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

by lj 23.06.15 23:10

Tony Bennett wrote: Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

The CEOP Website

Statement released by the Chief Executive Officer of the Way Out Machine (formerly the Wayback Machine) at 0700 hours BST, 23 June 2015 (time and date subject to confirmation)

On 16 June 2015, a British citizen by the name of Stephen Marsden interrogated the Way Out Machine about the website of a British organisation, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).

We returned to him the following information:

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

On the above date (30 April 2007), a Mr Jim Gamble was the Director of CEOP.

The following day, a Miss Isabelle Mary McFadden sought to confirm that the information was accurate, and our former Office Manager, Christopher Butler, confirmed that this was so at 9.47am. He actually gave out two print-outs of the accompanying pages which had been crawled. Butler referred to, even boasted of, ‘several attorneys a week seeking our services'. He did so given our previous, fabled reputation for accuracy - which has been regularly relied on in court proceedings the world over and resulted in many persons being convicted and, on occasions, jailed.

Due to the timely intervention of a Ms Lizzie Taylor the same day, however, it suddenly dawned on Mr Butler that, on this occasion, the result returned to Mr Marsden was in error.

First of all, both timestamps on the record returned to Mr Marsden were plain wrong.

And the actual archive date for the ‘mccann html’ page was 31 July 2007, not 30 April 2007.

We apologise sincerely for having made this error which led to so many people wasting their precious time on pointless and sometimes angry debates on the internet.

So let me make these things crystal clear.

There never was a ‘mccann html’ page on the CEOP website on or before 30 April 2007.

It was clearly set up and live by the time it was archived on 31 July. But not on 30 April.

The two timestamps were errors.

Our web crawler clearly malfunctioned in a serious way and we are still working out why that happened, how to fix it, and how many other times it has malfunctioned in similar or other ways.

Until we are able to fully satisfy the internet authorities that we have permanently fixed this problem and corrected all the data on our system, they have directed us to re-title our business the ‘Way Out Machine’, giving a more accurate description of the current position of our archive.

Finally, it is unhelpful, ludicrous and very hurtful for posters like canada12 to keep insisting that we were correct after all. She wrote yesterday:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

It really is time that this sort of utter nonsense ceases. Of course we were wrong. Though we have never admitted it previously, of course we are always making errors.

It is of no assistance to us at all if people now keep insisting that our web crawler is right all the time. Plainly it is not. Any further insistence that our web crawler doesn’t make mistakes and that our time stamps are always correct may face legal action. Leave us alone until we find out what went wrong.

We thank you all for your patience and understanding. When we have fully sorted this, we will put out a statement. Following that, we will make an application to the internet authorities to allow us to revert to our previous name, the ‘Wayback Machine’.

In the meantime, find us on Twitter at the hashtag #WayOutMachine

Way Out CEO

by Guest 23.06.15 23:12

"Tony Bennett Today at 10:57 pm
YES - it is all recorded here on this forum in many posts about Jenny Kleeman's proposed film

LISTEN - this thread is for members and guests to dicsuss the great debate about whether or not Wayback was accurate in capturing a 'mccann' html page on CEOP on 30 April 2007. Either discuss that - or go"

But Mr Bennett - all I did was comment on your comment on this very thread.

++++++++

But back on topic of this great thread, originated by something picked up by Stevo (someone not at all welcome on here by the way) - the conclusion is:

a) it was an error by WBW

b) It wasn't an error by WBM

c) It was invented by Stevo

d) no one has the foggiest idea but it was a good exercise

e) it was a complete waste of time.

by **Jill Havern** 23.06.15 23:14

There's no reason why Stevo couldn't come here to comment.

by XXXXXXXX 23.06.15 23:18

Get'emGonçalo Today at 11:14 pm
"There's no reason why Stevo couldn't come here to comment."

That would be interesting and the best thing to do.

by **Jill Havern** 23.06.15 23:20

XXXXXXXX wrote:Get'emGonçalo Today at 11:14 pm
"There's no reason why Stevo couldn't come here to comment."

That would be interesting and the best thing to do.

I told him on facebook about this thread so he knows it's here if he wants to comment.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.06.15 23:27

This letter to Mr Kahle, Director of Wayback, is for real.

I sent it by e-mail earlier this evening:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To Mr Brewster Kahle
Director
Wayback Machine

23 June 2015

I wrote to your Office Manager Mr Butler on 17 June asking him three questions about your apparent capture of a page on the site of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.
This followed one email from Mr Butler (to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June, 9.47am) confirming that the capture was accurate and, moreover, attaching copies of what data were captured on that occasion.

