Re: Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 0:20

12 Oct 2007 and early Feb 2008 re; more missing dates between these dates archived through wbm and then through archive.is but do not appear on wbm calender https

://archive. is/

www

. ceop. gov.
uk
6 feb 2008 https
: // archive. is/ 0cJyg
13 oct https: // archive. is/b eNNU
sorry about the links there's 3 there if someone could reconstruct. @ nuala, from a quick glace- yes i think this is also correct

by Joss 29.06.15 5:28

Just a question: Where is everyone agreeing or disputing all of this information going to go with it? Has anyone drawn it to OG/SY's attention yet? The PJ in Portugal don't appear interested in it from the info. i posted yesterday from I. McFadden, so the only other authorities that could do something about it is the U.K. investigation, but the PJ have jurisdiction on the case because the crime happened in Portugal. And other than that what else can anyone do about it?

by whodunnit 29.06.15 6:58

archive.is. FAQ

[size=54]Why does archive.is not obey robots.txt?[/size]
[size=54]Because it is not a free-walking crawler, it saves only one page acting as a direct agent of the human user. [/size]

[size=54]~~[/size]

by HKP 29.06.15 8:22

While it’s all very noble of the crew who are looking through the 30/4 captures etc. and coming up with a high percentage of 8779 urls seeming to have occurred on this very day a question. Lets just for one minute say that something is not right and the 30/04 captures are suspicious; it is not the fact that there are a (whatever) number of inconsistences that you find, it is the issue of ‘did the Wayback Machine crawl the Ceop site on 30/04’. If it did then the only pages that we need to prove were there or not are the ones relating to Madeleine i.e. mccann.html and madeleine jpegs 01 & 02 etc. Now considering that we are not on the inside of archive.com we will struggle to answer that question, the claims of this page or that page doesn’t look right are irrelevant, if it turned out that there were only a few captures that were correct (I’m not suggesting there were only a few) and these were indeed related to the McCann’s then that’s what we need to know.

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 10:14

all someone has to do now is to look at the info for the missing calendar files and see are the in the wbm index and under what date

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 10:20

just for reference i see it's being discussed elsewhere

archive.ie doesn't take it's info from archive.is. they are separate.

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 10:27

that should read archive.com not archive.ie above

by siobhan3443 29.06.15 10:29

that should read archive.com not archive.ie above

by Guest 999 29.06.15 10:30

If i were WBM, i would be very concerned about such errors.

According to them, their info/data is used on many court cases etc etc which clearly shows they are very accurate and reliable.

However...with errors such as this [if proved -Admin] happening seemingly so randomly and easily, I would think that any previous convictions based on supporting info from the company can now be deemed very unsafe.

I hope they have good lawyers!

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 10:55

Guest 999 wrote:If i were WBM, i would be very concerned about such errors.

According to them, their info/data is used on many court cases etc etc which clearly shows they are very accurate and reliable.

However...with errors such as this [if proved - Admin] happening seemingly so randomly and easily, I would think that any previous convictions based on supporting info from the company can now be deemed very unsafe.

I hope they have good lawyers!

It is clear that Wayback Machine/archive.org is not error-free. The article below doesn't really take this debate much further, since we still need to know IF the CEOP 'capture' of a McCann.html page on 30 April is correct or false.

And, if false, why it was false.

Still no reply from Wayback to my e-mails of 17 and 23 June by the way.

The article below is written by a lawyer who has great knowledge of litigation involving Wayback - and is therefore well worth a read:

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

"Weighing up the Wayback Machine: an analysis of the admissibility of archived websites."

Weighing up the Wayback Machine

An analysis of the admissibility of archived websites

By Bryce Matthewson

The effect of the internet on our daily lives is undeniable. Recently we have even seen a court accepting service via Facebook. These changes raise new challenges for the legal system, one of which comes in the form of the Wayback Machine.

What is the Wayback Machine?

The Wayback Machine is a technology that preserves a comprehensive record of all websites, documents and other information contained on the internet. Because of the inherent fluidity of internet-based content, information that is available one minute can be gone the next. This can pose a serious problem for litigants.

In short, the Wayback Machine is a system that allows the public to view a website as it appeared on a previous date. It operates by scouring the internet in a methodical manner, making copies of all publicly accessible websites. These copies are then arranged by date, archived, and made accessible to the public.

