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

by Syn 03.07.15 22:47

No straw man argument here and I have no agenda despite what you think :) I don't doubt for a second that Madeleine died in 5a Sad

Whether that was prior to 03/04/2007, I and the dogs have no idea. What I do know is that for Eddie to detect the scent of a dead body it have had to have lain in-situ for at least 1 hour 25 mins. More explained here:

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

'Andy Redwood is being very clever in my opinion. The crux of Redwoods appeal yesterday is in his wording. As has been pointed out by a few people already, he did not say that possibly Madeleine may no longer alive, he made the point of saying that she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment

He will know that it takes a minimum of 1.5 hours before cadaver scent develops on a body. That totally throws Gerry's check at 9.10 out of the window as was pointed out yesterday by others, there just ISN'T enough time between 9.10 and the 10pm alert by Kate for a body to be detectable by a cadaver dog scent wise! Eddie did not alert to Madeleine's bed so she did not die in there/was not placed in there after death so Gerry could not have stood and gazed at her thinking how beautiful she was at 9.10.

The purpose of the appeal for Binman/Tractorman is purely to eliminate him from their enquiries. Mr Redwood knows how highly unlikely it is that Binman/tractorman entered the apartment, sat on Madeleine's bed, killed her and then waited around for an hour and a half for cadaver odour to develop before making his escape with her body!

He also knows that Binman/Tractorman died in 2009.

Therefore, what Redwood is actually telling us is that he knows that the possibility of Madeleine not being alive before she left the apartment MUST mean that she died BEFORE the McCanns went out for the evening.'

Despite my total dislike of Jim Gamble and his actions in the McCann case, I do not subscribe to any premeditated CEOP involvement and I have no faith in the CEOP captures for 20070430 for reasons that I have explained over both the threads here . We also must remember that it was GA who requested CEOP assistance on 7th May (per PJ Files) and they travelled to PDL on 8th May . They then put out a press release which was picked up by MSN on 10th May. The Madeleine image used in the CEOP PDF posters used by MSM and which was also on the erroneous CEOP mccann.html page shows the image date being as at 10/05/2007 does it not?

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

I would address your posted images if I could see them, they are so tiny and you fail to mention why you have posted them or explained what point you are making. Tell you what, you post larger images and address my challenge and I'll address your images. Fair deal? :)

by Nuala 03.07.15 22:52

@ Whodunit

not only did something happen to Madeleine earlier in the holiday but indeed it appears that something out of the ordinary happened on or right before April 30

If something happened to MM on or right before 30 Apr and CEOP knew about it, then why was there even an "abduction" ?

With top level government help everything would have been "taken care of" quietly and efficiently without any of us knowing a thing.

The idea that something happened to MM on or right before 30 Apr and CEOP said "don't worry, all you have to do is wait three days and then fake an abduction, meantime we'll put up a web page advertising M's disappearance for all to see" is frankly ridiculous.

And not only did they wait three days to fake an abduction, and what were they doing in that three days, playing tennis? Because they certainly weren't planning a credible abduction. They had three days to get it right, not only that with CEOP on board giving them top level advice, and on the night of 3rd May there was no sign of an intruder, the shutters weren't jemmied, there was a hastily written timeline written on the cover of M's sticker book and they couldn't even make the bed look like a child had been abducted from it.

Three days to plan an abduction scene the GNR saw straight away there was no sign of when they arrived?

And they'd planned that cobbled together abduction scene over three days with CEOP's help?

by Syn 03.07.15 23:06

@Nuala

Nail on proverbial head there :)

PS I am not sure what is happening with the formatting in my previous post but it just won't play ball for some reason, 3 times I have tried to correct it now but I ain't gonna get all conspiracytheoryist over it laughat

by Nuala 03.07.15 23:17

@ Syn

Thank you smilie

I have to give credit to Textusa's blog though for raising these obvious (now she's pointed them out) arguments against CEOP being involved in something preplanned:

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

by Syn 03.07.15 23:26

Nuala wrote:@ Syn

Thank you

I have to give credit to Textusa's blog though for raising these obvious (now she's pointed them out) arguments against CEOP being involved in something preplanned:

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

Very welcome :) I shall have to have a gander :) I must confess though that so much sense from Textusa does surprise me as I most often do not subscribe to her/their theories, in particular re it being a swinging holiday but that's for another topic and another day :)

by **Nina** 03.07.15 23:42

Ladyinred wrote:Any mods around tonight?

