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

by Syn 02.07.15 0:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
bhobby wrote:Big hello to Syn, formerly known here as Atomic Peanut and on MMM as Chop Suey on Toast.

How much do they pay you, as you do put in a lot of hours for them?
Whaaaaatt?@*!!*@!??

Surely not.

Atomic Peanut was rightly banned last year for, and I quote:

"Persistently misleading forum members by presenting claims as 'fact' when they are clearly not".

I think forum members would want to know if 'Syn' was masquerading here as 'Atomic Peanut' previously.

What's your evidence for this?

I cannot wait to hear their evidence lol yes

I called you back in 2014 Tony re Earlham and Essex police investigations into Muratfan hacking your emails if you recall? You can verify this with PC Lyle of Earlham police

by Nuala 02.07.15 0:39

@ Syn

I wish I wasn't a rather verbose 'why use 20 words when you can use 200' kinda gal but that's me lol

I find your "wordy" approach to be very valuable, you take the trouble to explain much more than I'm able to do, so don't knock it smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.15 0:49

Syn wrote:
I called you back in 2014 Tony re Earlham and Essex police investigations into Muratfan hacking your emails if you recall? You can verify this with PC Lyle of Earlham police

Well, I remember a call, didn't know it was you, so thank you again for that.

It helped me to tell the Sgt in Harlow, Sgt Tony Smith, that 'muratfan' = Ian West of Norwich had indeed been investigated.

I was told by Sgt Smith that 'muratfan' had received a 'formal warning' - whatever that means, are you able to tell me?

Since then, 'muratfan' has been a lot quieter...

...though not completely silent.

By the way, the complaint was not that muratfan was hacking into my e-mails but just his endless repetition and circulation of the most libellous statements about me.

Sorry everyone: "Off Topic"

by Syn 02.07.15 0:50

@TonyBennett

Yes, that was me :)

Muratfan was also given a similar verbal and then written warning regarding uploading images of 'anti's' children on his blog and accusing another lady whose husband who had sadly committed suicide of murdering her husband. CPS required 3 definitive separate incidences re each offence in regard to harassment but evidence fell short of that hence the written warning. In terms of him posting the photos of 'anti's' children he got a verbal warning as the images were taken from Facebook etc and so were deemed public but police still considered what he had done as harassment and gave him 2 verbal warnings. Plus I understand that Essex police did pay him a visit re what he was doing to you too. Hence him being so quiet in all respects in the past year. Hopefuly he has learned his lesson.

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

I have no idea why I am being accused of being someone else. It is pure rot.

by Nuala 02.07.15 0:51

@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.

by Syn 02.07.15 0:52

Nuala wrote:@ Syn

I wish I wasn't a rather verbose 'why use 20 words when you can use 200' kinda gal but that's me lol

I find your "wordy" approach to be very valuable, you take the trouble to explain much more than I'm able to do, so don't knock it

Thank you Nuala :)

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.15 0:59

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.

If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'

by Nuala 02.07.15 1:03

@ Tony Bennett

If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'

Good. Glad to hear it smilie

by Syn 02.07.15 1:06

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.

Thank you Nuala :)

by Syn 02.07.15 1:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.
If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'

by Syn 02.07.15 1:11

I'm off to my bed, so sleep well all those still here :)

Cannot wait to hear bhobby's evidence re me on the morrow big grin

by **Jill Havern** 02.07.15 6:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.
If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'

'bhobby' has been here before a couple of times - a visitor from MMM.

Now there's a surprise.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.15 6:57

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.
If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'
'bhobby' has been here before a couple of times - a visitor from MMM.

Now there's a surprise.

@ Get 'em Goncalo

It is one thing - and not a nice thing - for another Madeleine forum to allow its members to routinely attack another forum and its memebrs in public, as has been happening over at MMM.

But surely it's quite another thing for members of another forum to come here with the specific intention of disrupting threads by publishing fabricated allegations against members here.

Can you please publicly identify 'bhobby' by his/her username over on MMM. so that at least the Admin over there have the opportunity, if they so wish, to take appropriate action against their member

by **PeterMac** 02.07.15 7:55

Yet again one specific detail has caused uproar.
Dogs
Last Photo
First Photo
CEOPS datestamp
60 Reasons
Truth of the Lie

Why do they panic so much about these specific issues, but ignore, for example the other books, and other questions ?

by **Jill Havern** 02.07.15 8:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

What's your evidence for this?

I'm surprised TBH that you'd even ask

Clearly someone is trying to discredit Syn, who has been very open and upfront about who she is.

And I think it was you that, quite rightly, asked that comments about people's agendas should be frowned upon.

I think we can all judge if someone is genuine or not just using common sense.

Likewise, we can all judge if someone is here to try and discredit someone who has genuine motives and knowledge.
If new member 'bhobby' doesn't come up with the evidence PDQ, to misquote The Two Ronnies, it'll soon be: 'Goodbye to Him' or maybe 'Goodbye to Her', faster than you can say: 'Atomic Peanut'
'bhobby' has been here before a couple of times - a visitor from MMM.

