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

by Claire25 30.06.15 0:06

The Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".

Spot on. This is exactly what I think.

I've been following and whilst I don't really understand the technical side and also can imagine it's easy to cling onto the hope that some concrete evidence is found, theres some twitchy behaviour going on from some people who seem desperate to convince everyone it's all an error just so we all don't look stupid.

I've very much swung to the view that the page existed on 30/04 now too. I don't understand the arguments, but more of the posters in that camp seem genuine.

by MRNOODLES 30.06.15 0:12

Just my opinion, but I think WBM have withdrawn themselves from full explanations, because they don't want to broadcast to the world their flawless system, is a complete lump of s***.

by Nuala 30.06.15 0:21

@ Tony Bennett

because Wayback has an impressive track record of accuracy

I'm not sure where you got that from? Certainly not from Wayback themselves. They make no assertions for that being the case.

I do think that Wayback should and must provide a comprehensible and compelling explanation for what they have already publicly admitted is an error, 'glitch' or 'subset anomaly'.

I don't know why you would think that? You might want it, but Wayback is not obliged to provide it.

I repeat, I simply don't understand why anyone would think Wayback is accountable to any of us.

It's not. Not in any way, shape or form.

To continue down this route of "Wayback must answer" is pointless and unrealistic. Wayback has no obligation to answer any questions we might have.

by sar 30.06.15 0:22

roy rovers wrote:I suspect Chris Butler isn't hiding anything. He just doesn't want to broadcast the fact that his Time Machine isn't all it's cracked up to be.

'Overwhelmed, he goes back to the machine and returns to Victorian time, arriving at his laboratory in Richmond (since he has travelled in time, not space) just three hours after he originally left. Interrupting dinner, he relates his adventures to his disbelieving visitors, producing as evidence the two strange white flowers Weena had put in his pocket.' HG Wells 'THE TIME MACHINE' (summary)

+1 RR!!!!

Thank you.

by **Richard D. Hall** 30.06.15 0:26

People keep asking for a non techie explanation, here it is ...

Imagine internet files are bars of chocolate.

Imagine when the files (chocolate bars) leave the production line before they go to the shop they are stamped with the current date, i.e. the date they were made. Every chocolate bar has got a date of manufacture clearly stamped on the wrapper. In the factory, every day the date stamper is changed without fail. Never before has anyone ever questioned that a date was wrong on the wrappers of chocolate bars.

Now imagine we have a new type of choclate bar. The Madeleine Bar. A brand spanking new type of chocolate. The chocolate company start making these bars like crazy and they set the production line in swing, with the date stamp machine working as normal, along with all the usual types of chocolate bar too, using the same date stamping machine.

Then one day 8 years later somebody picks a wrapper out of an old dustbin and realises the date on the wrapper says 30 April 2007. Somebody else then says to you,

"that date can't be right", "It is widely believed (although not proven) that the Madeleine Bar was not invented by the company until 3rd May 2007".

What would you thinK?

The date must be wrong, or the chocolate was made on 30 April 2007?

Bear in mind the date on no other chocolate bar has ever been proven to be wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.06.15 0:33

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

because Wayback has an impressive track record of accuracy

I'm not sure where you got that from? Certainly not from Wayback themselves. They make no assertions for that being the case.

I do think that Wayback should and must provide a comprehensible and compelling explanation for what they have already publicly admitted is an error, 'glitch' or 'subset anomaly'.

I don't know why you would think that? You might want it, but Wayback is not obliged to provide it.

I repeat, I simply don't understand why anyone would think Wayback is accountable to any of us. It's not. Not in any way, shape or form.

@ Nuala

If it wasn't for the fact that Wayback is routinely used in court cases to prove what is true and is not true, and thus helps to determine the fate of dozens of plaintiffs and defendants in those court proceedings, I might have agreed with you

A capture of 'mccann.html'

As far as Steve Marsden could tell

Was at 11.58

30 April the date

'Twas a subset error - Oh well!

by Guest 30.06.15 1:12

Don't know if it's already been covered but I've been poking about the CEOP website for some indication as to how this anomoly may have arisen. I don't pretend to understand precisely how Wayback operates but from what I've read I'm assuming that it's function is entirely electronic in terms of web crawling.

