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

@Bluebag. Can you back up this FACT with irrefutable evidence please as there are very many people who would be interested to see it, probably including archive.com (IMO)

@ Doug D

I have always had the opinion that they were supposed to have been jemmied, but for some reason (Jez appearing maybe?) it did not happen.

Yes they were certainly supposed to be jemmied, but as we know it didn't happen. If Maddie died on the evening of 3rd May then I think you could be correct and Jez appearing possibly scuppered the plans.

If there was preplanning, however, going back several days, then jemmying the shutters would not have been left to the last minute, they would have been jemmied. They would have had days to make sure everything went according to plan.

The script that was relayed back to the folks at home accounted for the ‘jemmying’ (wasn’t it Phil. who wasn’t even sure what the word was and even meant?) and once their stories were out it was too late to change the story.

Not quite. The shutters didn't get jemmied but despite that the McCanns STILL told their friends and family in the UK that they HAD been jemmied.

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

Nuala wrote:@ Doug D

I have always had the opinion that they were supposed to have been jemmied, but for some reason (Jez appearing maybe?) it did not happen.

Yes they were certainly supposed to be jemmied, but as we know it didn't happen. If Maddie died on the evening of 3rd May then I think you could be correct and Jez appearing possibly scuppered the plans.

If there was preplanning, however, going back several days, then jemmying the shutters would not have been left to the last minute, they would have been jemmied. They would have had days to make sure everything went according to plan.

The script that was relayed back to the folks at home accounted for the ‘jemmying’ (wasn’t it Phil. who wasn’t even sure what the word was and even meant?) and once their stories were out it was too late to change the story.

Not quite. The shutters didn't get jemmied but despite that the McCanns STILL told their friends and family in the UK that they HAD been jemmied.

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

I don't think the windows would have been "jemmied" earlier. If it was all planned, they couldn't risk anyone seeing broken windows before the "abduction". The jemmied windows had to happen at the time that the "abductor" would have done his/her dirty deed.

However, I agree (my opinion, only) that Jeremy Wilkins threw a spanner in the works when he came face to face with GM.

@Nuala---"If the capture is correct i.e. there was a live CEOP web page concerning Maddie McCann on the Internet on 30th April 2007, it doesn't necessarily mean there was an event prior to 3rd May. The event could still have taken place on 3rd May. What the CEOP page would show is that the event (whatever date that event took place) was premeditated and preplanned.

They're actually two different issues.

I don't believe in any premeditation or preplanning for one very simple reason, had the event been premeditated and preplanned the shutters would have been jemmied."


For the reason you state and other considerations I also do not believe in premeditation nor preplanning--not of the death, anyway. What the capture seems to imply is that an event happened prior to May 3,  that event theoretically being an accidental killing during the commission of, ahh, other illegal activities which would theoretically necessitate a cover-up. In the parents' theoretical predicament, almost anyone would enlist the help of a 'friend' who was in a position to help mount a high profile 'official' abduction cover story. [especially if that same friend is of the opinion that child porn viewers should be shown leniency but I digress] In my opinion, the first shot of the campaign was commenced in haste, BEFORE  the corpse was securely hidden, which is of course is THE crucial element of any abduction cover story. [If the Ramsey case with it's sexual abuse findings taught us anything..]  First behind the sofa, then in the wardrobe...perhaps it was decided that Portuguese police maybe aren't Boulder level stupid after all, that an abduction cover story perhaps shouldn't be commenced right away, and that perhaps they should wait until AFTER the body was safely away from the premises. Hence, the mccann.html was pulled or hidden until the proper time.. Enter Murat's hasty return to PDL at the crucial time in question, his subsequent handy insertion into the case, and the several indications that he and G. McCann had knowledge of and communications with each other during this period.

Mistakes were made, for sure, all of them certainly due to hubris.

sallypelt wrote:

Nuala wrote:@ Doug D

I have always had the opinion that they were supposed to have been jemmied, but for some reason (Jez appearing maybe?) it did not happen.

Yes they were certainly supposed to be jemmied, but as we know it didn't happen. If Maddie died on the evening of 3rd May then I think you could be correct and Jez appearing possibly scuppered the plans.

If there was preplanning, however, going back several days, then jemmying the shutters would not have been left to the last minute, they would have been jemmied. They would have had days to make sure everything went according to plan.