Using the Wayback Machine is simple. After accessing the website ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) you enter the URL of the website you are looking for, and out pops a list of dates on which the website was copied. You can then view the site as it appeared on those dates. No registration is required, and it is completely free.

Why is the Wayback Machine important to lawyers?

At first glance the Wayback Machine will probably seem like a nifty gadget, however, the Wayback Machine may have potential in a lawyer’s practice. Foreign law reports are dotted with examples of intellectual property lawyers having tried to use Wayback Machine printouts to show the use of a trade mark or prior disclosure of a patented invention. Similarly, it could be essential in proving copyright infringement, defamation, privacy infringement, unlawful competition, comparative advertising, etcetera.

But not all that glistens is gold and before one launches a case based on a Wayback Machine printout one must consider the weight of that evidence.

The Wayback Machine as evidence

Objection M’Lord! That’s hearsay! The obvious objection is that evidence obtained using the Wayback Machine is hearsay and accordingly inadmissible, unless the contrary is proven.

Section 3(4) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 (the EAA) defines ‘hearsay evidence’ as ‘evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence’.

At first sight, Wayback Machine printouts fall squarely within that definition. Internet Archive (the company that operates the Wayback Machine) recognises this and offers a standard affidavit that provides that the printouts ‘are true and accurate copies of printouts of Internet Archive’s records’. But we all know that that is not the same as saying they are accurate.

One might be inclined to subpoena an expert from Internet Archive to present the evidence, but this carries with it the inherent risks of using subpoenaed witnesses. Internet Archive expressly asks on its website that users do not resort to this course because of the strain it will place on its resources.

Despite not having gained traction in South Africa, the Wayback Machine has been used extensively in other jurisdictions where the courts have had to grapple with these issues.

In the first such case, EchoStar sought to introduce printouts of Telewizja Polska’s website obtained using the Wayback Machine (Telewizja Polska USA Inc v Echostar Satellite No. 02 C 3293, [url=http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=65 Fed R Evid Serv 673]65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673[/url] (N.D. Ill. 14-10-2004)). EchoStar relied on an affidavit by Molly Davis, the administrative director of the Internet Archive. In the affidavit Davis attested that the printouts were ‘true and accurate copies of printouts of Internet Archive’s records’. Polska launched an in limine motion to supress the evidence on the basis that it was hearsay and was not authenticated.

Although Polska failed in the preliminary stage, the trial judge found that the affidavit from Internet Archive contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the printouts were not self-authenticating. (Almost all articles cite only the decision of the magistrate and ignore the overruling decision of the district court. The district court decision, which was given during the trial is confirmed in CA Levitt & ME Rosch, Find Info Like a Pro: Mining the Internet’s Publicly Available Resources for Investigative Research, (American Bar Association 2007) vol 1 at 195). Accordingly, the website printouts were inadmissible.

Since that decision there have been a number of further decisions, but not with any level of consistency.

In the later decision of St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Institute P.A. v Sanderson, M.D., LLC. (No. 06-CV-223, 2006 WL 1320242 (M.D. Fla. 12-5-2006)) the court was faced with a similar issue. The plaintiff in the St Luke’s case did not produce an affidavit from Internet Archive, but simply relied on Davis’ affidavit from the Telewizja case. The judge ruled that the evidence was not admissible but noted that, if the plaintiff had produced an affidavit by ‘a representative of Internet Archive with personal knowledge of its contents, verifying that the printouts … are true and accurate copies of Internet Archive’s records’, the evidence may have been admissible.

However, two district courts in the Second Circuit have taken a different view by focusing on the authenticity of the original rather than the copy. In the matter of Novak v Tucows Inc (no 06-CV-1909, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007)), Novak sought to admit several Wayback Machine printouts. In doing so he relied on his own affidavit in which he attested to having obtained them using the Wayback Machine. The court ruled that the pages were hearsay, and that Novak could not authenticate them because he lacked the personal knowledge to prove that the printouts were a true reflection of the original website (ie, not just that they were a true reflection of Wayback Machine’s records).

The approach in the Novak case was thereafter followed by another United States (US) district court in the matter of Chamilia, LLC v Pandora Jewelry, LLC. [url=http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=85 USPQ2d 1169](85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1169[/url] (S.D.N.Y. 2007)) and has been subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Novak v Tucows Inc no 07-2211-cv, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9786, at *6 (2d Cir. 6-5- 2009)).