I took a random selection of pages from the CEOP website, going back to 2005, and pasted onto Wayback machine, every single one of which showed the first grab shots to be either dated 19th September 2010 or 6th October 2010 (including a press release concerning Madeleine McCanns disappearance from 2007) - coinciding nicely with the CEOPs merger with SOCA etc. Could be wrong but this indicates to me that the CEOP was not accessible to the web crawler prior to that time so where do the April 2007 + come from?

Also I entered the original Steve Marsden [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] into google and yahoo search which only produced links to the many sites debating the McCann case - NOT the CEOP.

Any explanation? I'm thinking maybe this is a mega hoax of some description, I don't claim to know how it's possible but I am aware that high-tech boffins are capable of all sorts of mischief, not necessarily for any reason but just because they can.

by Joss 30.06.15 4:02

Richard D. Hall wrote:People keep asking for a non techie explanation, here it is ...

Imagine internet files are bars of chocolate.

Imagine when the files (chocolate bars) leave the production line before they go to the shop they are stamped with the current date, i.e. the date they were made. Every chocolate bar has got a date of manufacture clearly stamped on the wrapper. In the factory, every day the date stamper is changed without fail. Never before has anyone ever questioned that a date was wrong on the wrappers of chocolate bars.

Now imagine we have a new type of choclate bar. The Madeleine Bar. A brand spanking new type of chocolate. The chocolate company start making these bars like crazy and they set the production line in swing, with the date stamp machine working as normal, along with all the usual types of chocolate bar too, using the same date stamping machine.

Then one day 8 years later somebody picks a wrapper out of an old dustbin and realises the date on the wrapper says 30 April 2007. Somebody else then says to you,

"that date can't be right", "It is widely believed (although not proven) that the Madeleine Bar was not invented by the company until 3rd May 2007".

What would you thinK?

The date must be wrong, or the chocolate was made on 30 April 2007?

Bear in mind the date on no other chocolate bar has ever been proven to be wrong.

Thanks Richard Hall for this very understandable explanation of how it works.

by Joss 30.06.15 4:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

because Wayback has an impressive track record of accuracy

I'm not sure where you got that from? Certainly not from Wayback themselves. They make no assertions for that being the case.

I do think that Wayback should and must provide a comprehensible and compelling explanation for what they have already publicly admitted is an error, 'glitch' or 'subset anomaly'.

I don't know why you would think that? You might want it, but Wayback is not obliged to provide it.

I repeat, I simply don't understand why anyone would think Wayback is accountable to any of us. It's not. Not in any way, shape or form.
@ Nuala

If it wasn't for the fact that Wayback is routinely used in court cases to prove what is true and is not true, and thus helps to determine the fate of dozens of plaintiffs and defendants in those court proceedings, I might have agreed with you

A capture of 'mccann.html'

As far as Steve Marsden could tell

Was at 11.58

30 April the date

'Twas a subset error - Oh well!

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

by Joss 30.06.15 4:15

This is WayBack's stance on their information. Note: They make no warranty or representation regarding Accuracy, Currency, Completeness, Reliability, or Usefulness of the content in the Collections.

The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content. In addition, the Collections are provided to you on an as-is and as-available basis. You agree that your use of the Site and the Collections is at your sole risk. You understand and agree that the Archive makes no warranty or representation regarding the accuracy, currency, completeness, reliability, or usefulness of the content in the Collections, that the Site or the Collections will meet your requirements, that access to the Collections will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free, or that defects, if any, will be corrected. We make no warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

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

by Joss 30.06.15 4:24

And even if we have this Prima Facie evidence in our hands, where are we going to go with it to prove a point? For starters we need a Court case/Trial to bring the evidence forward in Court/Trial via an Attorney, and that would depend on if the judge allows it in as electronic evidence or not, and there is no such court case/trial here in the McCann case. Are we going to bring charges against the McC's or CEOP? I just don't see where this is all going for any evidence to be useful.

by HKP 30.06.15 8:19

Here’s an interesting bit of info. to get the juices flowing:- 30/04/07 from the 2495 urls captured (according to the Dr Martin search) there are a number of repetitions,
for example.