Now there's a surprise.
@ Get 'em Goncalo

It is one thing - and not a nice thing - for another Madeleine forum to allow its members to routinely attack another forum and its memebrs in public, as has been happening over at MMM.

But surely it's quite another thing for members of another forum to come here with the specific intention of disrupting threads by publishing fabricated allegations against members here.

Can you please publicly identify 'bhobby' by his/her username over on MMM. so that at least the Admin over there have the opportunity, if they so wish, to take appropriate action against their member

That's not going to work, Tony - candyfloss was quite happy for disruptors to run riot when she was a mod here so why should she care when those people continue to disrupt?

I'll give you a clue though - a member of MMM registered here then complained on MMM that he had been cloned because the name didn't begin with a capital letter.

Go forth and sleuth.

by Phyllis Tyne 02.07.15 9:27

Well that's this thread well and truly derailed.... again.

I wonder if I can use the emoticons as a guest?

ontopic

What do you know, seems I can.

by Joss 02.07.15 9:30

If a forum allows its members to talk smack about other people then IMO its trashy and doesn't deserve much merit. Those types of forums are all over the internet, and questionable about what their real agenda is, again IMO.

by HKP 02.07.15 9:40

You know the mccanns must be the unluckiest people in the world, consider this; the Wayback machine is functioning perfectly normally in the month of April 07 (CNN, Amazon, Yahoo & New York Times all captured ok on 30/04/07) it captures information like this:-

01/04/07               6 urls are captured
03/04/07               2 urls are captured (03/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)
28/04/07               1 urls are captured

Then this happens…..

30/04/07               3015 urls captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)

What’s happened here then looks like Wayback has gone bonkers…….

Or maybe not……

10/05/07               36 urls are captured
12/05/07               50 urls are captured
13/05/07               20 urls are captured
14/05/07               49 urls are captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2007 & 2011)
15/05/07               11 urls are captured
16/05/07               13 urls are captured
17/05/07               4 urls are captured (17/05 date also appears in 2006)
19/05/07               3 urls are captured
20/05/07               9 urls are captured
22/05/07               37 urls are captured
23/05/07               3 urls are captured
24/05/07               21 urls are captured
25/05/07               3 urls are captured
26/05/07               3 urls are captured
27/05/07               1 urls are captured
29/05/07               1 urls are captured (29/05 date also appears in 2006 & 2009 & 2010)

Seems to be quite a number of crawls in May 07 (16) none of them getting anywhere near the volume of 30/04/07 but it must have spectacularly gone wrong (on what appears to be just the ceop site) on one of the very days that the McCanns would want to not to draw any attention to.

by HKP 02.07.15 9:43

Just to make it clear, all captures relate to the ceop data provided by Dr Roberts link.

by **PeterMac** 02.07.15 10:12

When Dr Harold Shipman was investigated the police took away his computer.
When he was interviewed he confidently showed them the medical records of the deceased people, showing dates, diagnoses and treatments.

They let him explain everything, going through the documents and the entries one by one

THEN they revealed the "source code" behind those entries, which showed that they had been made months AFTER the events.
They were in short 'Forgeries'
At which point he refused to answer any more questions, was charged, convicted, and some time later hanged himself.

Nothing to do with the present thread, obviously !

by HKP 02.07.15 10:28

Folks, apologies for the font size in my 9:40 post didn't mean to shout!

by Richard IV 02.07.15 10:45

HKP wrote:You know the mccanns must be the unluckiest people in the world, consider this; the Wayback machine is functioning perfectly normally in the month of April 07 (CNN, Amazon, Yahoo & New York Times all captured ok on 30/04/07) it captures information like this:-

01/04/07               6 urls are captured
03/04/07               2 urls are captured (03/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)
28/04/07               1 urls are captured

Then this happens…..

30/04/07               3015 urls captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)

What’s happened here then looks like Wayback has gone bonkers…….

Or maybe not……

10/05/07               36 urls are captured
12/05/07               50 urls are captured
13/05/07               20 urls are captured
14/05/07               49 urls are captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2007 & 2011)
15/05/07               11 urls are captured
16/05/07               13 urls are captured
17/05/07               4 urls are captured (17/05 date also appears in 2006)
19/05/07               3 urls are captured
20/05/07               9 urls are captured
22/05/07               37 urls are captured
23/05/07               3 urls are captured
24/05/07               21 urls are captured
25/05/07               3 urls are captured
26/05/07               3 urls are captured
27/05/07               1 urls are captured
29/05/07               1 urls are captured (29/05 date also appears in 2006 & 2009 & 2010)

Seems to be quite a number of crawls in May 07 (16) none of them getting anywhere near the volume of 30/04/07 but it must have spectacularly gone wrong (on what appears to be just the ceop site) on one of the very days that the McCanns would want to not to draw any attention to.