No, I have resigned. Sorry cannot help other than say to members and guests, please try to have some restraint.

by **sharonl** 03.07.15 23:52

Apologies to the genuine posters on this thread but it has to be temporarily locked due to trolling.

One good thing about such trolling is that it sends out a clear message that there is panic in the camp and it that we have hit a nail on the head.

They appear to be worried about the WB timestamp - that speaks volumes.

by **sharonl** 04.07.15 9:21

The thread is now unlocked

Please remember the forum rules

Stay on topic

We welcome good debate but no heated arguments. Agree to disagree but do not attack another poster.

If there is a problem, please contact admin or a moderator immediately and do not get into an argument with obvious disruptors and trolls.

by NickE 04.07.15 9:42

Nuala wrote:@ Whodunit

not only did something happen to Madeleine earlier in the holiday but indeed it appears that something out of the ordinary happened on or right before April 30

If something happened to MM on or right before 30 Apr and CEOP knew about it, then why was there even an "abduction" ?

With top level government help everything would have been "taken care of" quietly and efficiently without any of us knowing a thing.

The idea that something happened to MM on or right before 30 Apr and CEOP said "don't worry, all you have to do is wait three days and then fake an abduction, meantime we'll put up a web page advertising M's disappearance for all to see" is frankly ridiculous.

And not only did they wait three days to fake an abduction, and what were they doing in that three days, playing tennis? Because they certainly weren't planning a credible abduction. They had three days to get it right, not only that with CEOP on board giving them top level advice, and on the night of 3rd May there was no sign of an intruder, the shutters weren't jemmied, there was a hastily written timeline written on the cover of M's sticker book and they couldn't even make the bed look like a child had been abducted from it.

Three days to plan an abduction scene the GNR saw straight away there was no sign of when they arrived?

And they'd planned that cobbled together abduction scene over three days with CEOP's help?

Or ...
* The only independent reliable witness that week (The Cleaner),who saw Madeleine very close when she came out from the apartment around lunchtime Sunday 29/4
* Creche records, Kiko has examined these and has also been in direct contact with Mr. Naylor, who did not deny the sign ins.
* PJ had also question marks at the creche records.
* No bracelet on Madeleine, MW using bracelets and Cat Baker told police that she personally was making the bracelets for the kids with names, allergies .........
* "The last photo" was taken on Sunday 29/4
* CEOP's "Missing Madeleine Page", crawled 30/4
* McCann Phone(and Tanner I think) silence on Luz mast Mon 30/4
* Robert Murat was in hurry to pdl
* Lack of Madeleine's DNA into apt 5a

* But the dogs?
The dogs were right, but it was not Madeleines body they alerted to,a bag with Madeleines clothes that have been placed and hide behind the sofa and in the closet.

Why wait?
They had to wait for Murat to come down to pdl and he had to inform him self what has happened,he became the interpreter and a "leak" during interrogations.
Or and ... according to information from the paper "PR Week" was Mark Warner in contact with Resonate / Bell Pottinger "the week before she" vanished "....
...." the week before "could've been the Sunday 29/4

"Mark Warner brought into Resonate on a generic briefing a week before three-year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia da Luz."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Pottinger

* Everything took time, Bell Pottinger, cleaning,Murat,Plans for the fund maybe,and why did Edmonds jet off early morning 4 May?
BP advised him to leave before the media circus started.IMO
*BP/CEOP are Pro´s but the people who was "forced" to stage this was/is amateurs,and the "job" was amateurish.

