CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Dee Coy wrote:

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

Yes, it really was unfortunate timing for the perpetrators that social media and the internet were accelerating exponentially since 2007. they could never have envisaged the amount of scrutiny and information-sharing that has happened. While I don't think this case will ever be 'allowed' to be solved, I don't think they will ever be able to stopper the genie back into the bottle either. Too much is out there.

I think it will run and run and we may eventually get to the truth under the Thirty-year rule.

I hope it's not that long Dee Coy cos I'll be definitely dead and buried by the end of the Thirty-year rule.  

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

And THAT was the random factor that no-one, back in 2007, that no-one could have predicted.

Resistor wrote:

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

And THAT was the random factor that no-one, back in 2007, that no-one could have predicted.

Sorry to bring this up again but David Bowie knew exactly how powerful the internet would be almost 10-15 years ago, so why not TPTB. Something amiss here.

costello wrote:

Resistor wrote:

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

And THAT was the random factor that no-one, back in 2007, that no-one could have predicted.

Sorry to bring this up again but David Bowie knew exactly how powerful the internet would be almost 10-15 years ago, so why not TPTB. Something amiss here.

Incompetence? Arrogance? Maybe nothing at all. As I mentioned before, what we really need is a MOLE to spill the beans.

froggy wrote:

costello wrote:

Resistor wrote:

froggy wrote:In pre social media days, a cover up may have worked very well, but much more difficult now that we have the internet.

And THAT was the random factor that no-one, back in 2007, that no-one could have predicted.

Sorry to bring this up again but David Bowie knew exactly how powerful the internet would be almost 10-15 years ago, so why not TPTB. Something amiss here.

Incompetence?   Arrogance?   Maybe nothing at all. As I mentioned before, what we really need is a MOLE to spill the beans.

I have always believed social media may just be their downfall here, and as Dr. Amaral has assured justice will be done, I as ever remain optimistic.

I have always believed social media may just be their downfall here, and as Dr. Amaral has assured justice will be done, I as ever remain optimistic.

It's one of the few things that they have discovered, their money and power can't control. Not for the want of trying, though. Remember Kate's "we want to find out who these people are"? And Gerry's "cleaning up Facebook"? If they had had their way then none of us would be here right now.

caricature wrote:I haven't a clue on the wayback stuff its really interesting to read,but just say something went to court,you could have one expert on the prosecution saying its correct,another expert for the defence saying its incorrect,how would a jury decide?
The only way I can see is for CEOP to issue a statement,not going to happen though is it.

I think PM has said something along the lines of `imagine being on a jury trying to understand all these intricacies of IT and all the differing expert opinions`.

I`m wondering why no one has heard back from WBM, particularly TB. Can I fantasise that it`s now a police matter and they`re not allowed to comment.

I am going to write to them again, on Monday, a physical letter on nice headed paper with an envelope and stamp. My letter will not mention the McCanns or CEOP at all, but just ask a number of detailed, technical questions that could apply to any site capture. Let's see if we learn anything new by that method.

Mimi wrote:

caricature wrote:I haven't a clue on the wayback stuff its really interesting to read,but just say something went to court,you could have one expert on the prosecution saying its correct,another expert for the defence saying its incorrect,how would a jury decide?
The only way I can see is for CEOP to issue a statement,not going to happen though is it.

I think PM has said something along the lines of `imagine being on a jury trying to understand all these intricacies of IT and all the differing expert opinions`.

I`m wondering why no one has heard back from WBM, particularly TB.  Can I fantasise that it`s now a police matter and they`re not allowed to comment.

Oh how I'd love to fantasise on that, who knows, you could be spot on with that. After all, there's been no follow up, just silence?

More likely they are still struggling to come up with a plausible excuse.

If it was a police matter, would they answer enquiries stating this or would they not be allowed to reply at all?

An expert who was asked for an opinion has said there is no error on the 30th April page?!?

dogs don't lie wrote:An expert who was asked for an opinion has said there is no error on the 30th April page?!?

Just seen that ddl, do you know who asked his opinion?

bluebell wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:An expert who was asked for an opinion has said there is no error on the 30th April page?!?

Just seen that ddl, do you know who asked his opinion?  

He doesn't say bluebell but I do wonder too.

Cribbed courtesy of CMOMM, Richard Henshaw`s opinion

"I posted last night after researching the WB machine and archiving process. I had little interest or knowledge of this case but was asked to give my opinion.
As an experienced lecturer in Comp Sci and data mining I can state that there is no error on the 30/04/2007 page. Discussion on the home page is another matter completely.
Sadly the questions asked by the 2nd enquiry triggered a panic reaction and it seems that WB is now desperately attempting to alter pointers to the later date.
I believe that this would stand as evidence of premeditation.


BB with respect your explanations are weak to say the very least.



I have now become very interested in the case and I’m doing my best to read historical facts. I’m not sure that this is a positive result for me!

Richard Henshaw
Guest"

dogs don't lie wrote:

bluebell wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:An expert who was asked for an opinion has said there is no error on the 30th April page?!?

Just seen that ddl, do you know who asked his opinion?  

He doesn't say bluebell but I do wonder too.

Just went had a look at that. 

Hope Richard Henshaw posts some more.

Interesting stuff.

On the subject of interesting stuff. Here's a comment from Mr Roberts:


Martin Roberts27 June 2015 at 17:31
@whodunit 16.31

"Please keep it up, both of you"

You need have no worries on that score. In point of fact 'Himself' is currently in possession of another wee contribution from 'myself'. If I'm right (and he publishes) then the proverbial will really hit the fan!

Best wishes

Martin R.


.... Anyone know who 'himself' is?

Himself is the blogger "Only In America.  He also had the blog "Good Quality Wristbands.  He is also known as Teddy on Twitter.  He`s the one that does all the hilarious cartoons.

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-tale-of-two-files-by-dr-martin.html

https://twitter.com/TeddyShepherd?lang=en

PS He supports Cristobel as well

Hilarious indeed, since years. I've been choking for laughter occasionally ...

Cheers Mimi

Richard Henshaw Today at 7:36 pm
I've read through this very interesting thread. BB and Syn offer logical but totally incorrect facts. In order for the web crawler to archive web pages a link must already exist – in this case it obviously did! Whether the page was live or not is another matter, the fact is a page had been created on the 30/04/2007 and there can be no dispute regarding this. Misinformation and confusion regarding the home page blurs the factual evidence that this page existed. Web crawlers do not lie. Web crawlers merely search record and archive, the time stamp is recorded. End of!

Andrew wrote:Cheers Mimi

Andrew - his blogs are well worth a visit - you`ll be giggling non stop - here`s an example

I wish I knew where he is a lecturer for. I wouldn't mind having a sensible, technical discussion with him, without all the screeching, intimidation and rubbish surrounding these threads.

Resistor wrote:I wish I knew where he is a lecturer for.  I wouldn't mind having a sensible, technical discussion with him, without all the screeching, intimidation and rubbish surrounding these threads.

I didn`t know he was a lecturer.

He does reply to comments on his blogs, but I don`t think he`s an expert in IT,

Mimi wrote:

Resistor wrote:I wish I knew where he is a lecturer for.  I wouldn't mind having a sensible, technical discussion with him, without all the screeching, intimidation and rubbish surrounding these threads.

I didn`t know he was a lecturer.

He does reply to comments on his blogs, but I don`t think he`s an expert in IT,

I mean Richard Henshaw Mimi, he says so in one of his posts.

I think Resistor is referring to this Richard Henshaw, who has made a couple of recent posts as a guest over the road...