Madeleine ceopupload com appears 9 times
Get advice mobiles good html appears 27 times
News items/articles appears 22 times
Press releases 2007 appears 22 times
There are plenty others however………

Madeleine 01 jpeg APPEARS 1 TIME

[size=32]Madeleine 02 jpeg APPEARS 1 TIME[/size]

by Wahrheit 30.06.15 11:09

Joss wrote:This is WayBack's stance on their information. Note: They make no warranty or representation regarding Accuracy, Currency, Completeness, Reliability, or Usefulness of the content in the Collections.

The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content. In addition, the Collections are provided to you on an as-is and as-available basis. You agree that your use of the Site and the Collections is at your sole risk. You understand and agree that the Archive makes no warranty or representation regarding the accuracy, currency, completeness, reliability, or usefulness of the content in the Collections, that the Site or the Collections will meet your requirements, that access to the Collections will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free, or that defects, if any, will be corrected. We make no warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

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

This is a standard "CYA" Disclaimer of Warranty Clause. It doesn't mean, necessarily that they have no confidence in their services. Any good attorney would insist on similar clauses being inserted especially in the US.

by Doug D 30.06.15 11:38

Verdi:

‘I took a random selection of pages from the CEOP website, going back to 2005, and pasted onto Wayback machine, every single one of which showed the first grab shots to be either dated 19th September 2010 or 6th October 2010 (including a press release concerning Madeleine McCanns disappearance from 2007) - coinciding nicely with the CEOPs merger with SOCA etc. Could be wrong but this indicates to me that the CEOP was not accessible to the web crawler prior to that time so where do the April 2007 + come from?’

Too little too late I believe. Many of the old CEOP pages have been whooshed and diverted to the ‘CEOP Command’ page.

Using:

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

you can however still go back to the very first CEOP Press Release captured on 24^th December 2005, announcing the launch of the new CEOP Centre in April 2006 and tab forward from there.

HKP:

‘was there an actual crawl on the 30/04/07 that included the Ceop site, if there was then what was captured, if there wasn't then what's gone wrong.’

If you look at the ‘Wayback captures bar’ at the top of this screen you can (just about) see the red bar which ties in with the 30^th April date showing. This is the first capture of the 11 quoted in the bar.

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

From WBM’s second statement to HideHo the date of this capture was really 31^st July, which again makes little sense for a page which by then should have been nearly three months old. If indeed this capture date was 31/7, there should be at least one white gap between the black bars for June, which there is not.

Similarly from this screenshot of 13^th May, there is the ‘pop-up’ date showing for 30^th April and there is clearly a black bar to the left of the red 13^th May one, indicating an earlier capture:

(Sorry can't get 'Host an Image' to work for some reason, I took an actual photograph of the screen as 'screen grab' wouldn't capture the pop-up. Is an 8mb picture too big?)

Nuala will no doubt be back questioning why on earth should WBM respond to anyone, but as they have responded so far, they are going to have to do so again, because this is not just going to go away.

by HKP 30.06.15 12:22

[size=35]No real takers from my last post never mind here’s some more:- [/size]

[size=35]out of the 2495 urls captured on 30/04/07[/size] [size=35]104 of them have the exact same convention within the file name which is (S(beokrn453z22tm55hjfuox45)) the other 2391 do not have this exact piece in their url. So far so good, of the 104 with this unique name 102 of them are replicated on average 21 times (although their url is not the same as the bracketed marker their ‘page name’ is).[/size]

[size=35] That leaves us with just 2 urls madeleine 01 jpg & madeleine 02 jpg, both of which only occur once throughout 30/04/07. Does this give any credence for the madeleine pictures being misfiled or they were the true capture. [/size]

[size=35]It should be noted that mccann. html has a range of 30/04/07 to 04/09/09 and has not been included in the analysis for that purpose[/size]

by Liz Eagles 30.06.15 13:18

Richard D. Hall wrote:People keep asking for a non techie explanation, here it is ...

Imagine internet files are bars of chocolate.

