CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

But let us be cautious.
We know that date and time on the Last Photo were altered, but do not know when, nor by whom (officially anyway !)
Harold Shipman altered dates and time on his computer records, but was caught out by the source code which showed when he had carried out the alterations . .
I suspect that even the source code itself can be altered by someone sufficiently 'tecchie',
or it could be an innocent artefact of doing the search in the first place.

Or not, as the case may be !

I have permission from our former member WLBTS to post his comments here.


On this CEOP page, people need to be cautious of the absolute claims that some posters such are making. This is one area in which I am highly qualified to speak. We can't know whether that page really was crawled on 30th April because we don't have access to Wayback's code. That is the only way you can get an answer on this - to ask Wayback's software engineers. What's more, their code is very likely to have changed hundreds of times since 2007, so it's even unlikely that they could give a verdict.

What I will say is that the home page that is claimed to have been crawled on the same date has 'Latest News' from later in the year, and after checking those news items out they are referring to real events. As I do not believe in fortune-telling, that home page must have been crawled at a later date. Therefore, we cannot assume that the McCann page was crawled at the date claimed.


Also, the 'time-stamps' that posters are putting absolute faith in are not reliable. The message in the source that details the crawl date and last access date is written upon access. What we are seeing here is - imagine this in physical terms - a piece of paper being filed in the wrong folder in a cabinet. Someone said put it 'May 2007' or something, and the person doing the filing either lost the bit of paper telling them the date, or just forgot, and so put it where it seemed best. But now, people are claiming that the file being in that particular folder is absolute proof of its time-stamp. Not true - it can just have been misfiled.[/

No, it can't have just been "misfiled" because it just doesn't work like that.

An HTML page is just like a container, it can (and in this case does) have Javascript embedded in it.  The Javascript points to a file.  That pointer may change.  It's like a rolling newsfeed on a page - the page round about it does not change, but the news does, because the news is not part of the page.  It's just a dynamic thing embedded into the page.

An HTML file can be created on, say, 30 April and have Javascript linking to somewhere else.  When the "somewhere else" changes, say on 17 October, the Javascript content will change.  How many times have you seen an ancient newspaper article with today's date on it?  Because the date has been rendered in Javascript.

The important thing is that the HTML page - the container - existed on 30th April.  Why?  How did someone know to create it three days before Maddie went missing?

Just like dogs, bots cannot lie, they are programmed to report exactly what they find at the exact time they find it.  And this one has, an HTML page with some embedded Javascript that has subsequently changed.  This does not explain how the original HTML page existed at that date.



In other words - the HTML bit remains the same. The Javascript bit updates. The HTML bit could not have been saved on 30 April if it did not exist on that date. In fact, that was just the first date that it was crawled - it might even have been created before the 30th April.

All I can say is wow to all this knowledge. It is waaaay above my non tecchie head so I look forward to the discussions. Obviously I hope it proves something and leads to irrefutable evidence of foreknowledge which will bring this house of cards tumbling down.
I would expect that this thread will get disrupted as all sensitive areas do but stick in those who are sure of their ground. There was always going to come a time when the edifice crumbled. Let's hope it is now.
Off out to celebrate 3 happy years of marriage. Been married 15 though. Only joking. 
Night all.

Impossible to know from N00btown whether this 30/04 is an actual date of crawling, a misrepresent or a hoax. Still, it's a big curiousity to me.

Good to trust in Scotland Yard to find out.

Burst wrote:Impossible to know from N00btown whether this 30/04 is an actual date of crawling, a misrepresent or a hoax. Still, it's a big curiousity to me.

It is an actual date of crawling, no hoax, you can go onto the Wayback machine and check it out for yourself. I have actually emailed the developers at Wayback for clarification of some points, and I will put up the answer if I get one, but I fully expect them to endorse what I, and Andy B, have already said.

A number of people have said on twitter that if it were a Big Conspiracy, then the evidence wouldn't be easy to find. That is just the point, clearly this was not that easy to find if it has taken 8 years! We already suspect that a CATS file has been tampered with, no hard evidence but lots of circumstantial; who knows what other digital subterfuge has been going on. The point is that these things leave audit trails.

Look up the case of Denis Rader, the BTK Killer; caught because he got too arrogant and taunted the police. A floppy disk led to his undoing, because he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was.

http://www.performingarts.net/Alberti/Gamble/company.html

PURELY SATIRICAL.....NOT THE SAME PERSON !!!

So funny (when you read it in relation to Jimbo.) I had to read it twice
Apologies if in wrong place.

Here's a sample of the other Mr Gamble's work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGHABxSojXU

Bubblewrapped wrote:http://www.performingarts.net/Alberti/Gamble/company.html

PURELY SATIRICAL.....NOT THE SAME PERSON !!!

So funny (when you read it in relation to Jimbo.) I had to read it twice
Apologies if in wrong place.

Oh, dear!
Here's another unfortunate one -

Gerry Baby Monitor recall. http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/1997/CPSC-Gerry-Baby-Products-Announce-Model-602-Deluxe-Baby-Monitor-Recall/

Resistor wrote:No, it can't have just been "misfiled" because it just doesn't work like that.

An HTML page is just like a container, it can (and in this case does) have Javascript embedded in it.  The Javascript points to a file.  That pointer may change.  It's like a rolling newsfeed on a page - the page round about it does not change, but the news does, because the news is not part of the page.  It's just a dynamic thing embedded into the page.