I have two scenarios what have happened on Sunday eve ,but I keep them for my self.

It will not solve this case to continue digging in 3 May.
What we should focus for 100% is the time between Sunday AM 29/4 - "The Forgotten Monday 30/4"

Sorry for my english.

by **sharonl** 04.07.15 10:01

Yes Nicke

It looks more and more likely that the date of May 3rd is not so significant after all.

From the 29th April onwards there was some odd behaviour from the McCanns.

Kate and Gerry leaving 5a at the same time but via different doors
Having breakfast in the apartment - this changed on May 4th when they were spotted by Cat Baker
Taking lunch in their apartment when the rest of the group were upstairs on the Paynes' balcony
Keeping the shutters closed during the day to keep the heat out of the childrens' room when it wasn't used during the day but got chilly at night
Walking around with a dreadful, covered up buggy, when the sun was shining
Taking the buggy to the beach when the kids were in the crèche
That's just for starters. More information on this topic can be found on the 29th April thread.

Is there any credible evidence that the McCanns were seen out and about as a happy family of five after April 29?

by jeanmonroe 04.07.15 11:51

"One of the servers broke down, when it reset itself for some unexplained reason it reset to an erroneous time, this was not noticed by any of our technical staff for 24hrs/3days/3weeks, all the captures held on server XYZ between 1/1/1900 and 1/5/2007 are incorrect, sorry for any inconvenience caused."
------------------------------------

Is THIS 'really' WBM's 'answer' to the 'glitch'? (or WU?)

DUH me! 1/1/1900

DUH me, AGAIN! 'XYZ'!

'XYZ' only 'refers' to C Mitchell's 'burglators'!

by Nuala 04.07.15 11:51

@ NickE

I won't address each of your points because we'll go off at a tangent otherwise. I'm sure they're things that have been debated lots of times before and will be again in the future. So just to take this point because this is what we're concerned with on this thread:

* CEOP's "Missing Madeleine Page", crawled 30/4

You've stated that as fact when it hasn't been established as fact, it's what we're still discussing here.

Note that I'm not addressing at the moment which date MM "disappeared". I've actually made no comment at all about what I think happened and on what date.

What I'm discussing at the moment is whether or not CEOP knew in advance that something had happened to MM, or was going to happen to MM, and put up a web page advertising her disappearance in advance of that disappearance being made public.

So I will repeat what I said earlier, if CEOP knew that something had happened to MM around 30th Apr, then why wasn't it dealt with quietly and efficiently without anyone needing to know what had happened?

With CEOP being involved in advance, why was such an amateurish "abduction" carried out, so amateurish that everyone can see through it?

If CEOP had been involved in advance, we never would have heard MM's name.

Everything points to official involvement happening after the "event" not prior to it.

There would have been no "abduction" otherwise.

As regards the creche records you might find it useful to read what Textusa has to say about those:

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

The creche records were manipulated so any analysis done on the information they contain won't be any good.

by NickE 04.07.15 14:53

Nuala wrote:@ NickE

I won't address each of your points because we'll go off at a tangent otherwise. I'm sure they're things that have been debated lots of times before and will be again in the future. So just to take this point because this is what we're concerned with on this thread:

* CEOP's "Missing Madeleine Page", crawled 30/4

You've stated that as fact when it hasn't been established as fact, it's what we're still discussing here.

Note that I'm not addressing at the moment which date MM "disappeared". I've actually made no comment at all about what I think happened and on what date.

What I'm discussing at the moment is whether or not CEOP knew in advance that something had happened to MM, or was going to happen to MM, and put up a web page advertising her disappearance in advance of that disappearance being made public.

So I will repeat what I said earlier, if CEOP knew that something had happened to MM around 30th Apr, then why wasn't it dealt with quietly and efficiently without anyone needing to know what had happened?

With CEOP being involved in advance, why was such an amateurish "abduction" carried out, so amateurish that everyone can see through it?