Imagine when the files (chocolate bars) leave the production line before they go to the shop they are stamped with the current date, i.e. the date they were made. Every chocolate bar has got a date of manufacture clearly stamped on the wrapper. In the factory, every day the date stamper is changed without fail. Never before has anyone ever questioned that a date was wrong on the wrappers of chocolate bars.

Now imagine we have a new type of choclate bar. The Madeleine Bar. A brand spanking new type of chocolate. The chocolate company start making these bars like crazy and they set the production line in swing, with the date stamp machine working as normal, along with all the usual types of chocolate bar too, using the same date stamping machine.

Then one day 8 years later somebody picks a wrapper out of an old dustbin and realises the date on the wrapper says 30 April 2007. Somebody else then says to you,

"that date can't be right", "It is widely believed (although not proven) that the Madeleine Bar was not invented by the company until 3rd May 2007".

What would you thinK?

The date must be wrong, or the chocolate was made on 30 April 2007?

Bear in mind the date on no other chocolate bar has ever been proven to be wrong.

Thank you Richard, at last something I can understand and a really simple template for looking at this issue.

by Joss 30.06.15 13:21

Wahrheit wrote:
Joss wrote:This is WayBack's stance on their information. Note: They make no warranty or representation regarding Accuracy, Currency, Completeness, Reliability, or Usefulness of the content in the Collections.

The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content. In addition, the Collections are provided to you on an as-is and as-available basis. You agree that your use of the Site and the Collections is at your sole risk. You understand and agree that the Archive makes no warranty or representation regarding the accuracy, currency, completeness, reliability, or usefulness of the content in the Collections, that the Site or the Collections will meet your requirements, that access to the Collections will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error free, or that defects, if any, will be corrected. We make no warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

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

This is a standard "CYA" Disclaimer of Warranty Clause. It doesn't mean, necessarily that they have no confidence in their services. Any good attorney would insist on similar clauses being inserted especially in the US.

Thanks, i realize that. I was just posting it up from their site about their terms of use of WBM.

by HKP 30.06.15 13:22

@Doug D. The reason I ask if there was a crawl on 30/04/07 is that there are claims by some on here that it's all a big mistake. The very first question that needs answering is was the ceop site crawled on 30/04 the evidence points to yes however if there has been some sort of mis-filing then the answer could be no. I'm trying to get those who see it just as an error to tell us why Madeleine jpg was not picked up on 30/04, that can't at this point in time (other than claptrap from Chris Butler)

by Doug D 30.06.15 13:25

Well done HKP. Keep plugging away.

So is this making my ‘just supposing’ from yesterday:

‘How about invalidate the 30^th April date by ‘finding and replacing’ dozens of assorted dates with the 30^th April to show that Wayback clearly had a ‘glitch’ on that date? That must do the trick mustn’t it?’

a little more likely?

by Joss 30.06.15 13:36

HKP wrote:@Doug D. The reason I ask if there was a crawl on 30/04/07 is that there are claims by some on here that it's all a big mistake. The very first question that needs answering is was the ceop site crawled on 30/04 the evidence points to yes however if there has been some sort of mis-filing then the answer could be no. I'm trying to get those who see it just as an error to tell us why Madeleine jpg was not picked up on 30/04, that can't at this point in time (other than claptrap from Chris Butler)

Don't really know exactly what you're asking, but i certainly don't believe WBM have an agenda to cover up anything. Why would they? I also don't see any reason to denigrate Chris Butler. I don't think WBM want to keep being harrassed about it all either, seeing as they get lots of enquiries world wide. Sounds to me like they are getting a bit annoyed about it and probably why they said to take it up with the authorities. Why should they dedicate their time to this, when they already say they are working on it. Maybe CEOP could explain it instead, if it was their data from their website?

by HKP 30.06.15 13:51

@Joss. I meant just trotting out what has been contradictory messages from Chris, even his dates for July & October do not stack up. Archive.org are under no obligation to Joe Public to answer our questions however it is much easier to come out with an explanation which will at least inform the hordes and might actually stop the number of requests that you are suggesting they are getting. Or they can stay reasonably silent and hope it goes away, he probably made things worse with his last statement.

by Joss 30.06.15 14:02

HKP wrote:@Joss. I meant just trotting out what has been contradictory messages from Chris, even his dates for July & October do not stack up. Archive.org are under no obligation to Joe Public to answer our questions however it is much easier to come out with an explanation which will at least inform the hordes and might actually stop the number of requests that you are suggesting they are getting. Or they can stay reasonably silent and hope it goes away, he probably made things worse with his last statement.