The three questions I asked were:

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?
2. Can you also confirm what were the contents of the page read on that date?
3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

He has not since replied, although in one of his three emails that day he did say that Wayback was investigating the matter.

I am asking these questions again because as you may now know the has been a great deal of interest about this 30 April ‘capture’ on a number of websites which closely follow the case of missing Madeleine McCann, since someone examined the Wayback Machine and apparently found a ‘mccann’ page on the CEOP site three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

On one Madeleine McCann forum, ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, for example, there have in the past 7 days been over 26,000 views of threads discussing Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails. On another similar site, Madeleine McCann Mystery’, there have been a further 16,000 views. There will be many more until Wayback provides a convincing and conclusive explanation for Mr Butler’s contradictory e-mails on this matter .

There has been on these two sites (and elsewhere) much technical discussion. It can be summarised as follows.
Many suggest that your ‘capture’ was perfectly accurate and consistent with some of the possible scenarios in this as-yet-unsolved case. A typical such post was this:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

Others have come forward with a whole variety of different scenarios as to how an error might have occurred, if that is there ever was any error. These suggestions often conflict with each other and are fiercely contested amongst those who think there might have been an error.

I am not aware of any further e-mails or any statement yet by your company about the controversy raging about this capture on 30 April 2007. This must surely be of significant concern to you and many others as well. After all, as many have observed, if there was indeed an error affecting that ‘capture’ then:

* what kind of error was it,
* why did it happen,
* how many other similar errors have been made by Wayback
* and over what period of time?

Indeed someone asked the obvious question: Can we actually rely on Wayback any more?

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.

If Wayback has any value, it must be accurate. Any errors must be fully explained: people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data. If you have altered data in this case, how will anyone in future know whether the data they see on your website are the original data - or have been subject to all manner of amendment?

I should be glad therefore if you could please answer my queries or let me know when you will be in a position to make a full statement on this controversial issue.

Anthony Bennett

by MRNOODLES 23.06.15 23:47

lj wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

The CEOP Website

Statement released by the Chief Executive Officer of the Way Out Machine (formerly the Wayback Machine) at 0700 hours BST, 23 June 2015 (time and date subject to confirmation)

On 16 June 2015, a British citizen by the name of Stephen Marsden interrogated the Way Out Machine about the website of a British organisation, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).

We returned to him the following information:

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

On the above date (30 April 2007), a Mr Jim Gamble was the Director of CEOP.

The following day, a Miss Isabelle Mary McFadden sought to confirm that the information was accurate, and our former Office Manager, Christopher Butler, confirmed that this was so at 9.47am. He actually gave out two print-outs of the accompanying pages which had been crawled. Butler referred to, even boasted of, ‘several attorneys a week seeking our services'. He did so given our previous, fabled reputation for accuracy - which has been regularly relied on in court proceedings the world over and resulted in many persons being convicted and, on occasions, jailed.

Due to the timely intervention of a Ms Lizzie Taylor the same day, however, it suddenly dawned on Mr Butler that, on this occasion, the result returned to Mr Marsden was in error.

First of all, both timestamps on the record returned to Mr Marsden were plain wrong.

And the actual archive date for the ‘mccann html’ page was 31 July 2007, not 30 April 2007.

We apologise sincerely for having made this error which led to so many people wasting their precious time on pointless and sometimes angry debates on the internet.

So let me make these things crystal clear.

There never was a ‘mccann html’ page on the CEOP website on or before 30 April 2007.

It was clearly set up and live by the time it was archived on 31 July. But not on 30 April.

The two timestamps were errors.

Our web crawler clearly malfunctioned in a serious way and we are still working out why that happened, how to fix it, and how many other times it has malfunctioned in similar or other ways.

Until we are able to fully satisfy the internet authorities that we have permanently fixed this problem and corrected all the data on our system, they have directed us to re-title our business the ‘Way Out Machine’, giving a more accurate description of the current position of our archive.

Finally, it is unhelpful, ludicrous and very hurtful for posters like canada12 to keep insisting that we were correct after all. She wrote yesterday:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

It really is time that this sort of utter nonsense ceases. Of course we were wrong. Though we have never admitted it previously, of course we are always making errors.

It is of no assistance to us at all if people now keep insisting that our web crawler is right all the time. Plainly it is not. Any further insistence that our web crawler doesn’t make mistakes and that our time stamps are always correct may face legal action. Leave us alone until we find out what went wrong.

We thank you all for your patience and understanding. When we have fully sorted this, we will put out a statement. Following that, we will make an application to the internet authorities to allow us to revert to our previous name, the ‘Wayback Machine’.

