CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

@ Resistor - thanks for explaining.

Now you get some rest .

Dee Coy wrote:

Mimi wrote:I`m more interested in the photo - I have never seen that particular one of MBM before - has anyone ?





Sorry everyone - yes that photo has been seen before - it`s on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

Yes, I was also very interested in that photo. How could CEOP have it so early as it wasn't the first photo printed on Amy's printer nor was it any of the early released pictures afaik.

Therefore, if this page is found to originate to 30 April - or even into early May - this is another reason to suggest that information not yet released by the McCanns was held by CEOP. Or am I grossly mistaken?

Not mistaken no - just totally logical I would have thought. They`d (WBM or CEOP) better come up with a damned good explanation.

Dee Coy wrote:

Mimi wrote:I`m more interested in the photo - I have never seen that particular one of MBM before - has anyone ?





Sorry everyone - yes that photo has been seen before - it`s on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2007/05/10/madeleine_mccann_round_up_feature.shtml

Yes, I was also very interested in that photo. How could CEOP have it so early as it wasn't the first photo printed on Amy's printer nor was it any of the early released pictures afaik.

Therefore, if this page is found to originate to 30 April - or even into early May - this is another reason to suggest that information not yet released by the McCanns was held by CEOP. Or am I grossly mistaken?

I also have a problem with this photograph, as I have previously posted I was intrigued with Canada 12's two photograph issue, there is something not right here. Just my take.

I sometimes think Operation Grange are taking so long because they are waiting for us lot (and the other lot) to solve it for them.

I bet they don`t investigate half the stuff we do.

On the link to the pdf that Rich Hall posted that I gave earlier I saw a ref to 2 photos of Madeleine.
Just checked and it is on page 6 near the top. Madeleine jpeg1 and Madeleine jpeg2
Could that be the 2 photos that you mean?

I don't think a space was left for a second photo because the caption says Photograph and not photographs. The return key was used and perhaps the tab key which made the caption jumped too far instead of being under the photo. Why put 2 photos on? I wonder if the 2nd photo was to replace the first but the first one wasn't taken off. As some have said on the forum they haven't seen this photo before - just wondering if this was sent in on 30th as the only one available at the time???

Here is a sensible suggestion by whodunnit over the way

In the absence of ANY evidence that the April 30th glitch affected any pages other than Madeleine related pages at CEOP, I'm going on the assumption that when CEOP discovered it's faux pas on the 30th it was in the midst of hastily making a revision of it's own, and making a right proper mess of it, when WBM captured it red handed BEFORE the link to and mccann.html itself could be removed.


whodunnit

OK, I will try and explain this simply... it could be something and it could be nothing. But I'll let the other teccies have a play with it and see what comes up.

Firstly, this is the CEOP homepage on 21 April 2006, before it's "relaunch".



This is the CEOP homepage three days later.



The first one looks very plain, because it has been written in very basic HTML4 with a bit of Javascript thrown in, and linked to gif images stored in folders in the same root directory. It's the sort of thing anyone here could do after a couple of night's evening classes, but in all fairness, it would have looked pretty impressive back in 2006.

The second one is a lot more impressive, not just for the viewer but also from a technical POV. We have a slightly updated version of HTML4, again some Javascript, but now, a CSS to do the formatting.

A CSS (cascading style sheet) is a separate file that is used to ensure consistent formatting in all the pages on a website. You specify your background colours, fonts, sizes, margins, alignments and so on in there, then every page you add "pulls in" the CSS sheet. Every page on the CEOP site by this time will have the green and blue corporate colours, the red Report Me button, the big blue logo, the pinky-red colour for the hyperlinks, all information taken from the CSS file. The advantage of this is that if you suddenly want to change the green colour to, say, pink, you only have to change the code in the CSS and the whole site will update.

Of course the downside is, if you make a mistake in your CSS, then that repeats over every page. Likewise, if the HTML page can't "find" the CSS for some reason, the page will default to the original white background and Times New Roman font in black writing with blue hyperlinks. You can try this for yourself at http://www.w3schools.com/css/ and you'll see what I mean.

Now McCann.html uses the same CSS as all the other pages, so I thought I would ferret about with it for a bit.