Thanks HKP. Now thats a perspective that is clear and incriminating IMO.

by NickE 02.07.15 12:00

HKP wrote:You know the mccanns must be the unluckiest people in the world, consider this; the Wayback machine is functioning perfectly normally in the month of April 07 (CNN, Amazon, Yahoo & New York Times all captured ok on 30/04/07) it captures information like this:-

01/04/07               6 urls are captured
03/04/07               2 urls are captured (03/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)
28/04/07               1 urls are captured

Then this happens…..

30/04/07               3015 urls captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2008)

What’s happened here then looks like Wayback has gone bonkers…….

Or maybe not……

10/05/07               36 urls are captured
12/05/07               50 urls are captured
13/05/07               20 urls are captured
14/05/07               49 urls are captured (30/04 date also appears in 2006 & 2007 & 2011)
15/05/07               11 urls are captured
16/05/07               13 urls are captured
17/05/07               4 urls are captured (17/05 date also appears in 2006)
19/05/07               3 urls are captured
20/05/07               9 urls are captured
22/05/07               37 urls are captured
23/05/07               3 urls are captured
24/05/07               21 urls are captured
25/05/07               3 urls are captured
26/05/07               3 urls are captured
27/05/07               1 urls are captured
29/05/07               1 urls are captured (29/05 date also appears in 2006 & 2009 & 2010)

Seems to be quite a number of crawls in May 07 (16) none of them getting anywhere near the volume of 30/04/07 but it must have spectacularly gone wrong (on what appears to be just the ceop site) on one of the very days that the McCanns would want to not to draw any attention to.

Thank you HKP,brilliant,just brilliant.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.15 14:40

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
That's not going to work, Tony - candyfloss was quite happy for disruptors to run riot when she was a mod here so why should she care when those people continue to disrupt?

I'll give you a clue though - a member of MMM registered here then complained on MMM that he had been cloned because the name didn't begin with a capital letter.

Go forth and sleuth.

I have gone forth and sleuthed.

So 'bampots' here and 'Bampots' over the way is 'bhobby' here and is prepared to fabricate allegations against a member here?

I will refrain from further comment, except to say that I am pleased to see that 'bhobby' has been promptly banned from here.

Back on topic, then...

by skyrocket 02.07.15 15:43

HKP - yes, if we look at the wider picture rather than just trying to fathom the unfathomable, the 30/4 date stamp seems another 'coincidence' of titanic proportions.

We know that there is a fault with the 30/4 date stamp because there is evidence - October news pages dated as the 30/4 crawl, amongst others. That is indisputable - I have copies.

So, there was some kind of error in the WBM crawl on some date - neither error nor date have been clarified.

If a date stamp error occured (which it did) there are 3 methods by which this could have happened:

1. Systematic - (the programme cocked up for some reason);

2. Accidental manual interference;

3. Malicious manual interference.

'My' Prof (page 45 - full email) said the following:

1. Systematic - If there is an error with the date assigned to a crawl, then it should be a systematic error that would apply to many pages showing similar characteristics, i.e. being crawled for the first time, and all of them showing a systematic off-set to the real first crawl time by a certain delta; or all pages collected by a specific crawl job showing such a behavior, or something like that;

2. Accidental MI - Manual interference can, of course, be the case as well, but it does not seem obvious to me, what kind of manual interference (which usually is necessary if a crawler gets stuck, a hard disk for a certain queue fails, etc.) would lead to such a date misalignment. I am sure there might be reasons, but I can't think of one right away, and even that should be traceable across several pages (even unrealted ones as a crawler/job/queue is never dedicated to a specific website or web domain but usually collects pages from a myriad of domains). One could try to find pages crawled by the same job/affected by the same interference that exhibit some other means of verifying the date (such as having it explicitly stated on the webpage) to verify such a systematic date off-set error. But in any case, any such effort is likely to resemble quite a bit of forensic work, collecting material, establishing hypotheses for such an error, tracing linking pages, ... A fascinating puzzle but one that requires time and dedication :);

3. Malicious MI - Manual manipulation is, of course, always possibe as the IA is not set up as a "trusted" repository in the sense of proving and documenting authenticity, as compared to regular archives. But then the likelyhood of such a manipulation happening on a random page would also be quite unlikely. And as pages are heavily cross-linked, it would be really hard to manipulate anything in this complex network without being inconsistent on some page or other.

I'm sure the IA are checking all 3 scenarios.

HKP pointed out that several other sites trawled OK on the 30/4 - has anyone got any solid evidence that the date stamp error is apparent on other domains/sites? As the prof pointed out, in points 1 and 2 above, system error or an unintentional human cock up should have resulted in (he said zillions in his first email to me) of other domains/sites being affected - it could not possibly be only the CEOP site with problems under these circumstances. So, if there proves to be no evidence of widespread date stamp errors relating to 30/4, what does that imply - malicious interference?

And anyway, even though we know there was an error involving the 30/4 date stamp and the CEOP site, does that automatically negate the authenticity of the /mccann.htm page/madeleine jpeg images trawled on the 30/4? How can we jump to that conclusion without honest verification from the IA?

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