If CEOP had been involved in advance, we never would have heard MM's name.

Everything points to official involvement happening after the "event" not prior to it.

There would have been no "abduction" otherwise.

As regards the creche records you might find it useful to read what Textusa has to say about those:

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

The creche records were manipulated so any analysis done on the information they contain won't be any good.

I see it as established,as long as I do not get a full explanation that proving a technical failure from WBM.

by sallypelt 04.07.15 15:43

NickE wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ NickE

I won't address each of your points because we'll go off at a tangent otherwise. I'm sure they're things that have been debated lots of times before and will be again in the future. So just to take this point because this is what we're concerned with on this thread:

* CEOP's "Missing Madeleine Page", crawled 30/4

You've stated that as fact when it hasn't been established as fact, it's what we're still discussing here.

Note that I'm not addressing at the moment which date MM "disappeared". I've actually made no comment at all about what I think happened and on what date.

What I'm discussing at the moment is whether or not CEOP knew in advance that something had happened to MM, or was going to happen to MM, and put up a web page advertising her disappearance in advance of that disappearance being made public.

So I will repeat what I said earlier, if CEOP knew that something had happened to MM around 30th Apr, then why wasn't it dealt with quietly and efficiently without anyone needing to know what had happened?

With CEOP being involved in advance, why was such an amateurish "abduction" carried out, so amateurish that everyone can see through it?

If CEOP had been involved in advance, we never would have heard MM's name.

Everything points to official involvement happening after the "event" not prior to it.

There would have been no "abduction" otherwise.

As regards the creche records you might find it useful to read what Textusa has to say about those:

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

The creche records were manipulated so any analysis done on the information they contain won't be any good.
I see it as established,as long as I do not get a full explanation that proving a technical failure from WBM.

Unless I've missed something along the way, I wasn't aware that Robert Murat said: "This has to be one of the biggest cover-ups in British history"

This is what he actually said, according to the newspaper: “Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

So if you are going to quote, please make sure that you quote accurately. Otherwise, if you can't remember exactly what a person said, without having to go looking for it, just put it into your own words, and say "or words to that effect", because there's a world of difference between a cover-up and a "f#@k up

by jeanmonroe 04.07.15 16:21

".........because there's a world of difference between a cover-up and a "f#@k up."

sallypelt
----------------------------
Too TRUE!

There's a world of 'difference' BETWEEN the FALSELY 'claimed' 'shutter was jemmied (TC) AND SMASHED' (KM) and the shutter, actually, being found to be, PERFECTLY INTACT!

Not a 'jemmy' mark, anywhere, and not a 'broken/smashed' shutter slat, anywhere.

by whodunit 04.07.15 17:06

Thanks NickE, so true. The gang was waiting for someone who would be willing---or was compelled--to get their hands dirty. An abduction cover story just isn't any good with the body hanging around waiting to be found. Just ask the Ramseys.

Lol at people insisting orgs like CEOP can't act amateurishly during the commission of a cover-up.

In case you haven't noticed, this whole thing, this entire cover-up of the death of a child is really quite amateurish and transparent. The slap-dash creche records alone was enough to haul a poor person to prison for life. As long as the media prop them up, upon the insistence of people like Gamble it must be pointed out, why should they care how utterly they have failed to convince anyone with two brain cells to rub together? 'They' being the entire 'Team' not just the failed parents.

by Liz Eagles 04.07.15 18:58

I find this whole tecchie thing way beyond my comprehension and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in this respect.

Is there anyone on the forum who can precis the general consensus?

by skyrocket 04.07.15 22:52

Previously I posted responses from a Prof who specialised in archiving (he was European). I have since been in contact with Prof2, who is an American PhD Prof, again in computer archiving.

The following is his latest email, in its entirety (editing is always dangerous). I think from this, although he says it is very strange and that it is quite feasible that a page was accessed and crawled without CEOP's knowledge on the 30 April 2007, he feels on the balance of probability that the date stamp was a mistake. He makes it clear however, that this is not definite, just more probable.

