CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

poster wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

poster wrote:

froggy wrote:I've been thinking about Mr Henshaw's last post and the extraordinary mention of GCHQ and MI5, completely out of the blue.
Either he was a short-lived WUM or has inside knowledge that he was trying to pass on without exposing his identiy.

------

Detective Amaral also talks about high level political interference and M15 being there as well AFAIK so this theory is based on what the detective working on the case thought. And he must have seen/found evidence for that to have believe it.

I took from Mr Henshaw that he knew little of the case but was assuming interference by agencies and didn't want involved further given he had perhaps used his real name.
But then I want him to be correct so admit to bias.

----

I think he sounded reasonably genuine. In any case we all KNOW that there was very high level support for the McCanns from an early stage. It's documented in Kate's book. You don't get Clarence Mitchell flying out if you are just a couple of dodgy doctors whose daughter had an accident on holiday. With all that high level support M15 are highly likely to be on the case too.

Hardly a conspiracy. It's documented.

ETA: I've just noticed my avatar?! Who chose that???

The big question would be WHY?

Do you think Mr Henshaw could be Richard D Hall? I haven't seen him online now for a few days and he was miffed with BB. Just a thought.

poster wrote:What is also indisputable FACT is that Jim Gamble, who was head of CEOP at the time of the hotly disputed 30 April 2007 screen grab of the CEOP Madeleine McCann page, was and indeed (at least until very recently) still is an ARDENT supporter of the McCann's and their abduction story. To the extent of dissing on twitter those who pull holes in the McCann story.

Hardly professional behaviour given that the McCann's eldest daughter 'disappeared' in the most suspicious circumstances imaginable.

---------

I think what might be helpful in the light of the WB machine evidence would be to take a closer look at the early posters that were allegedly printed out on an Ocean Club printer. There are lengthy threads on CMoMM about this subject. I think nanny Amy Tierney is said to have printed them out on an OC printer. But there is speculation that the computer supposedly used would not have printed out that type of paper? And the computer disappeared off to France, I do believe. Bottom line - was it even possible that all those posters were printed out that night at OC? Or could they have been printed out earlier that week, for instance? Or have been brought out by someone that week (Murat, say?) Or even have been brought out by a member of TM or their entourage from the UK in their holiday baggage?

It wasn't just posters.there were postcard size pictures being handed out on the night of the 3rd.

Silvia Batista.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

She remembers Gerry gave the Commandant of several photographs of the missing girl. They were postcard-like pictures, taking into account their size and shape and seemed all the same to her.

From what I remember, the pictures were printed on an obscure dedicated photo printer that produced postcard size prints on a special paper.
Some posters look as if they were produced by putting the photo through a colour printer.

Mimi wrote:Might it be a good idea to start a thread about EVERYTHING that happened on 30th April 2007, having a title that doesn`t suggest IT and WBM ?

For instance - KM taking Madeleine out of creche at 3.25pm.
Include all info from statements for that day
Include any other news items for that day

That is a very good idea Mimi, go ahead and start that.

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:Might it be a good idea to start a thread about EVERYTHING that happened on 30th April 2007, having a title that doesn`t suggest IT and WBM ?

For instance - KM taking Madeleine out of creche at 3.25pm.
Include all info from statements for that day
Include any other news items for that day

That is a very good idea Mimi, go ahead and start that.

I don`t know what to call it, so people realise it`s not WBM - something like `Significant other happenings on 30th April` ? - I`m not very creative today.  

PS  or 30th April significant other happenings

PPS or Happenings on 30th April from Records, Files and MSM

PPPS or What else is significant about the 30th April 2007?

Thats it I think.

I'm sure it's a coincidence of course but this topic has just been bumped on CMoMM!

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3866-monday-april-30th-day-2

Freedom wrote:I'm sure it's a coincidence of course but this topic has just been bumped on CMoMM!

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3866-monday-april-30th-day-2

Co-incidence - of course - that LIR decided to bump it 20 mins after we`d started ours. Still it`s all grist to the mill as they say and after all we`re all getting along so well at the moment.