In the meantime, find us on Twitter at the hashtag #WayOutMachine

Way Out CEO

Am I reading this right? We're allowed to say WBM is a complete lump of s**te, the worst piece of programming crud to hit the net but not the opposite?

by XXXXXXXX 23.06.15 23:52

"Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails"

I have seen 2 - one singed by Christopher, one singed by Chris - have I missed the third?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.06.15 23:57

XXXXXXXX wrote:"Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails"

I have seen 2 - one signed by Christopher, one signed by Chris - have I missed the third?

Yes you have - two to Isabelle McFadden, one to HideHo.

Now pay attentiion at the back there

by XXXXXXXX 24.06.15 0:03

Thank you for pointing that out to me Tony - it is such a great thread I must have missed it.

I look forward to seeing the answer to your email.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.15 0:16

MRNOODLES wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote: Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

The CEOP Website

Statement released by the Chief Executive Officer of the Way Out Machine (formerly the Wayback Machine) at 0700 hours BST, 23 June 2015 (time and date subject to confirmation)

MRNOODLES
Am I reading this right? We're allowed to say WBM is a complete lump of s**te, the worst piece of programming crud to hit the net but not the opposite?

The above letter was a spoof.

One of its purposes was to draw attention, in a satirical way, to the fact Wayback, who originally said that their data were robust and accurate, totally changed tack hours later and started saying: "It's wrong, it's wrong, we must fix it, we must fix it, we are fixing it and changing it all - please believe us, we were wrong, wrong, wrong".

Which seems mighty curious.

But this letter I sent to Wayback by e-mail tonight is for real:

To Mr Brewster Kahle
Director
Wayback Machine

23 June 2015

I wrote to your Office Manager Mr Butler on 17 June asking him three questions about your apparent capture of a page on the site of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.
This followed one email from Mr Butler (to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June, 9.47am) confirming that the capture was accurate and, moreover, attaching copies of what data were captured on that occasion.

The three questions I asked were:

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?
2. Can you also confirm what were the contents of the page read on that date?
3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

He has not since replied, although in one of his three emails that day he did say that Wayback was investigating the matter.

I am asking these questions again because as you may now know the has been a great deal of interest about this 30 April ‘capture’ on a number of websites which closely follow the case of missing Madeleine McCann, since someone examined the Wayback Machine and apparently found a ‘mccann’ page on the CEOP site three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

On one Madeleine McCann forum, ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, for example, there have in the past 7 days been over 26,000 views of threads discussing Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails. On another similar site, Madeleine McCann Mystery’, there have been a further 16,000 views. There will be many more until Wayback provides a convincing and conclusive explanation for Mr Butler’s contradictory e-mails on this matter .

There has been on these two sites (and elsewhere) much technical discussion. It can be summarised as follows.
Many suggest that your ‘capture’ was perfectly accurate and consistent with some of the possible scenarios in this as-yet-unsolved case. A typical such post was this:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

Others have come forward with a whole variety of different scenarios as to how an error might have occurred, if that is there ever was any error. These suggestions often conflict with each other and are fiercely contested amongst those who think there might have been an error.

I am not aware of any further e-mails or any statement yet by your company about the controversy raging about this capture on 30 April 2007. This must surely be of significant concern to you and many others as well. After all, as many have observed, if there was indeed an error affecting that ‘capture’ then:

* what kind of error was it,
* why did it happen,
* how many other similar errors have been made by Wayback
* and over what period of time?

Indeed someone asked the obvious question: Can we actually rely on Wayback any more?

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.

If Wayback has any value, it must be accurate. Any errors must be fully explained: people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data. If you have altered data in this case, how will anyone in future know whether the data they see on your website are the original data - or have been subject to all manner of amendment?

I should be glad therefore if you could please answer my queries or let me know when you will be in a position to make a full statement on this controversial issue.

Anthony Bennett

by Nuala 24.06.15 0:32

@ Tony Bennett

There are one or two bits and pieces in that email to Mr Kahle that I'm not quite in tune with, and taking just one of them for the moment, you said this:

people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data

Are you sure that's quite right?

Whilst I'm aware that data from Wayback has been used in court cases, I'm not aware that anyone has ever actually been convicted of crimes based on that data.

Can you give us an example of an occasion when someone has been convicted of a crime based on data from Wayback?

Thanks smilie

by MRNOODLES 24.06.15 0:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote: Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

The CEOP Website

Statement released by the Chief Executive Officer of the Way Out Machine (formerly the Wayback Machine) at 0700 hours BST, 23 June 2015 (time and date subject to confirmation)

MRNOODLES
Am I reading this right? We're allowed to say WBM is a complete lump of s**te, the worst piece of programming crud to hit the net but not the opposite?
The above letter was a spoof.