I don't think he really cares one way or the other about it IMO. Why would he?, he is in the U.S. and nothing to do with the McCann case. And saying to take it up with the police in the email, is imo, saying he wants nothing more to do with people's enquiries about it, so take it elsewhere. That's how i interpret it anyway.

by HKP 30.06.15 14:07

@Joss. I think you are correct which is why we shouldn't take what he has or hasn't said as gospel as clearly what he's said up until now is not correct.

by HelenMeg 30.06.15 14:12

Claire25 wrote:
The Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".
Spot on. This is exactly what I think.

I've been following and whilst I don't really understand the technical side and also can imagine it's easy to cling onto the hope that some concrete evidence is found, theres some twitchy behaviour going on from some people who seem desperate to convince everyone it's all an error just so we all don't look stupid.

I've very much swung to the view that the page existed on 30/04 now too. I don't understand the arguments, but more of the posters in that camp seem genuine.

I've also read the thread and arguments. I have seen nothing to make me believe that the crawler did not find the CEOP McCann page on 30th April. We seem to be bending over backwards to find a reason rather than believing the simple. If Madeleine died earlier in the week then this ties in logically with a call to CEOP from a VIP. 'look we have a massive problem. A small girl has died out here. Its rather awkward and I need to pull in a favour. Due to the intense sensitivity of guests out here we need to cover this as a paedophile abduction - you will be called - please be on standby'...
The next thing we know, someone is creating a CEOP file in anticipation.

Although I am still to be persuaded on death earlier in the week, if this file has a valid date stamp of 30th April then its not too surprising, along with a hurried return to Pd L by RM and the beginning of abnormal mobile phone use of Kate Mc Cann (cant remember the exact dates of when she started abnormal use of mobile but it perhaps ties in - taken from thread here: - On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCanns telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the creches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the Creche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the 'Dispatches' team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that 'Madeleine was a screamer'. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

Furthermore:

.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Guest on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:03 am
Monday 30th April

Compared to other days, this day appears to be blackout day.

Kate, no calls or texts. Phone appears to be switched off.

Gerry, no calls or texts. Phone appears to be switched off.

GuestGuest

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

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:17 pm
Tuesday 1 May

Kate McCann involved in at least 13 mobile phone conversations and/or texts. The PJ log omits to indicate with whom - but they must know. A whole bunch of these were just before 2230 that evening.
Gerry McCann's mobile appears to be silent, but since Annex 37 of the PJ report has been withheld, it is impossible to say for certain.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Researcher

Posts: 617
Join date: 2010-10-13
Location: Catalunya, Spain

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

Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

by Joss 30.06.15 14:19

HKP wrote:@Joss. I think you are correct which is why we shouldn't take what he has or hasn't said as gospel as clearly what he's said up until now is not correct.

Under those circumstances if that's what it is, from WBM's end, how will anyone find out exactly what happened? Nobody wants to say, not CEOP, not WBM, because JG & CB both say its a mistake. I wonder if Stevo who initially put the information out there, has come up with anything else yet? I think he was still looking into it from what i last read about it, and i don't do facebook, so can't read on his page without signing in.

by Joss 30.06.15 14:29

HelenMeg wrote:
Claire25 wrote:
The Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".
Spot on. This is exactly what I think.

I've been following and whilst I don't really understand the technical side and also can imagine it's easy to cling onto the hope that some concrete evidence is found, theres some twitchy behaviour going on from some people who seem desperate to convince everyone it's all an error just so we all don't look stupid.

I've very much swung to the view that the page existed on 30/04 now too. I don't understand the arguments, but more of the posters in that camp seem genuine.
I've also read the thread and arguments. I have seen nothing to make me believe that the crawler did not find the CEOP McCann page on 30th April. We seem to be bending over backwards to find a reason rather than believing the simple. If Madeleine died earlier in the week then this ties in logically with a call to CEOP from a VIP. 'look we have a massive problem. A small girl has died out here. Its rather awkward and I need to pull in a favour. Due to the intense sensitivity of guests out here we need to cover this as a paedophile abduction - you will be called - please be on standby'...
The next thing we know, someone is creating a CEOP file in anticipation.