To save me going through all the statements, it is all listed here (courtesy of HiDeHo - my goodness she has done a lot of work on this case)

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Monday-April-30th/Info-about-MONDAY-APRIL-30th-1-1047663.html

"MONDAY

No tennis records (Poss womens night)

BREAKFAST - no Dianne or McCanns

Creche records - sorry they do not copy as a table structure
MONDAY April 30th
Ella O'Brien                                       AM
Madeleine McCann
Amelie & Sean  
Lily 9.15
9.30
9.20
9.?       ROB
GM
?
DP 12.35
12.10
12.15
12.45 ??
GM
GM
DP
Madeleine McCann                         PM
Amelie & Sean                                
Ella O'Brien
Lily   xxxx  
3.15
3.25
4.00
xxxx KM
?
ROB
xxxx 3.30
? time
XXXX
xxxx KM
? sig
XXX
xxxx


RMO
2007-05-15
On Monday they were told that there was no room for all of them in the restaurant, but they obtained a special favour from a waiter and all dined together. In order to obtain this favour they said that the children were asleep and that they could not move anywhere else. For this reason, from this day onwards they would reserve a space in the restaurant (for the adults) for the following day

Fiona and David spent morning on beach, after dropping children off, sailing with another chap. It was cold. They wore short wetsuits and returned when it was time to pick up the children.

We know that the creche records show Kate dropping Madeleine off at 3.15pm then drops the twins off at 3.25pm and picks up Madeleine at 3.30pm.  There is no record regarding what time the twins were picked up.

http://madeleinemccann.aimoo.com/Creche-Records-Timeline/Creche-Table-1-762790.html

Monday 30.04.2007
Breakfast apartment? apartment cleaning
Kids clubs:
Tennis 09.15-10.15 K
G 10.15-11.15
*? washing machine / blinds
Lunch - our apartment then → balcony F and Dave
Kids club?? beach
+ / - 16.00 K run 25 min.
16:30 Tennis lessons
High tea
18:30? tennis night for women
Recreational area
Afternoon: K and J Supermarket
Rest. - everyone

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/more-on-the-deleted-call-records-%E2%80%93-where-was-kate-mccann/
On Monday 30th April 2007, neither of the McCann’s telephones activated the Luz transmitters. This looks very odd, especially as they were around the Ocean Club to shuffle the kids to and from the crèches. On this afternoon, Madeleine remained in the crèche for only 15 minutes and was picked up by her mother at 15.30. We do not know what Madeleine did for the rest of the day, but it is possible she was being fractious. Interestingly, a friend of Mrs and Mr McCann supposedly told the “Dispatches” team that made a TV program on the tragedy, that “Madeleine was a screamer”. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, but any use of the past tense in referring to Madeleine would be very significant. It was such a past tense referral, to her supposedly living children, that alerted the FBI to their murder by Susan Smith, their mother.
                                                            ...............................
GM said he had the blinds repaired on Monday, but it was actually Tuesday according to the docket.

Mimi wrote:
We know that the creche records show Kate dropping Madeleine off at 3.15pm then drops the twins off at 3.25pm and picks up Madeleine at 3.30pm.  There is no record regarding what time the twins were picked up.

17-20,km signed them out.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id351.html

Richard Henshaw is back posting over the way!

Post moved to discussion by admin

Resistor, do you know the date in 2006 when ceop changed their website? Even the month would be fine.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Resistor, do you know the date in 2006 when ceop changed their website? Even the month would be fine.

It changed between 21st and 24th April 2006

I want to ask why Nuala is studying  the archive.is pages( in another place.)I thought they had been discredited already.
Whodunnit has discovered that it is not a free web crawler and only saves one page acting as a direct agent of the human user.

Whatever that means.

chirpyinsect wrote:I want to ask why Nuala is studying  the archive.is pages( in another place.)I thought they had been discredited already.
Whodunnit has discovered that it is not a free web crawler and only saves one page acting as a direct agent of the human user.

Whatever that means.

It means that archive.is just takes it's data from Wayback, so it's going to be the same stuff.  And it was discredited days ago.
There's a post on p41 of this thread that shows the "old" and "new" CEOP pages and the dates they changed.  The 21/4/06 page uses a CSS from 30/4/2006, so pages can and do display content from "the future" in WBM.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Resistor, do you know the date in 2006 when ceop changed their website? Even the month would be fine.