Hi *******,

This is definitely weird. Based on what I see, I can't definitely prove
anything about April 30. It seems weird that
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] seems to have a timestamp of
20070430115803. But here's the kicker: it appears that all URLs for that
site claim that timestamp. Looking at the timemap (i.e.,
list of archived copies) for madeleine_01.jpg:

$ curl [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>; rel="original",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="self"; type="application/link-format"; from="Wed, 06 Jun 2007
20:02:49 GMT"; until="Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:45:28 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="timegate",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="first memento"; datetime="Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:02:49 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:08:10 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:16:54 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:36:12 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Fri, 20 May 2011 14:12:40 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:21:13 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="last memento"; datetime="Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:45:28 GMT"

It shows the first copy of that image as 20070606200249. But then looking
at madeleine_02.jpg:

$ curl [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>; rel="original",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="self"; type="application/link-format"; from="Mon, 30 Apr 2007
11:58:03 GMT"; until="Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:45:28 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="timegate",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="first memento"; datetime="Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:03 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:07:53 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:16:05 GMT",
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="last memento"; datetime="Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:45:28 GMT"

it shows the first copy to be 20070430115803 -- same as the mccann.html
page. Curious. So the draft hypothesis could be true -- crawlers will
often "find" links to pages that people did not intend to link.

Unfortunately, the error hypothesis is probably more likely. There are
several URLs from that site that claim a datestamp of exactly
20070430115803:

$ curl -i [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | grep 20070430115803
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:03 GMT",

$ curl -i [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | grep 20070430115803
<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>;
rel="memento"; datetime="Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:58:03 GMT",

all of those redirect to different dates when dereferenced. The IA
crawler can crawl many different URLs per second, but it just seems odd
that this date is claimed by many URLs but we can't find anything that was
actually crawled on 20070430115803 (or at least on the handful we've
checked). An error in the IA crawl is the most likely explanation (the
thing about doing stuff at web-scale is that weird errors happen a lot).

Looking at both:

$ curl -I -L [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and

$ curl -I -L [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

they list, respecitvely:

X-Archive-Orig-last-modified: Wed, 09 May 2007 07:18:25 GMT

X-Archive-Orig-last-modified: Wed, 09 May 2007 07:18:32 GMT

This header is the IA replaying the "Last-Modified" HTTP response header
that it saw at crawl time in 2007. Unfortunately, we don't have things
like "creation date"; if you're interested in the historical details on
why that's so you can read:

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

but the bottom line is that "Last-Modified" just tells you when those
images were modified, not created. However, creation is a kind of
modification, but you can't tell the difference between those images being
*created* on May 9 or just updated on May 9. You'll have to decide based
on the time line how quickly this site responded.

So the final summar is that I can't help you prove one thing or the other.
The draft hypothesis *could* be true, but the error hypothesis seems more
likely.

regards,

******

I will leave it to you to make up your minds which way you go with this. I don't really believe anyone can say for certain either way with the information currently available and that is where I am going to leave it.

by whodunit 04.07.15 23:12

Thanks for trying, skyrocket.

"a timestamp of
20070430115803. But here's the kicker: it appears that all URLs for that
site claim that timestamp. Looking at the timemap (i.e.,
list of archived copies) for madeleine_01.jpg:"

Self-evidently this is just not true. Look at the examples he's linked! All with different time stamps! All of the McCann related pages we're discussing? Yes! It's not really hard to believe that the site crawls of April 30 produced time stamps at the same second. We're talking about two pages and their contents.

"There are
several URLs from that site that claim a datestamp of exactly
20070430115803:".