Although I am still to be persuaded on death earlier in the week, if this file has a valid date stamp of 30th April then its not too surprising, along with a hurried return to Pd L by RM and the beginning of abnormal mobile phone use of Kate Mc Cann (cant remember the exact dates of when she started abnormal use of mobile but it perhaps ties in - taken from thread here: - On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCanns telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the creches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the Creche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the 'Dispatches' team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that 'Madeleine was a screamer'. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.

.

Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

HelenMeg.

by **PeterMac** 30.06.15 14:53

The dogs' alerts were "Something to do with a subset"
The broken shutters were "Something to do with a subset"
The front door changing to the patio door was "Something to do with a subset"
The curtains 'whooshing' on a flat calm night were "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to tell the truth from day ONE was "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to search was "Something to do with a subset"
The altered EXIF metadata on the Last Photo was "Something to do with a subset"
? ? ?

It is a brilliant "all-purpose" response. Totally meaningless, but designed to make the questioner feel inadequate, and to give up for fear of being though ignorant.
The appropriate follow up question is therefore
exactly what, and to do with which subset of what ?
Which ought to make the responder feel inadequate

by **Jill Havern** 30.06.15 14:53

HelenMeg wrote:Or is this just one huge distraction to take us away from Goncalo's appeal and the Fund?

Why would Stevo distract us from the Fund?

Stevo has written a book about this case - Faked Abduction - and has written many blogs and websites and hosted a forum and was a member of the Madeleine Foundation.

Nah nah

by Joss 30.06.15 15:13

PeterMac wrote:The dogs' alerts were "Something to do with a subset"
The broken shutters were "Something to do with a subset"
The front door changing to the patio door was "Something to do with a subset"
The curtains 'whooshing' on a flat calm night were "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to tell the truth from day ONE was "Something to do with a subset"
The refusal to search was "Something to do with a subset"
The altered EXIF metadata on the Last Photo was "Something to do with a subset"
? ? ?

It is a brilliant "all-purpose" response. Totally meaningless, but designed to make the questioner feel inadequate, and to give up for fear of being though ignorant.
The appropriate follow up question is therefore
exactly what, and to do with which subset of what ?
Which ought to make the responder feel inadequate

Yes that would be an appropriate follow up question, but don't think there will be a response. So just another "subset" to add to all the rest of the "subsets" you have mentioned.

by jeanmonroe 30.06.15 15:44

More on CEOP

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

If you 'click' on the various 'links', within.

There's NOT a single LAST 'photo' (swimming pool) ANYWHERE!

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'out of date' photo on their early 'pages' when there was, a readily available, LAST 'photo' (by pool) in KM's camera, taken, just a few hours BEFORE she 'disappeared'?

WHY didn't CEOP, or 'others', USE the very LAST 'photo', (available on 3rd May 2007, as KM tells us) on their website?

WHY did CEOP 'use' an 'old/out of date' photo of Madeleine.?

CEOP were 'on the ground' erm, within HOURS, 'competing' against 'other' LE 'agencies' (ref: JG, ex CEOP, CEO) to 'get the scoop'

Nevertheless, CEOP, did NOT 'use' the 'last' photo.

WHY didn't the McCann's, themselves, 'crop' the 'last' photo, to 'leave' just Madeleine, in 'frame', which was 'in' KM's camera, so she says, hours before Madeleine's 'disappearance' and 'distribute' the 'crop' to 'searchers/police' on 4th May, 2007?

Did CEOP 'ask' the McCann's for 'the very last photo's' of Madeleine, they HAD, before 'using' a totally 'irrelevant, out of date' photo on their website?

EVERYBODY was going to 'be looking' for the 'girl' CEOP 'published' and nobody would have ever 'found' THAT 'girl'

'She' didn't exist in PDL!

Maybe, that was all part of 'the plan'?

thinking