The script that was relayed back to the folks at home accounted for the ‘jemmying’ (wasn’t it Phil. who wasn’t even sure what the word was and even meant?) and once their stories were out it was too late to change the story.

Not quite. The shutters didn't get jemmied but despite that the McCanns STILL told their friends and family in the UK that they HAD been jemmied.

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

I don't think the windows would have been "jemmied" earlier. If it was all planned, they couldn't risk anyone seeing broken windows before the "abduction". The jemmied windows had to happen at the time that the "abductor" would have done his/her dirty deed.

However, I agree (my opinion, only) that Jeremy Wilkins threw a spanner in the works when he came face to face with GM.

Definitely agree with this Sallypelt. What with so many people around, on site staff, maintenance, cleaners, etc, the McCs could not take the risk of any damage being spotted earlier so any jammying/jemmying would have to have been done on the night. There may even have been a bit of banging and crashing added for theatrical effect for the neighbour's benefit, as it would have been a bonus if Mrs Fenn or another neighbour could have reported hearing noises of shutters banging at such and such a time........BUT Jez Wilkins happened along, and they never were jemmied. No evidence of jemmying. No witnesses. No nothing.

Sorry off topic 

Anybody got an opinion/theory on the Wayback machine and it's replaying a McCann file on 30/04/07 or have I strayed onto the wrong universe.

HKP, my opinion fwiw is this didn't happen. I posted twice about the screenshot I made---I can't post links or images so see my last tweet @MollyeWasaDame for the cap---of code embedded in the May 13, 2007 capture of mccann.html, the page to which we are now redirected from the April 30th capture. The code embedded in the May 13 page makes it plain as day that the nearest previous capture of mccann.html was April 30th, 2007. Yet another piece of code that needs to be explained away by debunkers. When you have several different corroborating pieces of code all pointing to one date and one date only the onus is on people who insist this is an error.

@whodunnit. Despite some claiming it as fact there is certainly enough circumstantial (because we cannot prove it) evidence that the original archiving was conducted on 30/04. All this what about the October Misfile is s load of tosh IMO.

That should have said fact that the Wayback was in error claims

When or IF WBM gives a credible explanation in plain language as to HOW this supposed error occurred then I will concede that an error occurred.

I can see how some would be confused by October dates on an April 30th capture of the homepage--and it WAS an April 30th capture because this date ALSO occurs in the May 14th code under the previous captures heading--- but imo this is 1. A separate issue from the mccann.html capture and 2. plausibly explained by a.) dynamic content or b.) a capture was made while CEOP was in the process of editing the page. If neither of these explanations are true then let's hear it---from WBM.

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

She was brought up on the Southside.  EVERYBODY in Glasgow knows what "jemmied" means.  That ridiculous statement and the stupid little giggle that went with it, just proves what a terrible actress she is.  She is maybe even trying to show how "posh" she is, that she doesn't recognise a bit of good old Weedgie slang when she hears it.  Well, you can take the lassie out of Govanhill...

@whodunnit. Agreed

BlueBag wrote:Wow... I think we have our own Madeleine "no planes".

I've contained myself for a few days but enough is enough, I can't let this ride.

It is a FACT the WBM was in error over an October 2007 page appearing under April 30th 2007.

Don't ask me ask Steve Marsden.

FACT.

F.. A.. C.. T...

Check his Facebook thread.

F.. A.. C.. T...

WBM was IN ERROR.

No one can possibly argue that the WBM is not on error, it's was there for all to see from the horses mouth.

No one.

And that absolutely puts the other data with the same time stamp in doubt.

Absolutely without a shadow of a doubt.. it is doubtful data.. more.. it is almost certainly in error for the same reason.

If you want to carry on making this forum look irrational and illogical then carry on, someone somewhere will use it against us I'm sure.

Any BS about comparing "apples" and "oranges" is just that.

This is apples and apples off the same 20070430 115803 tree.

I feel really strongly about this because I am probably the most experienced IT person on this forum.

Anyone been programming and working as an IT consultant since 1981?

I am a java programming expert (among many other branches of IT expertise) and I don't say that lightly.