Yes, the very ones we're discussing? Is the good prof trying to argue that a site crawl of two pages on the same date cannot be done at the same time--that the more likely explanation is an error? Sorry, not buying that, not at all.

by skyrocket 05.07.15 9:02

Morning Whodunit

I'm not 100% sure you have interpreted Prof2's quick analysis properly. He thinks it is all as strange as the rest of us do. He says that it is perfectly possible for a draft page to be trawled without the webmasters knowledge. He says that it is quite possible that the mccann.htm url and the _02 jpeg (tennis image) were grabbed on 30/4. But he says that on the balance he feels that it is more likely to be a WBM error - he does not state that as fact which considering his expertise says a lot i.e. even knowing what he does know he couldn't prove that an error had occured.
Prof2 and another member of his team took the time to look at it on Saturday (his day off) and this guy works on analysing just this sort of thing all the time - he analyses the code of the content of archived pages to see where each element on the page originated from and whether the pages the 'public' are accessing are true archived representations of the original pages (or as near as possible). He doesn't stop at the first date link, he follows links through until he reaches a dead end. He has written many scientific papers and presentations and that is how I found and contacted him.
My gut still tells me that, looking at the big picture, surely this can't be a computer mistake/genuine human error but I'm a scientist and I like facts. I still don't know.
The only way this is going to be cleared up is a response from the IA.
One last thing - does anyone know whether Steve Marsden downloaded the page codes prior to his declaration? He's in computers isn't he? Surely that would have been the first thing he would have done before he highlighted all this. The answer is there if he did.

by Joss 05.07.15 14:28

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

by whodunit 05.07.15 17:46

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

I am going along with the WBM being wrong, not based on anything technical or scientific,
Ok, but where does that leave your opinion on the matter?
but simply based on the fact that I do not believe

'...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'
that Madeleine's disappearance was planned in some way,
Given the chaos and many stupid mistakes that were made I tend to agree.

and much as I think the McCanns, Gamble etc are the scum of the earth and have done everything in their power to cover up her disappearance/the truth of what happened to Madeleine,

If you don't think this is some kind of conspiracy why involve JG in your calculations at all?

I just cannot go along with the theories that she died days before the 3rd May 2007,

You don't have to go along with it. There is a preponderance of the evidence. Really, there is nothing to prove MBM was alive after the 29th.

or that they planned before they left the UK for their daughter to be 'taken from her bed'

To my knowledge nobody has said this.