Does that explain why the home page for the archive on 30/04/2007 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070430115803/http://ceop.gov.uk/) point to news articles dated much later than 30/04? I.e. Is it just pointing to the latest news and the latest news that WBM has archived is from October 2007?

Resistor wrote:
It is an actual date of crawling, no hoax, you can go onto the Wayback machine and check it out for yourself. (snip)

Look up the case of Denis Rader, the BTK Killer; caught because he got too arrogant and taunted the police.  A floppy disk led to his undoing, because he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was.

Thanks for your explanation. I believe you for myself, and keep cautious at the same time. As to a certain sort of people, not naming names, and not calling them psychopaths, being able to get stupidly arrogant, I fully agree.

The news articles are probably linked in by JS and they would change.  The HTML round about it would not.  

There definitely existed an HTML page called McCann on 30/04/07.  It's actually irrelevant what the articles on it say, or are about, or what the date is; it's the fact that the page itself existed at that point in time.  Why did CEOP know that they would need an HTML page called McCann, three days later?


This is where I used to work. Every time you refresh this page, the picture will change but the rest of the page won't. My post will still be dated 17/06/15 18:17 but the date and time at the bottom of the picture will be different.

Resistor wrote:The news articles are probably linked in by JS and they would change.  The HTML round about it would not.  

There definitely existed an HTML page called McCann on 30/04/07.  It's actually irrelevant what the articles on it say, or are about, or what the date is; it's the fact that the page itself existed at that point in time.  Why did CEOP know that they would need an HTML page called McCann, three days later?

All this HTML and stuff is far too modern for me, although I understand the basic principles, having worked as an analyst and programmer for the last quarter of a century. I was just wanting something on here that address the argument that, because there are links to later dated articles on the home page, that must therefore have been archived at a later date and the 30/04/2007 date must be wrong, which means that the date on the McCann page archived at the same time must be wrong too.

I totally agree that, in the absence of any plausible explanation otherwise, there really was a McCann page (mccann.html) on the CEOP server and it really was archived on 30/04/2007

Edited to add: Thanks - you've added a picture to your post above that illustrates the point perfectly. As I understand it, on the CEOP home page, instead of a reference to a picture as in your post, there is a reference to the latest news.

Andy, please see above - which is a very primitive example, but the best I could do, given the constraints of Forumotion
It's perfectly possible to update embedded content and stick anything on it at a later point.  But the basic framework must always have been there to begin with, that's the point I am trying to make, but probably not expressing myself very well :0
ETA sorry, you beat me to it! (I miss Tromsoe. I don't miss having to have blackout curtains on the windows at this time of year though, because the sun does not set. It's not much fun in December, either )

Is it possible that CEOP already had an unnamed but dated HTML folder on their server which was later given the McCann label?

This is all way above me,but its really interesting to read.

froggy wrote:Is it possible that CEOP already had an unnamed but dated HTML folder on their server which was later given the McCann label?

I'm not sure if this answers your question but....
The archiving date comes from Way Back Machine and is the date that the archive took place. In order for something to have been archived on 30/04/2007 it would have to exist in the first place. I can see no reason to avoid the obvious conclusion, which is that there really was a web page called mccann.html on the CEOP server on 30/04/2007 and that the Way Back Machine correctly archived it into one of its own folders called 20070430115803.

AndyB wrote:

froggy wrote:Is it possible that CEOP already had an unnamed but dated HTML folder on their server which was later given the McCann label?

I'm not sure if this answers your question but....
The archiving date comes from Way Back Machine and is the date that the archive took place. In order for something to have been archived on 30/04/2007 it would have to exist in the first place. I can see no reason to avoid the obvious conclusion, which is that there really was a web page called mccann.html on the CEOP server on 30/04/2007 and that the Way Back Machine correctly archived it into one of its own folders called 20070430115803.

Which begs the question's why? what was supposed to have happened and why didn't it?
One hopes £11 million and counting is being used to uncover it.

caricature wrote:This is all way above me,but its really interesting to read.

Me too caricature, I'm dumbfounded at all this technical stuff, but to be honest there has to something in it. I have always thought there is a lot more to this case than an accidental death of a child. I also believe a simple mistake may just solve this case, as mentioned earlier, arrogance et al could just be their downfall, I live in hope. Just my take.

The creator of the file may have believed that if it was saved on the CEOP server, but there were no outward links, it was invisible to the internet. This is not the case - the crawler would still have picked it up, with or without links, if it existed on the server.

So I'm thinking a logical explanation might be that someone at CEOP created the page (so that it was ready to go), and then saved it on the server, with no outward links, ready for it to be linked and made public, and then for whatever reason the event was delayed - and whoever created the page believed that the original page was safely hidden on the server... but it wasn't. And so there it sat, and it was captured by the web crawler on that date, and archived.

Thanks Andrew, does this mean the date (30th April) is accurate. I'm hopeless with all this technical jargon. Is what Isabelle McFadden is stating correct and verified.

Andrew wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/QUEENdePORTUGAL/status/611220638267604992/photo/1

WOWEE !!!#
Thanks Andrew - could someone c/p this please ??

Completely agree with you Canada.

As requested:



Possible very interesting development....