+1 BB thank you

Some info. about authenticating data from WBM:

About the affidavit
About the Wayback Machine

About the affidavit
Do I really need an affidavit from the Internet Archive?
No. Please consider alternatives to an affidavit from the Internet Archive. Judicial notice and stipulation to a document's authenticity are two typical and straightforward options that might be used instead of an affidavit. Since our resources are limited, we urge you to pursue these alternatives before coming to us with authentication requests.
What does your standard affidavit look like?
You can see our Model Affidavit.
Can the affidavit be notarized?
Notarizing the affidavit is a strain on the Internet Archive's resources, since there are no notaries nearby. If you would like your affidavit notarized, please add $100 to payment, and note it in your request.
Can I subpoena someone to testify to the authenticity of the URLs in the Wayback Machine?

The Internet Archive would prefer if you didn't, and will most likely fight it. The Internet Archive is a small non-profit, and taking a member of the team for even a few days significantly effects what the Archive is trying to accomplish. Please consider alternatives to subpoenaing someone from the Internet Archive, including using the standard affidavit or judicial notice.
My request is urgent! Can the Internet Archive provide the documents and affidavit immediately?
No. Unfortunately, given the number of information requests the Internet Archive receives, it is not feasible for us to provide anyone with expedited responses.
However, we recommend that you provide us with a FedEx account number for sending your documents and affidavit, since this will speed up your wait time significantly (otherwise, we will send your affidavit via regular mail). Please see our Information Request Policy for more details.
Can the Internet Archive change its standard affidavit to fit my needs?
The Internet Archive may be willing to change its standard affidavit according to particular needs, on a case by case basis. However, if we agree to make such changes, you will be required to reimburse the Internet Archive for its related attorney fees as we ask our attorneys to review and negotiate any changes to the standard affidavit. If you wish to inquire further about this possibility, please contact us via email at [email=info@archive.org%20][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [/email]
Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.
Can the Internet Archive provide all pages from a specified domain?


The Internet Archive cannot respond to requests that list one URL and ask for all pages at that domain. You must provide us with an extended URL (i.e., the full URL that appears in the Address field of your browser) for each page you need authenticated. The extended url must come from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine and not the live web. For example, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is not an extended url, but [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is. Please see our Information Request Policy for more details.
Does the Internet Archive limit the number of documents I can request at one time?
The Internet Archive will respond to reasonable requests for documents. If you request a substantial number of documents, the Internet Archive may contact you and ask that you reduce your request, and the turnaround time on your request may be longer than five business days. Please remember that every request puts a strain on the Internet Archive's limited resources and small staff, and therefore request only those documents which you believe are absolutely necessary to your case. In addition, the Internet Archive reserves the right to decline any request it deems to be unreasonable.
Does the Internet Archive guarantee a turnaround time for responses to requests?
No. The Internet Archive strives to respond to requests within five business days of receipt of payment, but that timeframe is not guaranteed.
When I send my payment, how will you know that my payment relates to my request?
If you are sending a check, please also include a copy of your request in the envelope with your check as well as an email address where we can contact you. If you are sending payment via PayPal, please email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] immediately after sending your payment notifying the Internet Archive that you have just sent payment and identifying your request sufficiently for the Internet Archive to understand to which request you are referring.
Where do I send questions about your information request policy?


Questions should be sent via email to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .
I submitted an incorrect request, can I have a refund or a credit?
No. The Internet Archive does not have the resources to set up an accounting system in this way. Please double-check your requests for duplicate URLs or errors before submitting them. We cannot refund your money or give you a credit.
Will the Internet Archive take a position in my legal dispute?
The Internet Archive strives to be a disinterested third party in all disputes involving its collection items. If you are using Wayback Machine documents to make a case in your legal dispute, the Internet Archive will not take an idealogical or other position in said dispute.
I need an affidavit for a case taking place outside of the United States.
Internet Archive can provide you with authenticated documents and an affidavit in accordance with our U.S. policy with the following adjustments:
-If you cannot provide the archive with an account number to which shipment of the documents can be charged, the archive will charge and additional $50-$100 depending on the size of your request.
-Internet Archive will strive to have your documents printed in 5 business days after payment is received, however transit time to you is not guaranteed.
-Internet Archive will accept international wire transfers for international cases only at no expense to the archive; any unexpected wire transfer fees must be paid by you.
Please remember that the Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when. Additionally, the Internet Archive does not automatically notarize affidavits; this is an additional $100 charge.
How can I tell what date a particular image was archived?
The date assigned by the Internet Archive applies to the HTML file but not to image files linked therein. Thus images that appear on the printed page may not have been archived on the same date as the HTML file. If you would like to find out when a particular image was archived right click (control click from Mac users) and select "open image in new tab [or window]". You can also select "copy image location", open up a new tab or browser window and paste in the url. Once the image opens look at the url in your browser's address window to determine the date the image was captured. Please note that using Microsoft's Internet Explorer's "properties" option can be misleading as it displays the same date code as the url's HTML file when looking at an image. Its best to open the image in its own window to determine the exact capture date. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Anonymous wrote:

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

She was brought up on the Southside.  EVERYBODY in Glasgow knows what "jemmied" means.  That ridiculous statement and the stupid little giggle that went with it, just proves what a terrible actress she is.  She is maybe even trying to show how "posh" she is, that she doesn't recognise a bit of good old Weedgie slang when she hears it.  Well, you can take the lassie out of Govanhill...

Was it not Patricia Cameron who said jammied - although the above still applies as I can't believe anyone in Glasgow has not heard or used the expression, I have even heard it as jimmied.

Whilst I can appreciate that folks are allowed to have their own points of view we have some who wish to stiffle the debate with I've been working in IT since time began capers. I've seen many people who have worked many many years in their field and they are still hopless! Time  does not necessarily equate to competence! However the point being made is that one file is wrong then the rest is very much in doubt. Well we have some sort of evidence that one piece (not the McCann.htm file btw) may have some sort of error but that (at this moment in time) is one in 485 billion. Seems a reasonably robust system to me.

From their legal faq.
It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when. 
So looks like whoever is disputing the data needs to prove it if i am reading that correctly? And it's not WBM's burden to prove anything, just give the information they have on record, as per the link i posted.

BlueBag wrote:Wow... I think we have our own Madeleine "no planes".

I've contained myself for a few days but enough is enough, I can't let this ride.

It is a FACT the WBM was in error over an October 2007 page appearing under April 30th 2007.

Don't ask me ask Steve Marsden.

FACT.

F.. A.. C.. T...

Check his Facebook thread.

F.. A.. C.. T...

WBM was IN ERROR.

No one can possibly argue that the WBM is not on error, it's was there for all to see from the horses mouth.

No one.

And that absolutely puts the other data with the same time stamp in doubt.

Absolutely without a shadow of a doubt.. it is doubtful data.. more.. it is almost certainly in error for the same reason.

If you want to carry on making this forum look irrational and illogical then carry on, someone somewhere will use it against us I'm sure.

Any BS about comparing "apples" and "oranges" is just that.

This is apples and apples off the same 20070430 115803 tree.

I feel really strongly about this because I am probably the most experienced IT person on this forum.

Anyone been programming and working as an IT consultant since 1981?

I am a java programming expert (among many other branches of IT expertise) and I don't say that lightly.

As it happens, you're NOT the most experienced IT person on this forum.  However, I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

I do agree with you that this is almost certainly a mistake in the archiving on the Wayback Machine.  My experience and the fact that there are a number of anomolies (like October news on a May Archive) shows that it's not infallible.

However, this is far too important a point, with wide reaching consequences, to just let drop because it looks like an error.  I fully support TB and others as they push the point with the web archive and we need to get an explanation for why this happened that's acceptable to all.

I would only say though that, in my opinion, this WILL turn out to be an error and we should just be careful about jumping to any conclusions or stating anything as fact until we do know what happened.

macdonut wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Wow... I think we have our own Madeleine "no planes".

I've contained myself for a few days but enough is enough, I can't let this ride.

It is a FACT the WBM was in error over an October 2007 page appearing under April 30th 2007.

Don't ask me ask Steve Marsden.

FACT.

F.. A.. C.. T...

Check his Facebook thread.

F.. A.. C.. T...

WBM was IN ERROR.

No one can possibly argue that the WBM is not on error, it's was there for all to see from the horses mouth.

No one.

And that absolutely puts the other data with the same time stamp in doubt.

Absolutely without a shadow of a doubt.. it is doubtful data.. more.. it is almost certainly in error for the same reason.

If you want to carry on making this forum look irrational and illogical then carry on, someone somewhere will use it against us I'm sure.

Any BS about comparing "apples" and "oranges" is just that.

This is apples and apples off the same 20070430 115803 tree.

I feel really strongly about this because I am probably the most experienced IT person on this forum.