by whodunit 05.07.15 17:57

skyrocket on Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:02 am

Morning Whodunit

~~~

Good morning!

I'm not 100% sure you have interpreted Prof2's quick analysis properly.

Entirely possible!

He thinks it is all as strange as the rest of us do

I don't think it is strange. I think it's highly unlikely that a page captured in June, July, or October, whatever the patsy date du jour, was backdated to April. Read Dr. Roberts' latest comments. There is simply no mechanism by which these crawlers can inadvertently 'turn back time'. 'The arrow of time dictates that as each moment passes things change, and once these changes have happened, they are never undone.'

by Joss 05.07.15 18:35

whodunit wrote:
Joss wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am going along with the WBM being wrong, not based on anything technical or scientific,
Ok, but where does that leave your opinion on the matter?
but simply based on the fact that I do not believe

'...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'
that Madeleine's disappearance was planned in some way,
Given the chaos and many stupid mistakes that were made I tend to agree.

and much as I think the McCanns, Gamble etc are the scum of the earth and have done everything in their power to cover up her disappearance/the truth of what happened to Madeleine,

If you don't think this is some kind of conspiracy why involve JG in your calculations at all?

I just cannot go along with the theories that she died days before the 3rd May 2007,

You don't have to go along with it. There is a preponderance of the evidence. Really, there is nothing to prove MBM was alive after the 29th.

or that they planned before they left the UK for their daughter to be 'taken from her bed'

To my knowledge nobody has said this.

You have only taken the initial part of Lazzeri's full posting and dissected it on what is stated here by yourself, and there is a very good theory and opinion on what is stated by Lazzeri in the totality of the post.
The McCann's themselves said Maddie was abducted from her bed to my knowledge.
I also don't think an actual cover up is the same as a conspiracy theory as you mention, and i think most on here & elsewhere do believe a cover up of whatever happened to Madeleine ensued after the fact, as appears to be blatantly obvious. All IMO of course.
A conspiracy theory is more of a hypothetical.

by whodunit 05.07.15 18:52

@Joss----"You have only taken the initial part of Lazzeri's full posting and dissected it on what is stated here by yourself, and there is a very good theory and opinion on what is stated by Lazzeri in the totality of the post."

Possibly, but right off the bat Lazzeri dismisses the legitimacy of the capture based not on scientific fact or technical explanations but on their 'belief' as to what happened to Madeleine. I cannot take this kind of analysis seriously. I am of the opinion that rather than allowing beliefs to shape how we perceive facts we must allow facts to shape our beliefs.

The McCann's themselves said Maddie was abducted from her bed to my knowledge.

Yes, but Lazzeri is claiming [another straw man] that the people who are supporting the legitimacy of the early CEOP capture are also claiming that the McCanns planned before they left the UK for their daughter to be taken from her bed. That is not my argument, and if I may be so bold, nor do I believe it is the argument favored by Dr. Roberts.

by Joss 05.07.15 19:04

whodunit wrote:@Joss----"You have only taken the initial part of Lazzeri's full posting and dissected it on what is stated here by yourself, and there is a very good theory and opinion on what is stated by Lazzeri in the totality of the post."

Possibly, but right off the bat Lazzeri dismisses the legitimacy of the capture based not on scientific fact or technical explanations but on their 'belief' as to what happened to Madeleine. I cannot take this kind of analysis seriously. I am of the opinion that rather than allowing beliefs to shape how we perceive facts we must allow facts to shape our beliefs.

The McCann's themselves said Maddie was abducted from her bed to my knowledge.

Yes, but Lazzeri is claiming [another straw man] that the people who are supporting the legitimacy of the early CEOP capture are also claiming that the McCanns planned before they left the UK for their daughter to be taken from her bed. That is not my argument, and if I may be so bold, nor do I believe it is the argument favored by Dr. Roberts.

The problem with this WayBack stuff is there really are no Facts as far as i can see. If there was Fact wouldn't everyone be indisputably in agreeance?, but that is not the case here.
The only facts we can really go on in this case are what the PJ files have disclosed to date, and everything else is mere speculation IMO.
Sorry but i am not really familiar with Dr. Roberts, is he an expert in this case? I also think by the "taken from her bed" is in line with the abduction theory the McC's, & OG/SY are claiming in their theory of the investigation. And there is absolutely no evidence of an abduction in this case.

by whodunit 05.07.15 19:47

@Joss--"If there was Fact wouldn't everyone be indisputably in agreeance?"

You would think. Yet, isn't it a fact that Eddie and Keela provide a preponderance of evidence that Madeleine died in 5a? Yet a lot of people just are not in agreeance?

by Nuala 05.07.15 20:35

@ Whodunit

I think it's highly unlikely that a page captured in June, July, or October, whatever the patsy date du jour, was backdated to April.

And yet . . . it happened:

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

News Item Article dated 25th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007

There is simply no mechanism by which these crawlers can inadvertently 'turn back time'.

And yet . . . they have:

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

News Item Article dated 18th June 2007 given a date of 30th Apr 2007

by TheTruthWillOut 05.07.15 20:51

@Nuala

All those links go straight to/redirect to the CEOP homepage (ceop.police.uk)

Why is that?

by whodunit 05.07.15 21:43

@Nuala--"And yet . . . it happened:"

No...it didn't.

Look, a capture of mccann.html happened on April 30, 2007. This is a fact, on it's face. WBM hasn't even issued an 'official' denial of the veracity of this capture. Even if it did issue a public statement, like you and others will have to do in order to disprove this prima facie evidence WBM will have to explain 1. why and how and 2. how many more, and which, pages were affected by this glitch/error/extremely unlikely backdating snafu.

Latest topics