I saved the first "new" CEOP homepage, which of course uses the stylesheet. It's called coi.css and is easily editable with Notepad. Now remember the CEOP index page was crawled and saved on 24 April 2006.

But the style sheet, coi.css, that goes with it, was only crawled and saved on 30 April 2006! And there was no crawl of the homepage itself on 30 April 2006.



So for six days, the CEOP homepage must have looked like a basic white beginner's piece, when it couldn't find the stylesheet, which was only added to the archive 6 days later. But looking at it now, it doesn't look like that, it looks like the complete webpage. Captured on 24 April but using content that was not actually captured until the 30th.

Like I said, might be something, might be nothing. I really don't see why a robot would capture an HTML without the CSS, anyway; they go together and the CSS file would appear as a link in the HTML.

More questions than answers again!

chirpyinsect wrote:Here is a sensible suggestion by whodunnit over the way

In the absence of ANY evidence that the April 30th glitch affected any pages other than Madeleine related pages at CEOP, I'm going on the assumption that when CEOP discovered it's faux pas on the 30th it was in the midst of hastily making a revision of it's own, and making a right proper mess of it, when WBM captured it red handed BEFORE the link to and mccann.html itself could be removed.


whodunnit

True!

What we need is a CEOP mole to spill the beans.

Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out" ! ! !

You could be right Peter Mac. The picture isn't the best one I've seen of poor Madeleine and it is certainly not a poster picture - I bet they were waiting for a clearer picture to arrive which was posted next to it. Even if it turns out the 30th April was a blip that picture has come from somewhere very quickly.

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out"  ! ! !

***
Peter, damn ... you're touching at my darkest thoughts

Mo wrote:You could be right Peter Mac.  The picture isn't the best one I've seen of poor Madeleine and it is certainly not a poster picture - I bet they were waiting for a clearer picture to arrive which was posted next to it.  Even if it turns out the 30th April was a blip that picture has come from somewhere very quickly.

It looks like a film camera picture that has been scanned in. It also looks quite old. There's no way that she is nearly four in that picture.

Resistor wrote:

Mo wrote:You could be right Peter Mac.  The picture isn't the best one I've seen of poor Madeleine and it is certainly not a poster picture - I bet they were waiting for a clearer picture to arrive which was posted next to it.  Even if it turns out the 30th April was a blip that picture has come from somewhere very quickly.

It looks like a film camera picture that has been scanned in.  It also looks quite old.  There's no way that she is nearly four in that picture.

That might figure if it was from the CATS file, as there would probably have been a paper copy which would need to be scanned to digitise for the site

Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counterarguments I'm afraid my initial assessment of the situation still stands. This was a genuine capture of an April 30 page that was not made public. There were going to be two photos but only one was in place. I believe the second photo had a placeholder in place, so that the second photo could be inserted when provided.

There were links to pdf's of posters, which could also be uploaded when provided.

Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, that's where my opinion lies. There was no error on WBM's part. It was accurate.

Châtelaine wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out"  ! ! !

***
Peter, damn ... you're touching at my darkest thoughts

And I can't help being reminded of the phone call David Payne was asked about in the rogatories ...the one to the Soca office in london on 4 may... The same Soca organisation that Ceop were affiliated to at the time.. Dark thoughts indeed...

Resistor wrote:

Mo wrote:You could be right Peter Mac.  The picture isn't the best one I've seen of poor Madeleine and it is certainly not a poster picture - I bet they were waiting for a clearer picture to arrive which was posted next to it.  Even if it turns out the 30th April was a blip that picture has come from somewhere very quickly.

It looks like a film camera picture that has been scanned in.  It also looks quite old.  There's no way that she is nearly four in that picture.

No she's probably about two. Of all the pictures I've seen of M I have never known a child's face/features change so much in nearly 4 years.
I must say what sterling work you have done on this thread although I don't understand it. The interactions have been brilliant with those in the know.

Stewie wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out"  ! ! !

***
Peter, damn ... you're touching at my darkest thoughts

And I can't help being reminded of the phone call David Payne was asked about in the rogatories ...the one to the Soca office in london on 4 may... The same Soca organisation that Ceop were affiliated to at the time..  Dark thoughts indeed...