Judicial attention has not been limited to the US. The Canadian courts have found in criminal matters (R v Ballendine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], civil matters (ITV Technologies Inc v WIC Television Ltd [url=http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=2003 FC 1056]2003 FC 1056[/url] (CanLII)), trade mark proceedings (eMusic.com Inc (Re) 2011 TMOB 34 (CanLII) and St. Joseph Media Inc v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc 2010 TMOB 188 (CanLII)) and patent proceedings (Re U-Haul International Inc (2010) 82 C.P.R. (4th) 279) that Wayback Machine printouts can be admissible.

By contrast, the Australian courts in E & J Gallo Winery v. Lion Nathan Australia (Pty) Ltd [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] found that Wayback Machine printouts were inherently unreliable and accordingly not admissible (although this decision was subsequently overturned on appeal, the appeal was decided on a different issue).

I find the reasoning of the court in the Novak case to be the most convincing. Although the court in the St. Luke’s case suggested that the evidence may be admissible if introduced with an affidavit from an employee of Internet Archive, in my view the evidence would still be hearsay. As suggested in the Novak case the true deponent to the affidavit should be the webmaster (or other such similar person) of the original website. The question that should rather be asked is whether the printouts should nevertheless be admissible.

In terms of the EAA, hearsay evidence can be admitted by agreement between the parties, or if the court is of the view that such evidence should be admitted in the interests of justice, having regard to the following –

• the nature of the proceedings;
• the nature of the evidence;
• the purpose for which the evidence is tendered;
• the probative value of the evidence;
• the reason why the evidence is not given by the person on whose credibility the probative value of such evidence depends;
• any prejudice to a party that the admission of such evidence might entail; and
• any other factor that should, in the opinion of the court, be taken into account.

In the absence of a factual matrix it is impossible to consider all of these factors. However, if one considers those factors that can be considered in a factual vacuum, one begins to paint a picture favouring the admission of Wayback Machine printouts.

First, having regard to the nature of the evidence, which is an issue primarily concerned with the reliability of the evidence, one must favour the admission of the evidence as a computer printout, ascertained in the manner in which the Wayback Machine works, is inherently reliable.

If one then considers why the evidence is not being given by the primary source, a strong argument can be made in favour of admitting the evidence. The primary source would ordinarily be the webmaster, who in most cases will be the webmaster for many websites, and who will in all likelihood not recall what was posted on a website, what could be, years ago. Furthermore, this individual may be contracted to one of the parties and accordingly will have an interest in the matter. For those reasons alone this individual’s evidence would have to be considered with caution and accordingly Wayback Machine printouts should be favoured.

The last factor is the catch all and in this regard issues regarding the underlying purpose of the rules relating to hearsay should be taken into account. First, it is trite that the hearsay rule is justified by the best evidence rule. In these circumstances, because of the above-mentioned concerns regarding the value of the webmaster’s evidence, the best evidence is the Wayback Machine printouts (see also DR Eltgroth ‘Best Evidence and the Wayback Machine: Toward a Workable Authentication Standard for Archived Internet Evidence’ Fordham Law Review (2009) 78 at 181 for a full discussion on this issue). Secondly, the hearsay rule is aimed at ensuring that jurors will not be influenced by hearsay evidence. This does not apply in the South African context where judges are able to consider the appropriate probative weight with which to consider hearsay statements.

A further consideration is the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECTA). Section 15 of ECTA provides that the rules of evidence must not be used to deny the admissibility of a data message on the grounds that it is not in its original form if it is the best evidence that the person adducing it could reasonably be expected to obtain. Section 21 of the ECTA defines a data message as data generated, sent, received or stored by electronic means and includes a stored record, which clearly includes a Wayback Machine printout.

As discussed above, the inherent difficulties in obtaining the primary evidence would in ordinary circumstances render Wayback Machine printouts the best evidence, and accordingly, in terms of s 15, it should not be refused. This proposition is consistent with the proposed reading of the EAA suggest above.

Section 15 of ECTA goes on to provide that a data message should be given due evidential weight, having regard to –

• the reliability of the manner in which the data message was generated, stored or communicated;
• the reliability of the manner in which the integrity of the data message was maintained;
• the manner in which its originator was identified; and
• any other relevant factor.