Anyone been programming and working as an IT consultant since 1981?

I am a java programming expert (among many other branches of IT expertise) and I don't say that lightly.

As it happens, you're NOT the most experienced IT person on this forum.  However, I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

I do agree with you that this is almost certainly a mistake in the archiving on the Wayback Machine.  My experience and the fact that there are a number of anomolies (like October news on a May Archive) shows that it's not infallible.

However, this is far too important a point, with wide reaching consequences, to just let drop because it looks like an error.  I fully support TB and others as they push the point with the web archive and we need to get an explanation for why this happened that's acceptable to all.

I would only say though that, in my opinion, this WILL turn out to be an error and we should just be careful about jumping to any conclusions or stating anything as fact until we do know what happened.

BBM, I agree, but who is going to obtain the relevent information from WBM? Looks like there are some steps to take to do that from what i have posted and read.

@macdonut. A much more sensible approach

This is just my opinion on the matter.

I've followed best I can for nearly 100 pages.  And as far as I'm concerned BlueBag has convinced me WMB had a brain fart and messed up.  Whether you get a full explanation from WBM is another thing, plus even if we do, somebody will say they don't believe them anyway.
Sometimes you have to trust somebody elses 'facts' so in this instance, I trust BlueBag has called this correct.

Why it's always the ****ing Mccanns is another argument.

MRNOODLES wrote:This is just my opinion on the matter.

I've followed best I can for nearly 100 pages.  And as far as I'm concerned BlueBag has convinced me WMB had a brain fart and messed up.  Whether you get a full explanation from WBM is another thing, plus even if we do, somebody will say they don't believe them anyway.
Sometimes you have to trust somebody elses 'facts' so in this instance, I trust BlueBag has called this correct.

Why it's always the ****ing Mccanns is another argument.

I agree, BB and others have the knowledge when it comes to the technical side of the internet, and their knowledge has certainly helped in trying to ascertain exactly why WBM archived that particular information on the 30/4 as it did. It certainly has been an education in how all this stuff works, even though for someone that is not internet savvy it can all be rather confusing, and i am certainly in that category, but it is interesting nonetheless.
It does seem rather coincidental as you say that this is yet another discrepency in the McCann case. Too many discrepencies IMO.

As the Saintly Kate might have said
"One discrepancy, two discrepancies, after that they become something more sinister"

whodunnit wrote:

In my opinion, the first shot of the campaign was commenced in haste, BEFORE  the corpse was securely hidden, which is of course is THE crucial element of any abduction cover story.
-----------------------------------------------

Hence, 'the going back out again', to 'search'' at 4am, 4th May 2007, BY....... DP & GM?

DP later 'STATED', (to Leicestershire Police) on record, that he did NOT 'partake' in ANY 'search' on the 4th May 2007!

Hence, only DP&GM, 'going out, again' at 4am, 4th May 2007, 'to MOVE 'something' from 'somewhere', to securely 'hide' 'somewhere' else?

A church 'yard'?

GM 'asked' a GNR officer, did he, the officer, know, 'where a church was?'

Bit odd, for a 'devout' Catholic, who had been 'in' PDL, for 6 DAYS, to 'ask', imo.

Only 3 'churches' in PDL, i believe.

'all' on 'record'!

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

He, (Rui-Silva) only had direct contact with the couple and their friends at about 04.00 when Gerry McCann approached the GNR group of which he was a member to ask whether there was a church close by. He replied to him in English, giving the directions to a nearby church.

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

He, DP, did not partake in the searches realized on the 4th of May, because, on this day, he spent to majority of time in the police headquarters.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once you have started with one lie you have to make up 1,000 lies to cover that one. Once I had started ('lying') there was no turning back."

Anonymous wrote:

You're quite right about Phil, she wasn't sure what jemmied meant, she was just repeating what she had been told to say.

She was brought up on the Southside.  EVERYBODY in Glasgow knows what "jemmied" means.  That ridiculous statement and the stupid little giggle that went with it, just proves what a terrible actress she is.  She is maybe even trying to show how "posh" she is, that she doesn't recognise a bit of good old Weedgie slang when she hears it.  Well, you can take the lassie out of Govanhill...

While we're there, shout out to Govan, Govanhill, Ibrox, Cessnock, Kinning Park & PR West!!!! BOOM!!