And guess whose web page has anti spiders

# See http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html for documentation on how to use the robots.txt file # # To ban all spiders from the entire site uncomment the next two lines: User-Agent: * Disallow: /

chirpyinsect wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out"  ! ! !

***
Peter, damn ... you're touching at my darkest thoughts

And I can't help being reminded of the phone call David Payne was asked about in the rogatories ...the one to the Soca office in london on 4 may... The same Soca organisation that Ceop were affiliated to at the time..  Dark thoughts indeed...

And guess whose web page has anti spiders

# See http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html for documentation on how to use the robots.txt file # # To ban all spiders from the entire site uncomment the next two lines: User-Agent: * Disallow: /

The command Disallow:  /?* is what CEOP has in its robots.txt file.

That command isn't anti-spiders, it allows for all URLs to be indexed except those that contain a ?

Hope that helps

Nuala wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Perhaps that photo is the one which was in the CATS folder at Leicester HQ
The one which suddenly got "cleaned out"  ! ! !

***
Peter, damn ... you're touching at my darkest thoughts

And I can't help being reminded of the phone call David Payne was asked about in the rogatories ...the one to the Soca office in london on 4 may... The same Soca organisation that Ceop were affiliated to at the time..  Dark thoughts indeed...

And guess whose web page has anti spiders

# See http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html for documentation on how to use the robots.txt file # # To ban all spiders from the entire site uncomment the next two lines: User-Agent: * Disallow: /

The command Disallow:  /?* is what CEOP has in its robots.txt file.

That command isn't anti-spiders, it allows for all URLs to be indexed except those that contain a ?

Hope that helps

Sorry if I have confused. I tried to do a wayback search of NCA and it stated that crawls were not permitted due to robotstxt.

Oh no. There is a poll over the way. I don't even understand the options lol.

Number 4 for me!

WAYBACK - What really happened at 11.58am and 3 seconds on 30 April 2007?

1. Wayback captured something on the CEOP website, but not the 'mccann html' file0% 0% [ 0 ]

2. Nothing - the date is wrong and so nothing happened and nothing was captured at that time0% 0% [ 0 ]

3. Wayback captured a 'mccann html' file that had already been set up as a 'dummy file', but with no content on it17% 17% [ 1 ]

4. I have no idea, I am completely lost with all the technical arguments going back and forth33% 33% [ 2 ]

5. Wayback captured a 'mccann html' file that had already been set up as a 'dummy' file, but with some content already on it33% 33% [ 2 ]

6. The 'time stamp' of 11.58am on 30 April is obviously wrong because it brings up later news items, it's obviously a 'glitch' of some kind17% 17% [ 1 ]

7. Someone has 'hacked' in to the Wayback archive and fabricated a false entry0% 0% [ 0 ]

8. Some other explanation0% 0% [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 6

Sorry if I have confused. I tried to do a wayback search of NCA and it stated that crawls were not permitted due to robotstxt.

Ah no, it's me that's confused. I thought you were referring to the CEOP website. Sorry

Freedom wrote:Number 4 for me!

WAYBACK - What really happened at 11.58am and 3 seconds on 30 April 2007?

1. Wayback captured something on the CEOP website, but not the 'mccann html' file0% 0% [ 0 ]

2. Nothing - the date is wrong and so nothing happened and nothing was captured at that time0% 0% [ 0 ]

3. Wayback captured a 'mccann html' file that had already been set up as a 'dummy file', but with no content on it17% 17% [ 1 ]

4. I have no idea, I am completely lost with all the technical arguments going back and forth33% 33% [ 2 ]

5. Wayback captured a 'mccann html' file that had already been set up as a 'dummy' file, but with some content already on it33% 33% [ 2 ]

6. The 'time stamp' of 11.58am on 30 April is obviously wrong because it brings up later news items, it's obviously a 'glitch' of some kind17% 17% [ 1 ]

7. Someone has 'hacked' in to the Wayback archive and fabricated a false entry0% 0% [ 0 ]

8. Some other explanation0% 0% [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 6

Option 7. My money is on Stevo.