The first three factors are dealt with briefly in the standard affidavit that Internet Archive will provide on request. Should these issues be challenged, it may be necessary to introduce expert evidence. However, having regard to the approach of foreign courts, it seems that the manner of collection, storage and reliability of the message is generally considered reliable, and accordingly the printout should be considered with a high degree of evidentiary weight.

As regards the catch-all provision, it is difficult to envisage what else could be considered relevant. It is possible that issues similar to those considered in the hearsay provision discussed above could also be considered, such as the potential prejudice, and the purpose of the evidence. In my opinion, the court, in properly exercising its discretion in terms of s 15 of ECTA, should, unless satisfactory evidence is produced to dispute the reliability of the printouts, admit the printouts and consider them with a high degree of evidentiary weight.

Conclusion

The impact of the internet on legal practice is becoming increasingly apparent. Attorneys must consider whether any useful evidence (for their client or their opponent) could be obtained using the Wayback Machine.

One should also be acutely aware that the admission of the printouts may be challenged and should prepare accordingly.

That being said, I submit that unless the objector can produce convincing evidence disputing the reliability of Wayback Machine printouts, the courts should admit them, and consider them of a high probative value.

Bryce Matthewson BSc LLM (Wits) is a candidate attorney at Spoor & Fisher in Pretoria.

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

by Nuala 29.06.15 11:47

@ HKP

coming up with a high percentage of 8779 urls seeming to have occurred on this very day

There is nothing seeming about it. It's front of all our eyes. Even a non-techie can take a look and see it, it involves no technical knowhow, just eyes in one's head.

we need to prove were there or not are the ones relating to Madeleine i.e. mccann.html and madeleine jpegs 01 & 02 etc.

That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them.

The vast number of URLs erroneously given a date of 30 Apr 2007 just backs up the proof we were already given by Wayback. The URLs for 30 Apr 2007 got screwed up, and amongst the URLs that got screwed up Wayback has confirmed in writing that mccann.html is one of them.

by Nuala 29.06.15 11:58

@ Tony Bennett

Whilst that's all very interesting it's actually irrelevant.

Whatever implications there are, or not, for Wayback if some of the archived dates are wrong is nothing to do with us, unless any of us has used Wayback in a court of law ourselves.

We are only concerned with mccann.html and the two JPGs of Madeleine, and any legal implications for Wayback (not that I think there are any) is just a distraction, though an interesting one, but a distraction nonetheless.

It's worth noting as well, that whilst the original date of 30 April 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect Wayback confirmed in writing that it was incorrect, so if it happened that this information was to be used in a court of law Wayback's affidavit would also confirm in writing that the correct date was actually one in July 2007.

It's not a big deal, the original date was incorrect but Wayback checked, saw it was incorrect, and said so.

by Joss 29.06.15 11:59

Some more good info. on WBM & how it relates to legal cases. Thanks TB. But in this instance there is no court case in regard to McC's, and whether information from WBM is admissable or not in proving the whole thing is based on a lie that Madeleine was gone before the 3/5/2007, from CEOP's page on the 30/4. No court case, no trial, no judge, no info. from a print out of WBM as to the relevence of the information. So what have we actually got? A big fat nothing IMO.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:16

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Whilst that's all very interesting it's actually irrelevant.

Whatever implications there are, or not, for Wayback if some of the archived dates are wrong is nothing to do with us, unless any of us has used Wayback in a court of law ourselves.

We are only concerned with mccann.html and the two JPGs of Madeleine, and any legal implications for Wayback (not that I think there are any) is just a distraction, though an interesting one, but a distraction nonetheless.

It's worth noting as well, that whilst the original date of 30 April 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect Wayback confirmed in writing that it was incorrect, so if it happened that this information was to be used in a court of law Wayback's affidavit would also confirm in writing that the correct date was actually one in July 2007.

It's not a big deal, the original date was incorrect but Wayback checked, saw it was incorrect, and said so.

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right? I agree, if it was a matter of a legal case then WBM would just state it was an error and why it was, and that would be that, and who would prove it to be otherwise if someone from WBM staff sign an affidavit saying so. They run the WBM, we don't.

by Nuala 29.06.15 12:19

@ Joss

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:29

Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevence is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

Thanks for your reply.

by jeanmonroe 29.06.15 12:31

@Nuala

Just a 'quickie'

Do we 'know' if ANY, WBM 'archives/captures,' from 30th April, 2007, have been 'used' in court 'cases'?

by Joss 29.06.15 12:33

The Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization dedicated to archiving the Internet and other digital materials, and providing public access to these records. We are not in the business of responding to requests for affidavits, or authenticating pages or other information from the Wayback Machine; this is why we make our collections available at no cost via our Web site, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. As a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds. Please remember that an affidavit from the Internet Archive may not be necessary.