One of its purposes was to draw attention, in a satirical way, to the fact Wayback, who originally said that their data were robust and accurate, totally changed tack hours later and started saying: "It's wrong, it's wrong, we must fix it, we must fix it, we are fixing it and changing it all - please believe us, we were wrong, wrong, wrong".

Which seems mighty curious.

But this letter I sent to Wayback by e-mail tonight is for real:

To Mr Brewster Kahle
Director
Wayback Machine

23 June 2015

I wrote to your Office Manager Mr Butler on 17 June asking him three questions about your apparent capture of a page on the site of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.
This followed one email from Mr Butler (to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June, 9.47am) confirming that the capture was accurate and, moreover, attaching copies of what data were captured on that occasion.

The three questions I asked were:

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?
2. Can you also confirm what were the contents of the page read on that date?
3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

He has not since replied, although in one of his three emails that day he did say that Wayback was investigating the matter.

I am asking these questions again because as you may now know the has been a great deal of interest about this 30 April ‘capture’ on a number of websites which closely follow the case of missing Madeleine McCann, since someone examined the Wayback Machine and apparently found a ‘mccann’ page on the CEOP site three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

On one Madeleine McCann forum, ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, for example, there have in the past 7 days been over 26,000 views of threads discussing Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails. On another similar site, Madeleine McCann Mystery’, there have been a further 16,000 views. There will be many more until Wayback provides a convincing and conclusive explanation for Mr Butler’s contradictory e-mails on this matter .

There has been on these two sites (and elsewhere) much technical discussion. It can be summarised as follows.
Many suggest that your ‘capture’ was perfectly accurate and consistent with some of the possible scenarios in this as-yet-unsolved case. A typical such post was this:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided. There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate”.

Others have come forward with a whole variety of different scenarios as to how an error might have occurred, if that is there ever was any error. These suggestions often conflict with each other and are fiercely contested amongst those who think there might have been an error.

I am not aware of any further e-mails or any statement yet by your company about the controversy raging about this capture on 30 April 2007. This must surely be of significant concern to you and many others as well. After all, as many have observed, if there was indeed an error affecting that ‘capture’ then:

* what kind of error was it,
* why did it happen,
* how many other similar errors have been made by Wayback
* and over what period of time?

Indeed someone asked the obvious question: Can we actually rely on Wayback any more?

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.

If Wayback has any value, it must be accurate. Any errors must be fully explained: people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data. If you have altered data in this case, how will anyone in future know whether the data they see on your website are the original data - or have been subject to all manner of amendment?

I should be glad therefore if you could please answer my queries or let me know when you will be in a position to make a full statement on this controversial issue.

Anthony Bennett

My fault TB for not following the thread correctly.

Anyway, it does make you wonder. If WBM was a plc there'd be serious repercussions over this whatever has actually happened.

by Guest 24.06.15 1:43

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

There are one or two bits and pieces in that email to Mr Kahle that I'm not quite in tune with, and taking just one of them for the moment, you said this:

people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data

Are you sure that's quite right?

Whilst I'm aware that data from Wayback has been used in court cases, I'm not aware that anyone has ever actually been convicted of crimes based on that data.

Can you give us an example of an occasion when someone has been convicted of a crime based on data from Wayback?

Thanks

Do I detect a wet nose doggy info-sniffing?

Mind you, it is an interesting question. Nuala's, not mine.

by lj 24.06.15 1:47

Richard D. Hall wrote:An observation I would like to make is the lack of reporting of this in mainstream media. When one considers how eager mainstream have been to report continually on their front pages in huge letters to millions of people, the slightest piece of unsubstantiated hearsay on the case. It really does demonstrate their modus operandi when they ignore a potentially game changing story like this. Whatever side of the fence you are on at this time - surely it is news? For two and a half hours it seemed there was proof, confirmed in an email by a highly reliable organisation that CEOP must have known about Madeleine McCann on or before 30th April 2007. This fact, if it is true would have shown the whole official story to be a pack of lies, something which millions of people now suspect. Then there was a second statement by the same organisation claiming they got it wrong, and are now working to fix the issue. Many people understandably do not believe the second statement for a range of different reasons. Looking at ALL our mainstream publications - it is as if nothing has happened. A simple internet search for "CEOP 30th April Madeleine McCann" reveals there is no mainstream coverage of this issue.

There would have been no risk of libel for the mainstream with this issue. They could have reported it and sat on the fence. All they had to do was publish both the emails, then provide links to all the debate and discussion and perhaps get a few interviews with people on either side of the issue. But they chose to ignore it.

In my opinion they chose to ignore it because even bringing attention to this story would open the public's minds to the facts of the case. Facts which MSM have been helping to bury for the last 8 years.

