CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

I am not support a conspiracy theory, but was it even considered that such a thing, ( so alien to UK secrecy laws) could occur and that the files would find their way onto the internet for all to see?

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

DDL I wonder if any of this was tied up with conversations between 2 prime ministers of that era, one of whom is now in jail and the other has retired from politics?
Perhaps PT was picked for a reason. Remember it is unlikely M was meant to die, just disappear. I think it was planned to happen in a way the parents would not be suspected. They only were because something went wrong and they had to invent neglect which left them open to suspicion.
A dead child could not be snatched in broad daylight and so began the need for high level assistance.
The case was archived and the released files implicate the parents. If all had gone to original blueprint, the parents would have been lily white and none of the years of sleuthing would have happened.

froggy wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

I am not support a conspiracy theory, but was it  even considered that such a thing, ( so alien to UK secrecy laws) could occur and that the files would find their way onto the internet for all to see?

Don't know froggy, but you'd think it would have all been dissed out before anything actually happened?
IMO

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

DDL I wonder if any of this was tied up with conversations between 2 prime ministers of that era, one of whom is now in jail and the other has retired from politics?
Perhaps PT was picked for a reason. Remember it is unlikely M was meant to die, just disappear. I think it was planned to happen in a way the parents would not be suspected. They only were because something went wrong and they had to invent neglect which left them open to suspicion.
A dead child could not be snatched in broad daylight and so began the need for high level assistance.
The case was archived and the released files implicate the parents. If all had gone to original blueprint, the parents would have been lily white and none of the years of sleuthing would have happened.

Hmm, hadn't thought of it that way chirps...

dogs don't lie wrote:

froggy wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:I'm just finding it very hard to think that high up people would pick Portugal as the place for any pre-planned anything to happen, surely someone high up would know files would be released when archived?!? What did they think the PJ would do, sit back and let the British police take over? If anything was pre-planned, surely it would have been kept in the UK, for control?
IMO

I am not support a conspiracy theory, but was it  even considered that such a thing, ( so alien to UK secrecy laws) could occur and that the files would find their way onto the internet for all to see?

Don't know froggy, but you'd think it would have all been dissed out before anything actually happened?
IMO

Perhaps those involved believed themselves powerful enough to keep it under wraps. I am speaking hypothetically of course.

I am utterly convinced now that this whole shebang was pre-planned. Poor wee mite What I have not worked out is just how "high up" the whole thing goes.

The McCanns are extremely litigious and the whole "whooshing" thing - not only newspapers, YouTube, Amazon and now apparently Wayback too - could be explained by that. Businesses just don't want the hassle, expense and bad publicity of being sued, so it's a quick and easy fix to just roll over and cave in - in the short term, at any rate. What these businesses then find out is that it costs them more - a LOT more - in the long term. Once the implications of the Wayback climbdown hit home, I'd be extremely surprised if the office manager still has a job.

Having said that, I honestly don't believe that the McCanns had the support that they once had. Everyone was happy to take them at face value to begin with, but as all the little details and discrepancies start leaking out, that support has drifted away. Very few of the public believe them now, you just have to look at any uncensored message board to see that. I truly believe that they picked Portugal because Gerry was familiar with the area, maybe they had friends there, and they thought that they would be automatically believed and the local police would be a pushover. Only it didn't quite work out like that, and that's why the whole thing is still dragging on, 8 years later.

Andrew wrote:http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/DEREBUS/2014/7.html

The opinion of a lawyer, from Andrew's link -

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

Except according to the office manager at Wayback, now they are apparently "unreliable". Just like Eddie and Keela. Don't try and tell me that this doesn't have wide reaching, serious implications, one way or the other.