Before asking the Internet Archive to authenticate your documents, we ask that you please seek judicial notice or simply ask your opposing party to stipulate to the documents' authenticity. Of course, the best source of such information is the party who posted the information on the URLs at issue, and the second-best source of such information is someone who actually accessed the historical versions of the URLs.

However, if you are determined to obtain an affidavit authenticating printouts from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, we will do our best to help you in accordance with this policy.
To initiate your request, you must send us payment as described below and an electronic list of the extended URLs for each page you would like us to print out. By extended URL, we are referring to the full URL that appears in the Address field of your Web browser when you are looking at the page in question (e.g., [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). If you want more than one page from a particular domain, you must supply the extended URL for each page. Due to the undue burden on our limited resources, we cannot respond to requests for all linked pages at some particular domain. The list of extended URLs should be emailed to info at archive dot org. Please include your contact information in your email.

Our standard fee is $250 per request, plus $20 for each extended URL therein, excepting URLs that contain downloadable/printable files. Any such URLs (for example, .pdf, .doc, or .zip files) instead cost $30 per extended URL. The Internet Archive does not automatically notarize the affidavit. If you would like your affidavit notarized there is an additional $100 fee.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by whodunnit 29.06.15 12:36

@Nuala--"That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them."

Because we could all see with our own eyes that WBM backtracked on a very confident endorsement of it's capture only after they were informed of the 'high profile' 'sensitivity' of the case. This is not an inconsequential sequence of events nor is it unworthy of our consideration in assessing the veracity of WBM's second, less confident repudiation of it's capture, especially in light of the fact that no explanation of the error was offered at that time nor indeed has an explanation been forthcoming. A simple denial may be enough for you and some others and that's fine but some of us remain unconvinced and probably will do unless or until such time as a coherent, believable explanation is offered.

As for archive.is, I do wish mods and admins would split off and move those discussions to their own thread. The pages under scrutiny from archive.is are manually uploaded by people not crawled. They are copies of WBM's original captures. The copies at archive.is are not the issue.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:42

whodunnit wrote:@Nuala--"That's already been proved. Wayback has already confirmed in writing that the 30 Apr 2007 date for mccann.html is incorrect. That should have been proof enough except people didn't believe them."

Because we could all see with our own eyes that WBM backtracked on a very confident endorsement of it's capture only after they were informed of the 'high profile' 'sensitivity' of the case. This is not an inconsequential sequence of events nor is it unworthy of our consideration in assessing the veracity of WBM's second, less confident repudiation of it's capture, especially in light of the fact that no explanation of the error was offered at that time nor indeed has an explanation been forthcoming. A simple denial may be enough for you and some others and that's fine but some of us remain unconvinced and probably will do unless or until such time as a coherent, believable explanation is offered.

As for archive.is, I do wish mods and admins would split off and move those discussions to their own thread. The pages under scrutiny from archive.is are manually uploaded by people not crawled. They are copies of WBM's original captures. The copies at archive.is are not the issue.

BBM, You might be waiting a long time for that to happen from their legal faq's i just posted about.

(Quote)
The Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization dedicated to archiving the Internet and other digital materials, and providing public access to these records. We are not in the business of responding to requests for affidavits, or authenticating pages or other information from the Wayback Machine; this is why we make our collections available at no cost via our Web site, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. As a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds. Please remember that an affidavit from the Internet Archive may not be necessary.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 12:44

Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevance is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.

@ Nuala

No, the reason the discussion is continuing is simply because:

(a) they gave no explanation as to how and why it was wrong

(b) indeed, they rushed to judgment in saying it was an error and THEN said 'we are continuing to investigate' and

(c) they have since refused to answer perfectly straightforward, easy-to-answer questions about what went wrong, not even bothering to write back and say: 'We are still investigating'

by whodunnit 29.06.15 12:47

Indeed Joss, I've acknowledged as much before but a wave of the hand and a blanket denial after being warned of the highly sensitive nature of their answer is simply not enough for many of us to accept an unexplained error as a fact. If some want to accept it that is their right.