Every organization is still in the "protect the McCanns' reputation mode".

However we have seen with Dr. Amaral and with Tony that it is not about if it is true or not. It is about if it affects the good name of these pathetic parents. Sadly the truth does affect "the good name" of these pathetic parents. So it won't get published, ever.

I often wonder why they did not go after you (yet). Maybe they are waiting until it gets more profitable to do so.

They have to be stopped.

by whodunnit 24.06.15 1:55

I'm very glad Mr. Marsden isn't willing to concede the point to people who 1. admit they don't know what they are talking about but make sweeping statements about 'obvious errors'. 2. Proclaim expertise, make sweeping statements about obvious errors yet fail to explain these errors.

I'm very upset that a few site hosts have effectively dampened online passion for this issue because it could have been mobilized support for a serious investigation. I know it's still being discussed here and a few other places but FB MBM pages have shut down threads and haven't had much activity over the last two days. Those who admire Pat Brown for instance take her word and move on.

I'm very upset that inquiries to WMB undertaken the day after Mr. Marsden's revelations did not focus on mccann.html but seemed to diffuse the issue by diverting attention to the seemingly anomalous homepage. People just today were surprised to learn that the page generating the bulk of the controversy was in fact the April 30, 2007 home page and NOT mccann.html. Why is that? Why was this issue obscured for so many people?

In any case, as I tried to highlight in a previous post, I have a screencap of code embedded in the May 13, 2007 capture of mccann.html under the heading 'previous/next capture' heading which makes it 'obvious' that the closest previous capture to May 13 was April 30. Unless the sequential coding is ALSO off JUST for mccann pages at CEOP then my dears this thing is a slam dunk: mccann.html existed on April 30, 2007.

I await a reply to Tony's questions but I won't be surprised if he never receives any. From their perspective I imagine it's better to ignore the issue and pretend it never happened. The alternatives are to either publicly admit ALL of their coding is whack one set of controversial captures is NOT an option] or take a strong stand behind their product and court the wrath of the British Establishment.

I can't imagine either option is particularly attractive at WBM HQ.

by whodunnit 24.06.15 2:05

I am also upset that I cannot edit my posts haha.

Anyway, the passage above:..."The alternatives are to either publicly admit ALL of their coding is whack one set of controversial"

should read: The alternatives are to either publicly admit ALL of their coding is whack one set of controversial captures is not an option..]

by whodunnit 24.06.15 2:09

Well, the coding is off on this website because I checked my correction 3 times before posting. I SWEAR it was complete when I hit send. sad

Anyway, they CANNOT sell the notion that a coding malfunction only affected McCann related pages at CEOP. Hope this works...

by Joss 24.06.15 4:05

Getting Archive.org Pages Admitted into Evidence
Once a lawyer finds evidence on an Internet Web site, the next step is to get the pages admitted into evidence. Getting Internet evidence admitted should be no different than getting other traditional evidence admitted: it must be (1) relevant; (2) authentic; and (3) admissible. But, getting pages into evidence from the Archive.org, in particular, may prove more difficult than getting pages from other Web sites (which are currently on the Web), into evidence.
In the skin head beating case, it would seem obvious that the evidence is relevant. Showing that the evidence was authentic could be accomplished by pointing to an unreported case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, Case No. 02C3293 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), available at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (see pages 13-15 of the document), where federal court Magistrate Keys, in a motion in limine, rejected defendant’s claim thatWweb pages from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine were unreliable. Instead, the Magistrate found that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "requires only a prima facie showing of genuineness and leaves it to the jury to determine the true authenticity…"of the archived Web pages. The Magistrate also explained that the Internet Archive Web pages were:

not hearsay
not “statements” but merely images and text showing what the Web site once looked like
admissions by a party-opponent.

Everything we have read about the Telewijza Polska case cites to the Magistrate's reasoning, except for one article that asserts that District Court Judge Ronald Guzman overruled Magistrate Keys' findings at the actual trial, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, Case No. 03293 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Strangely enough, the article is from Wikipedia ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]), not necessarily considered a trusted source. The Wikipedia article offers no citation to back up its assertion that Judge Guzman overruled Magistrate Keys. In fact, the only citation is to an article in the Journal of Internet Law that only cites to the Magistrate's decision.
After sifting through many documents at Pacer, we were unable to find the judge's overruling opinion, but we were informed by an attorney at one of our seminars that he had confirmed the Wikipedia assertions by phoning one of the attorneys involved in the case.
This is what the Wikipedia article stated Judge Guzman held:

The Internet Archive employee’s affidavit and underlying Web pages (Telewizja Polska Web site) were not admissible as evidence.
The employee's affidavit contained hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements.
The purported Web page printouts were not self-authenticating.