I have been of the pre planned school of thought for a long time now and I am wondering how many people who formerly did not subscribe to that theory have, if not changed their mind, are at least now considering it as a possibility.
It makes sense of so many areas for me. The increasingly garbled attempts to enforce the fact that M was alive on 3 May. The speed of the production of photos on the night, but not photos taken in the resort. Jim Gamble`s involvement. No last photo for 3 weeks etc etc.
I think Gerry had been there before and was familiar with the resort and Portugal was thought to be a place of inept sardine munching plods with no real desire to solve crimes. They didn`t figure on GA and his diligence or the files becoming available in English on the web.
DDL said earlier why did they not just do it in UK? I put forward the idea that RM knew Gerry and his previous help with the police gave them an insider to spy on progress. His reward was suing the press. 660k That will do.
I have no idea if the Wayback thing is right or wrong but am almost convinced by those with the knowledge of how it works to say I am 95% there. What convinces me most though is the haste to whoosh the stuff that has already been whooshed.
If a simple error occurred it should be left till a verifiable explanation was given.
Mr Butler will be feeling the chill wind of unemployment soon I reckon.

Resistor wrote:

Andrew wrote:http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/DEREBUS/2014/7.html

The opinion of a lawyer, from Andrew's link -

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

Except according to the office manager at Wayback, now they are apparently "unreliable".  Just like Eddie and Keela.  Don't try and tell me that this doesn't have wide reaching, serious implications, one way or the other.

Don't forget the DNA results that were 'too complex to interpret'

Two conflicting statements from an Office Manager within 24 hours. Will this be the final word or might we see further clarification?

The happy faces on Maddie's birthday.
The dancing Gerry on the balcony, only days afterwards.
The testimonies of the Tapas staff.
Kate's own admission that she did not physically search.
The indecent haste to incorporate a limited liability company.
The wristbands and posters and t-shirts, ready to go.

Too many coincidences.

froggy wrote:

Resistor wrote:

Andrew wrote:http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/DEREBUS/2014/7.html

The opinion of a lawyer, from Andrew's link -

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

Except according to the office manager at Wayback, now they are apparently "unreliable".  Just like Eddie and Keela.  Don't try and tell me that this doesn't have wide reaching, serious implications, one way or the other.

Don't forget the DNA results that were 'too complex to interpret'

Two conflicting statements from an Office Manager within 24 hours. Will this be the final word or might we see further clarification?

I am still waiting on a reply to my email sent at 15:59 BST yesterday; to be honest, I'm not really expecting a reply now, because the legal team will have been all over it. But if I do get one, I will of course share it with you.

Interesting that on archive.org main page they have a statement "Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future." After this whole escapade there is no Wayback.

Resistor wrote:The happy faces on Maddie's birthday.
The dancing Gerry on the balcony, only days afterwards.
The testimonies of the Tapas staff.
Kate's own admission that she did not physically search.
The indecent haste to incorporate a limited liability company.
The wristbands and posters and t-shirts, ready to go.

Too many coincidences.

Yes Resistor totally agree. What really surprised me was Uncle Brian being interviewed almost days after the event mentioning the fund money and how it might be used for legal fees or words to that effect. I cannot understand why this fund was allowed to be set up, let alone the length of time it has been running, with no questions asked by Government et al. Very strange indeed.

Now it turns out that Wayback have "got form". Not because of dodgy time stamps, though.

https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/the-wayback-machine-is-now-useless-for-legal-issues.159396/

I've just posted an interesting query over on the other chat group.

The original screenshot that we saw of April 30 apparently showed the page as it was "captured" on April 30. It showed ONE PHOTO of Madeleine.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646163802184537&set=gm.917000191695416&type=1&theater

We've now been told that this was an "error" and that it should have been a different date, after May 7.
The only trouble is, if you go to the link now, there are TWO PHOTOS of Madeleine on the page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070513020901/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
When was the second photo of Madeleine added?
Why doesn't only one photo of Madeleine appear in the new link?
Why don't two photos of Madeleine appear in the April 30 link?
Hmmm.