I think in light of other evidence that April 30th, 2007 in PDL was a 'highly sensitive' topic for the Tapas 9, you'll forgive us for remaining skeptical.

by Joss 29.06.15 12:57

whodunnit wrote:Indeed Joss, I've acknowledged as much before but a wave of the hand and a blanket denial after being warned of the highly sensitive nature of their answer is simply not enough for many of us to accept an unexplained error as a fact. If some want to accept it that is their right.

I think in light of other evidence that April 30th, 2007 in PDL was a 'highly sensitive' topic for the Tapas 9, you'll forgive us for remaining skeptical.

whodunnit, I appreciate what you're saying, smilie

What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation. If you want their services in that regard they explain about how to do that, as i just posted that information.
Nothing surprises me in the McCann case with all the convolutions of this case. This is just another brick in the wall as to what really happened to Madeleine, and just throw it in with all the rest of the lies we have been fed about what really happened, as if we will ever know anyway. All we can do is speculate and try and put 2+2 together to make it =4. But nothing is adding up as usual.

by Joss 29.06.15 13:01

And if the investigating authorities don't want to validate this WBM discrepency, what are we going to do about it? Keep looking at suspect burglars from PDL i suppose, roll

by whodunnit 29.06.15 13:03

@Joss--"What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation"

I get that, I really do--although I also believe it would behoove WBM to promptly dispel an inaccurate reputation for unreliability. What other people aren't getting is that nobody is under any obligation to trust unexplained, uncorroborated pronouncements offered by parties with a vested interest.

by HKP 29.06.15 13:06

The Wayback machine last crawled the McCann page on 27/06/15 they obviously aren't that concerned (have difficulty cause can't post links however if you download the Dr Martins search you can spill out to excel and see all sorts, much which leaves you scratching your head!)

by sallypelt 29.06.15 13:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Joss

So of what relevance is the discussion about WBM and whether it's wrong or right?

Wayback confirmed in writing that the date of 30 Apr 2007 for mccann.html was incorrect.

Some people didn't believe them, hence the continued discussion.
@ Nuala

No, the reason the discussion is continuing is simply because:

(a) they gave no explanation as to how and why it was wrong

(b) indeed, they rushed to judgment in saying it was an error and THEN said 'we are continuing to investigate' and

(c) they have since refused to answer perfectly straightforward, easy-to-answer questions about what went wrong, not even bothering to write back and say: 'We are still investigating'

Tony, this is snipped from your 10.55 post, today:

One might be inclined to subpoena an expert from Internet Archive to present the evidence, but this carries with it the inherent risks of using subpoenaed witnesses. Internet Archive expressly asks on its website that users do not resort to this course because of the strain it will place on its resources.

Could this be the answer for the silence?

by HKP 29.06.15 13:11

It appears that ceop have changed their url for the mccann page sometime between 16/06/15 and 27/06/15 by adding /html then mccann. I wonder why at this specific time

by Joss 29.06.15 13:32

whodunnit wrote:@Joss--"What people aren't getting is WBM doesn't owe us anything in the way of an explanation"

I get that, I really do--although I also believe it would behoove WBM to promptly dispel an inaccurate reputation for unreliability. What other people aren't getting is that nobody is under any obligation to trust unexplained, uncorroborated pronouncements offered by parties with a vested interest.

I agree, that no one is under any obligation to deem WBM as 100% accurate in their archiving process, but could be said to be fairly reliable overall from what i have read about it. I think it would also depend on the other party as to what they had entered and how that information came about being there for WBM to have their capture of it.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 13:40

sallypelt wrote:
Tony, this is snipped from your 10.55 post, today:

One might be inclined to subpoena an expert from Internet Archive to present the evidence, but this carries with it the inherent risks of using subpoenaed witnesses. Internet Archive expressly asks on its website that users do not resort to this course because of the strain it will place on its resources.

Could this be the answer for the silence?

@ sallypelt

NO.

Because they have already sent out three e-mails, one saying everything was hunky-dory, the next two saying 'Oh no it isn't, we're investigating'.

It's obviously no big deal for the Office Manager to send out an e-mail or three.

Yet for 12 days he can't send out a fourth telling us what the problem is - if any

Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.