Be Sure to Authenticate Evidence From the Internet
As an attorney attempting to authenticate evidence from the Internet, it is important to prove when the research was done. This can be accomplished by having the researcher sign a declaration explaining how, and on what date, the researcher found the Web page evidence on the Internet. To further authenticate the evidence from a Web site, the web page should be printed out--with the URL listed. It would also be advisable to print any page on the Web site that indicates who owns the site. This is usually found on the "About Us" page. (Searching a domain registry, such as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], to verify ownership is not necessarily going to yield the true owner of the Web site because domain registries do not verify that real names are used.)
Admissability of Archive.org Pages
Because Telewizja Polska is an unreported case (and not binding on other courts) and because the Judge and the Magistrate came to opposite conclusions as noted above, we do not have a definitive answer as to whether pages from the Archive.org could overcome hearsay objections. As to the admissibility of pages other than Archive.org being admitted into evidence, it will vary from judge to judge.
Even Judges are now Using the Internet to Make Judicial Decisions
As recently as 1999, a district court cautioned against relying on data from the Internet as "voodoo information." St. Clair v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999). Fortunately, today, not only are judges admitting information from the Internet into evidence (as illustrated by the Telewizja case), but judges are even conducting their own Internet research to help make judicial decisions. For example, in a recent Indiana decision, the court was incredulous that the plaintiff failed to "Google" the missing defendant as part of his due diligence process. The court noted that the investigative technique of merely calling directory assistance to find a missing defendant has gone "the way of the horse and buggy and the eight track stereo" as a consequence of the Internet. The court upheld the defendant’s claim of insufficient service of process and affirmed the dismissal of the case. The court stated, "We do note that there is no evidence in this case of a public records or Internet search for Groce…to find him. In fact, we [the judge] discovered, upon entering 'Joe Groce Indiana' into the Google™ search engine, an address for Groce that differed from either address used in this case, as well as an apparent obituary for Groce’s mother that listed numerous surviving relatives who might have known his whereabouts." Munster v. Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. App. 2005) available at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. On appeal, the plaintiff could argue that there was no proof that the data found by the judge had been available on the Internet at the time plaintiff searched for the defendant.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 24.06.15 4:22

What if the online evidence has been removed?
In instances where online evidence has been removed, the website or ISP where it was first posted may have captured it during their regular data archiving. And in those cases where this has not happened, the data may still be found through the Web’s “Wayback Machine”.
Located at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Wayback Machine is an automated application that has been surfing and storing web pages since 1996. Currently it has over 150 billion pages on file. Simply enter the offending website into its search engine, and the Wayback Machine will provide you with captures of that site’s data over time. (For instance, the Wayback Machine has visited and stored web pages from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 209 times since May 30, 1997.)
Of course, this kind of archiving saves libel just as effectively as it archives truth. “We once spent a year and a half on behalf of one of our clients, tying to eliminate libelous material from being available on search engines,” says Wells. “Well, the Wayback Machine is located in California, and when we threatened them with legal action, they said ‘go get stuffed; we’re in the U.S.’ We then told our client how much it would cost to sue the Wayback Machine – about $1-2 million – and the client choked.”
The bottom line: standard evidence rules apply
Despite the novelty and challenges of online evidence, litigators need to stay focused on standard rules of provenance and authentication when dealing with it. By dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s, the online evidence you gather can be as legally decisive as you want it to be. But be sloppy, and your online evidence could be dismissed as contaminated hearsay, leading to a judicial outcome that neither you nor your client will welcome.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.15 7:15

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Whilst I'm aware that data from Wayback has been used in court cases, I'm not aware that anyone has ever actually been convicted of crimes based on that data.

Can you give us an example of an occasion when someone has been convicted of a crime based on data from Wayback?

No I can't. I know that Wayback's been used in many court cases - but they all appear to be civil suits.

I daresay that if I was wrong on that, and if I get a reply, the Head of Wayback will put me right

by **Jill Havern** 24.06.15 8:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails"

I have seen 2 - one signed by Christopher, one signed by Chris - have I missed the third?
Yes you have - two to Isabelle McFadden, one to HideHo.

Now pay attentiion at the back there

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.15 8:12

In another place, 'Resistor' continues to resist:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I still believe, 100%, that the WB machine was correct all along and that a mccann page was correctly captured and indexed on 30 April 2007 at 11:58:03.

I also believe that WB are reluctant to publicly admit that there was no error, because now they understand the consequences that this would have on the biggest, most notorious missing child case in history.