It changed between 21st and 24th April 2006

Thanks Chirpy, I found the answer on page 41 as well.
And Resistor (I was too slow in replying)

This is about the only thing I understand relating to WBM



Something else I've just noticed, some of the URLs dated 30 Apr 2007 are for articles after that date.

For example /news_items/article_20070514_ceop.htm

That's a date in the URL put there by CEOP, not Wayback.

CEOP had stored news articles in a /news_items/ folder and referenced the articles with a date in the URL - article_20070514_ceop.htm

So Wayback has given a date of 30 Apr 2007 to a load of articles that didn't exist on that date.



Just like it did with mccann.html and the two JPGs of Madeleine.

Ty Nuala.

Mimi wrote: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"

Sorry, but this looks like an invented character. I don't believe Richard Henshaw exists, simply by the content of his post. If someone is an expert in this area of IT, and gives his requested opinion on the technical matter without further knowledge or even interest, the person would not give statements about premeditation, because 1. He's not an expert at that 2. For saying such a thing, you have to first establish what the particular deed is, and then you have to decide on premeditation. That's not easy here. Especially when you're not interested.
The mention of BlueBag, and the shortening to BB also looks like someone from forumworld. Why would an expert who's opinion was requested, mention some nobody, some windbag, some probably typecasted entity, well, you know what I mean. Just picture an expert witness in a criminal court saying: "You're honour, I agree with a nickname called Burst, on internet somewhere."

It's probably some guy who lost his pot of blue ink and got bored.

Resistor, if you use Dr Martins search https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ceop.gov.uk/*
then spill it out to the likes of excel you get a very interesting read, there's a lot to find including web crawls on the mccann pages on 17th & 27th of this month. I'd be interested to see if you see something worthwhile.

ETA. As an example there was 1050 news articles captured 30/04 many have dates in the future (according to their title)
Eta2 the ceop grab shows a change of address between the above two dates where /html/ has been added prior to mccann

Some interesting stats re 30/04

3015 urls recorded for that start date 2945 for that exact day, 1032 news articles for that day (many have future dates), get advice is recorded 685 times. Interestingly enough http: www.ceop.gov.UK:80/ceop-report.asp has been crawled 3152 times between 30/04/06 to 7/02/15

Interesting post from CMOMM

No-one made the data available to Wayback, Wayback took it from the website.

The data that Wayback took was correct, but it's been archived with an incorrect date. Clearly no-one has asked Wayback to change anything because mccann.html had an incorrect date, which is now being corrected, so it wasn't corrected before, if you see what I mean.

Is the mistake only and solely limited to the mccann .html?

caricature wrote:Interesting post from CMOMM

No-one made the data available to Wayback, Wayback took it from the website.

The data that Wayback took was correct, but it's been archived with an incorrect date. Clearly no-one has asked Wayback to change anything because mccann.html had an incorrect date, which is now being corrected, so it wasn't corrected before, if you see what I mean.

Is the mistake only and solely limited to the mccann .html?

And the proof of this is where? Exactly?

Resistor wrote:

caricature wrote:Interesting post from CMOMM

No-one made the data available to Wayback, Wayback took it from the website.

The data that Wayback took was correct, but it's been archived with an incorrect date. Clearly no-one has asked Wayback to change anything because mccann.html had an incorrect date, which is now being corrected, so it wasn't corrected before, if you see what I mean.

Is the mistake only and solely limited to the mccann .html?

And the proof of this is where? Exactly?

The date? is it inserted automatically or manually?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Some interesting stats re 30/04

3015 urls recorded for that start date 2945 for that exact day, 1032 news articles for that day (many have future dates), get advice is recorded 685 times. Interestingly enough http: www.ceop.gov.UK:80/ceop-report.asp has been crawled 3152 times between 30/04/06 to 7/02/15

I'll have a look at the URL you gave me, HKP. I've been without internet for most of the day as BT have been digging up the road outside my house, and my little hub (which is usually a nice blue colour) has been going green and red and everything else all day