See what you mean, well spotted Canada 12.

canada12 wrote:I've just posted an interesting query over on the other chat group.

The original screenshot that we saw of April 30 apparently showed the page as it was "captured" on April 30. It showed ONE PHOTO of Madeleine.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646163802184537&set=gm.917000191695416&type=1&theater

We've now been told that this was an "error" and that it should have been a different date, after May 7.
The only trouble is, if you go to the link now, there are TWO PHOTOS of Madeleine on the page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070513020901/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

So if the original April 30 link above was incorrect... where did the second photo of Madeleine go?
When was the second photo of Madeleine added?
Why doesn't only one photo of Madeleine appear in the new link?
Why don't two photos of Madeleine appear in the April 30 link?
Hmmm.

Ha! And the 'new' 13 May page still shows the earliest capture of that version as the 30 Apr 07, under the blue "11 Captures" link on the Wayback Machine info bar. If you click on that link it reiterates the 30 April again:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070513020901*/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mccann.html

It really is quite simple. Although the date once you click in to the 30 April circle is now showing as 13 May, that page existed on 30 April to be captured by the bot.

I've been messing around with the Wayback Machine trying to find references to the fridge on Gerry's original version of his blog (no luck!). But in every other instance when you click on the blue circle date indicating the capture of the site, the date remains the same once in there. Someone at Wayback has manipulated this manually to the 13 May, imo, but the fact remains the capture of the page was done on 30 April - they haven't been able to manipulate that. That web page existed on 30 April, I'm certain.

If this does turn out to be important to the case, then this is clear evidence, from beginning to end, and extremely well documented, of alleged tampering with evidence. No?

canada12 wrote:If this does turn out to be important to the case, then this is clear evidence, from beginning to end, and extremely well documented, of alleged tampering with evidence. No?

Yes.

I hope a lot of people have taken screenshots.

I'm also certain the McCanns would not be able to influence Wayback to do this, nor CR - legally Wayback are clean (or were). Someone with big influence has leant on them, imo, and this does not bode well for justice in this case. The establishment remain onside with the McCanns, this proves to me, at least.

Well, I wouldn't bother wasting your time any more folks, because The Great Pat Brown has proclaimed that it's all "nonsense", so that's that. I personally am not going to post another word, because I am sick of it now. I know what I know thanks to 30 years of experience in the field but if posters would rather take the word of somebody who runs a page on Facebook and can use Movie Maker, so be it.

Resistor wrote:Well, I wouldn't bother wasting your time any more folks, because The Great Pat Brown has proclaimed that it's all "nonsense", so that's that.  I personally am not going to post another word, because I am sick of it now.  I know what I know thanks to 30 years of experience in the field but if posters would rather take the word of somebody who runs a page on Facebook and can use Movie Maker, so be it.

Pat Brown has come out against the jury system in the USA, saying jury duty should not be done by amateurs. She has a particular field of expertise and therefore feels her pov is valid. Why therefore does she then criticise those trying to get to the truth of this matter by dismissing the work of experts in that field. Something she presumably has no knowledge of?
She has a theory on what happened to Madeleine and is perhaps protecting that opinion.
Please don't give up Resistor. I don't understand a word of the stuff you are posting but it sure looks like you know so that is what matters.
Even if nothing comes of it, it is causing panic and when panic happens mistakes get made.

Resistor wrote:Well, I wouldn't bother wasting your time any more folks, because The Great Pat Brown has proclaimed that it's all "nonsense", so that's that.  I personally am not going to post another word, because I am sick of it now.  I know what I know thanks to 30 years of experience in the field but if posters would rather take the word of somebody who runs a page on Facebook and can use Movie Maker, so be it.

Interesting, because I would expect that unless a person has considerable expertise in the IT field, they would be in no position to make any pronouncement on the subject.

Sadly Pat is a bit like what's his face over yonder. There way or the highway. 

My impression anyway. 

Keep at it Resistor. All fascinating stuff.