Those consequences are big and scary and now they must realise that they are sitting on absolute dynamite. It would scare the hell out of me. Last week, I hosted an event for the BCS and when somebody turned up to film it, I was absolutely horrified, because I don't like being the focus of any sort of attention. I can't even begin to imagine how the WB people must feel right now.

ETA this reminds me of a post I made on another forum - many, many years ago. A hypothetical situation.

Suppose you knew - for certain - you found absolutely irrefutable evidence of what happened to Madeleine - 100% definitive proof, and nobody else knew about it, just you.

Where would you go with it? Who would you give it to? Who could you actually trust to do the right thing with it? And with you?

UNQUOTE

by aiyoyo 24.06.15 8:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:Tony, I love your Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

PS... I'm a "she" :-))
@ canada12 I was glad to see the Way Off CEO drawing attention to your post yesterday. I have absolutely no doubt, however, that indeed he will in due course totally demolish and raze to the ground, blow to smithereens etc. your case that WayBack was accurate in this case.

I have just seen this further statement from the Way Off CEO:

Further statement

Timed at 9.30am, 23 June (subject to ratification by the Board of Way Off)

I regret that in my earlier statement I referred to 'canada 12' as 'he' and not, as it should have been, 'she'.

In accordance with our revised Data Revision policy, Para 30.4, 'Correction of Embarrassing ~~Records~~ Mistakes', you will see that I have taken steps to alter the original data in the post above and also make consequential amendments in later posts.

I apologise for this further error and thank you for giving us the opportunity to put things right.

Way Off Machine CEO

Wayback, Way Out then Way off ....(what is it going to be next?)
It appears WBM's trade name has been changed twice now in a matter of a short few days.

There are zillion of active/interactive data passing through internet every nanosecond so unless one went looking specifically for certain thing, there is no hell chance of Internet Authority (whatever that is, I have no clue) knowing that WBM is having housekeeping problem (so to speak) at the precise point in time of it happening?

The other thing is, software/system error abound and in common occurrence in and among the zillion website hosts, not something that would attract immediate attention of Internet Authority (unless you are under their active surveillance) you would think, let alone warrant their interference to the extent that they would take the liberty to change one's preferred trade name willy nilly (even if that's within their right to do so, surely they would issue warning/s first?).

Given that the problem is a very minor one - 'software bug or human input mistake' -easily fixable just by a few strokes on the keyboard, it seems odd that WBM had attracted the timely attention/intervention of Internet Authority and had their trademark/tradename suspended.

The other thing I find odd is: how did WBM hear of Canada 12? Are they reading forum/fora?
You'd think their primary concern would be that of - to put right the records for sake of integrity, and not if they got forum poster's gender right or not?
Why had they singled out Canada 12's claim and reacted to it? I find that weird.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.15 8:39

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:Tony, I love your Statement by the Chief Executive Officer of Wayback Machine

PS... I'm a "she" :-))
@ canada12 I was glad to see the Way Off CEO drawing attention to your post yesterday. I have absolutely no doubt, however, that indeed he will in due course totally demolish and raze to the ground, blow to smithereens etc. your case that WayBack was accurate in this case.

I have just seen this further statement from the Way Off CEO:

Further statement

Timed at 9.30am, 23 June (subject to ratification by the Board of Way Off)

I regret that in my earlier statement I referred to 'canada 12' as 'he' and not, as it should have been, 'she'.

In accordance with our revised Data Revision policy, Para 30.4, 'Correction of Embarrassing ~~Records~~ Mistakes', you will see that I have taken steps to alter the original data in the post above and also make consequential amendments in later posts.

I apologise for this further error and thank you for giving us the opportunity to put things right.

Way Off Machine CEO

Wayback, Way Out then Way off ....

It appears WBM's trade name has been changed twice now in a matter of a short few days.

There are zillion of active/interactive data passing through internet every nanosecond so unless one went looking specifically for certain thing, there is no hell chance of Internet Authority (whatever that is, I have no clue) knowing that WBM is having housekeeping problem (so to speak) at the precise point in time of it happening?

The other thing is, software/system error abound and in common occurrence in and among the zillion website owners, not something that would attract immediate attention of Internet Authority (unless you are under their active surveillance) you would think, let alone warrant their interference to the extent that they would take the liberty to change one's preferred trade name willy nilly, even if that is within their rights, surely they would issue warning first?

Given that the problem is a very minor one - 'software bug or human input mistake' -easily fixable just by a few strokes on the keyboard, it seems odd that WBM had attracted the timely attention of Internet Authority and had their trademark suspended.

I'm sorry, aiyoyo, the two statements purporting to be from Wayback / Way Out / Way Off were spoofs.

However, if they can't sort out the rights and wrongs of one simple entry on their machine after more than a week - and 50,000-plus views of a discussion on that entry in a week - then they deserve to be labelled the 'WayOut' or 'WayOff' Machine.

