by Guest 22.06.15 23:49

HKP wrote:@whodunnit. Incorrectly indexed pages are in the 30/04 'McCann index (folder) they are actually frm October etc. or have I picked you up wrong?

No you are correct.

WBM has a 100% error on at least one page for 30th April 2007 11:58:03

There is no question about this.

This makes - at least - all other other pages with the same timestamp questionable.

Ask Stevo (the guy who started all this).

by Guest 22.06.15 23:50

whodunnit wrote:Anyway. Bottom line is I've had no reason up until now to doubt the integrity of WBM's technical processes.

Then you've not been paying attention.

by HKP 23.06.15 0:13

@BB. We know that there is at least one ‘corrupt‘ file within the 30/04 index containing McCann.htm (the October one). At the retrieval point Wayback reconstructs the requested page by building from the index files. If there is a wrong file in the index I.e. a dated in the future this is just incorporated into the displayed page as a link, just as we've seen. Ergo its the October file which is erroneous.

by whodunnit 23.06.15 0:18

@Skyrocket1--" (which was a podcast available to view)"

Can you found this podcast? I googled 'CEOP press release October 23 2007' which returns a link containing a range of links to CEOP press releases from 18 January, 2007--6 December, 2007.

If you click on the October 23 press release there is no evidence of said podcast, at least none that I can find. Yet, there is a red link evident in the screenshot entitled 'LISTEN to the podcast.'

by Guest 23.06.15 0:19

HKP wrote:@BB. We know that there is at least one ‘corrupt‘ file within the 30/04 index containing McCann.htm (the October one). At the retrieval point Wayback reconstructs the requested page by building from the index files. If there is a wrong file in the index I.e. a dated in the future this is just incorporated into the displayed page as a link, just as we've seen. Ergo its the October file which is erroneous.

No... WBM machine is unreliable.

And that's the point.

As I'm sure many people understand by now.

by HKP 23.06.15 0:24

@BB. It's unreliable is a big statement to make considering at this point we have one out of billions of pages we think is wrong! You seem to think that because the future link appeared then everything is corrupt, that's a massive assumption.

by Guest 23.06.15 0:31

HKP wrote:@BB. It's unreliable is a big statement to make considering at this point we have one out of billions of pages we think is wrong! You seem to think that because the future link appeared then everything is corrupt, that's a massive assumption.

It's not a future link, it's a homepage stored in the 30th April 2007 folder. The links within such a page may be future links but the loaded paged isn't (you need to check the WBM source to see how it works).

WBM absolutely has an error.

It's unreliable and that is that as far as proving when the mmcann.html page went in the same folder as the 100% wrong page.

by whodunnit 23.06.15 0:32

@BlueBag---"It's not.

It is a bit buggy.

Like all software.

As anyone who works in the IT industry well knows."

Correct time and date stamping may not be a big deal to some sites but it is the entire reason WBM exists: to preserve websites for posterity. A 'little buggy' doesn't cut it when the stakes are high.

Either this little bug only applies to McCann related pages at CEOP, which is ridiculous on it's face, or it's site wide and discredits the entire archiving system. Whether it's site wide or McCann-CEOP specific, nobody has yet to explain HOW. 'oh errm, ah, ask the dogs'??

Imagine a man is to be charged with killing his girlfriend. In order to determine a just charge--1st degree, or premeditated murder, or 1st degree Manslaughter [crime of passion] a prosecutor must go looking for evidence to support the charge. One of his intrepid assistants gets wind of a deleted blog belonging to the accused and gets the bright of perusing WBM to see if anything pops out when she comes across a posting with the words 'that b*tch is SO DEAD'. Now depending on the date of the posting in relation to the date of the murder it can either be a threat---premeditation---or a rashly posted boast after the fact. The date showing on the capture is from BEFORE the crime was committed, thus seemingly proving premeditation.

Imagine if this indexing bug is site wide. Imagine what would a judge say to a prosecutor who attempted to charge a man with a death penalty offense based on the WBM. I don't agree with the death penalty but neither do I want a premeditated murderer wandering around the streets after a couple of years behind bars but theoretically these are the consequences of WBM being 'a little buggy'.

by Guest 23.06.15 0:36

whodunnit wrote:Correct time and date stamping may not be a big deal to some sites but it is the entire reason WBM exists: to preserve websites for posterity. A 'little buggy' doesn't cut it when the stakes are high.

Look... it's a fact it had wrong data in that folder.

Did you follow the Stevo Facebook thread?

WBM made an error and Stevo saw it early on and said "I'm looking into it".

That's software for you - sometimes it doesn't work no matter how high the stakes (ask Apple and Microsoft).

They may even have fixed the bug over the last 8 years.. they may even be using a new version of the software... but it absolutely had a bug in 2007.

by HKP 23.06.15 0:38

@BB. Or maybe its unreliable because it's the other way round, the 100% wrong file found it's way to the mmc.htm index

by whodunnit 23.06.15 0:43

@BlueBag--". but it absolutely had a bug in 2007."

Or it was working perfectly and absolutely caught someone in the act of [incompetently] revising the site to erase evidence.

CEOP manuals on the nightstand, calls to SCOPA, JG's tolerance of child porn viewers, Establishment running to the aid of a bunch of obviously deceitful child bathers, Murat and his questionable encrypted material and early return to PDL, dodgy creche records...if this WBM capture was the ONLY indicator of an prior event unrelated to 'Child Exploitation' I would agree with you and move on but it's not so I'm not..

by Guest 23.06.15 0:49

HKP wrote:@BB. Or maybe its unreliable because it's the other way round, the 100% wrong file found it's way to the mmc.htm index

Unreliable is unreliable.

The October page places doubt on - at least - all the other pages with the same timestamp.

They were all trawled at the same time is the most likely explanation.

I can't prove it but no one can prove the opposite - it would be nice if WBM gave a full technical explanation, but I bet they don't.

I know where my money would lie.

by Guest 23.06.15 0:51

whodunnit wrote:@BlueBag--". but it absolutely had a bug in 2007."

Or it was working perfectly and absolutely caught someone in the act of [incompetently] revising the site to erase evidence.

???

How?

This is October data in the wrong WBM folder.

The October data didn't get created until.. well October.

CEOP have no influence over the crawler.

WBM has the problem.