One minute they defend the robust accuracy of their data.

The next, they say it was all a bad mistake - yet they can't say what it was.

Every day that goes by now adds to their credibility problem

by aiyoyo 24.06.15 8:51

Spoofs ? Oh ...got it.

Agree, their integrity is dented, and is now at stake if they can't or won't give a proper explanation.

If the mistake is rampant across a width band of archived data, involving more than just CEOP/Mcs related archiving, that's plausible. If the mistake applies only to the archiving of CEOP site, that would be red flag.

by Guest Lord 24.06.15 9:11

Something i have just noticed. I dont know if its relevant but my screengrabs of April 30th and May 13th have urls that end in mccann.html BUT the two calender pages (with an * before the time-stamped folder) i grabbed end in McCann.html - notice the upper case M and C - these are in BOTH the url and the link above the saved 11 times...I havent got the source code for May 13th - anyone have it ?

According computerhope.com

"An Internet address is only case sensitive for everything after the domain name. For example, it does not matter if you use uppercaseor lowercase with "computerhope.com," it still reaches the same page.
However, when typing the name of the page, file, or directory in the URL it is case sensitive.

With regards warc files, i am re-reading the entire thread, there is no mention of warc or arc within the April 30th source code sent by Mr B to IM. I know nothing about CDX,warc or arc files and hadnt even heard of them until a few minutes ago.

by Joss 24.06.15 9:56

WayBack reps. or whatever they call themselves that are responsible for WBM's archives etc. are the only ones that can legally via signed Affidavit verify their information pertaining to a court case is true & accurate, and even then it depends on the magistrate allowing it in court as evidence. Some do, some don't. In this case of the McCann's there are no charges or court case/trial pending, and until such time that there is, if ever, all this is a moot point IMO. This would go into evidence against them if it went to trial, and so far there is no chance of that, there was according to PJ not enough evidence to charge them with anything, and to date nothing new has been found as far as we know. We already know OG's take on it all stated publicly, that the McC's are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance. They would have to have a rock solid case for anything to stick if they were charged otherwise it would fail at Trial. And if this has been a cover up by the Govt. then the truth is not likely to ever come out unless the McC's admit to culpabilty. And what are the chances of that happening? Zero i would say, even after all the lies & discrepencies in this case have been highlighted in various forums etc.
But it would still be good to know why this information from 30/4/07 was there in WBM's archives. Whether that happens remains to be seen.

by Cora 24.06.15 10:12

Tony Bennett wrote:In another place, 'Resistor' continues to resist:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I still believe, 100%, that the WB machine was correct all along and that a mccann page was correctly captured and indexed on 30 April 2007 at 11:58:03.

I also believe that WB are reluctant to publicly admit that there was no error, because now they understand the consequences that this would have on the biggest, most notorious missing child case in history.

Those consequences are big and scary and now they must realise that they are sitting on absolute dynamite. It would scare the hell out of me. Last week, I hosted an event for the BCS and when somebody turned up to film it, I was absolutely horrified, because I don't like being the focus of any sort of attention. I can't even begin to imagine how the WB people must feel right now.

ETA this reminds me of a post I made on another forum - many, many years ago. A hypothetical situation.

Suppose you knew - for certain - you found absolutely irrefutable evidence of what happened to Madeleine - 100% definitive proof, and nobody else knew about it, just you.

Where would you go with it? Who would you give it to? Who could you actually trust to do the right thing with it? And with you?

UNQUOTE

Very good hypothesis. I would give it to Snr Amaral and Richard D. Hall. Certainly not the British police and I never thought that one day I would say that.

by Joss 24.06.15 10:14

Tony Bennett wrote:

I'm sorry, aiyoyo, the two statements purporting to be from Wayback / Way Out / Way Off were spoofs.

However, if they can't sort out the rights and wrongs of one simple entry on their machine after more than a week - and 50,000-plus views of a discussion on that entry in a week - then they deserve to be labelled the 'WayOut' or 'WayOff' Machine.

One minute they defend the robust accuracy of their data.

The next, they say it was all a bad mistake - yet they can't say what it was.

Every day that goes by now adds to their credibility problem

While i agree with what you say, who are they accountable to exactly? Unless it directly personally affects any information that we have stored in there, i would think their accountability would affect the CEOP website and why that information showed up for the 30/4 some 3 days before Madeleine was reported as missing?
We can certainly ask them to explain why, but i don't believe they are accountable to any of us on a forum, if anything it needs to be taken up with the PJ or OG i would think?
I guess we will see what Steve Marsden comes up with in his research of it all.