CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

caricature wrote:

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The data that Wayback took was correct, but it's been archived with an incorrect date.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?

Automatically. It brings me right back to page 1 of this thread. Prove that the date is "wrong". Or I'm not interested in any subsequent arguments.

Thanks another thought, the supposed correct date is when?

Surprise surprise! The server that serves the file I just clicked on from HKP`s link above is down. I just picked one of the items under April 30 2007 at random but suspect they will all say the same.


Show All



Bummer.


The machine that serves this file is down. We're working on it.


The machine that serves this file is down. We're working on it. Details: cuil7-domainshard-corpus5-large-merge-rev1.23656-of-25000/domainshard-corpus5-large-merge-rev1.23656-of-25000.v1.arc.gz

That happened to me earlier on this week Chirpy. I don't think it's anything suspicious. I was looking up some old copies of Metro and Portugal Resident, amongst other things. It looks like a rolling program of routine maintenance.

Why would the police be interested?

caricature wrote:

Why would the police be interested?

That tells us absolutely nothing.
He's basically saying that if anyone feels a criminal offence has been committed, call the police.
And he's still using terminology that he clearly doesn't understand.

Resistor wrote:

caricature wrote:

Why would the police be interested?

That tells us absolutely nothing.
He's basically saying that if anyone feels a criminal offence has been committed, call the police.
And he's still using terminology that he clearly doesn't understand.

Sounds to me like it's already been handed to the police, along with data and information, and the police have said, please don't comment further on this as it's an ongoing investigation.

Put it this way, he says he's "aware of the speculation".
Then he must also be aware that the "speculation" is being fuelled by some very knowledgeable people (more knowledgeable than him, anyway). And that the speculation is not going to be ended by simply fobbing us all off with "there, there dears, it's just an error" and "something to do with a subset, don't worry your pretty little heads about it".
In fact that's just likely to make the suspicion and speculation even worse.
TBH I'm surprised he still has a job.

I may make myself sound stupid and I don't know who this Chris fella is but if a wayback machine records a certain happening as 30th April 2007 I can't see how that can be any mistake.  How can it record something that should have happened on 3rd May 2007 as 30th April 2007?  It doesn't seem possible to me.

Is this why Jim Gamble has been so supportive of the McCanns because he knew what had been posted on the CEOP website on 30th April and had been captured by the wayback machine but was hoping it would never come to light.

Just my suggestions/opinions of course.

He's the Office Manager, DFM. Not the Datacentre Manager or a Systems Architect or even a lowly junior programmer. It sounds as though he's just repeated what somebody actually working in the boiler room has told him to say ("something about subsets"). And all his emails are nothing but office-managery waffle. There's nothing technical about any of them that actually explains anything at all.

If I was sick and went to the Doctor's, I wouldn't be interested in the opinion of the receptionist.

Resistor wrote:

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

What is of interest is that 30/04 is a crawl start date, 2006, 2007, 2008 all crawled on this date but 2006 & 2008 show nothing for that day. It's clear something is not right there are news article (1032) where the same title is repeated around 29 times (each one has a slightly different url name). This all however does not prove that mccann. html was not present on 30/04/07 or that it was, only WBM can answer this

ETA. Some of the articles (there is quite a few) are dated post 30/04/07 in their ritle

Resistor wrote:

Sorry if telling granny how to suck eggs:- have you downloaded the search results?

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:

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

What is of interest is that 30/04 is a crawl start date, 2006, 2007, 2008 all crawled on this date but 2006 & 2008 show nothing for that day. It's clear something is not right there are news article (1032) where the same title is repeated around 29 times (each one has a slightly different url name). This all however does not prove that mccann. html was not present on 30/04/07 or that it was, only WBM can answer this

ETA. Some of the articles (there is quite a few) are dated post 30/04/07 in their ritle

Sorry to appear dim but I have to ask, why would 30/4 appear as a crawl date, but not say 30th March or 21st March with regard to the CEOP Madeleine info, especially as 30th April seems very silent on what the Tapas lot were or were not getting up to, they've all glossed over it in their statements.  It all seems very hush, hush for that day between the whole lot of them.  I have a very curious mind so am just asking.

No, is there somewhere you click for a CSV?

Resistor wrote:No, is there somewhere you click for a CSV?

I just right hand clicked and it gave me the option, if it doesn't work I can send you my copy (I only have a tablet now as my laptop is kaput but downloaded and e-mailed to myself from work pc at lunchtime of course)

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:

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

What is of interest is that 30/04 is a crawl start date, 2006, 2007, 2008 all crawled on this date but 2006 & 2008 show nothing for that day. It's clear something is not right there are news article (1032) where the same title is repeated around 29 times (each one has a slightly different url name). This all however does not prove that mccann. html was not present on 30/04/07 or that it was, only WBM can answer this

ETA. Some of the articles (there is quite a few) are dated post 30/04/07 in their ritle

Sorry to appear dim but I have to ask, why would 30/4 appear as a crawl date, but not say 30th March or 21st March with regard to the CEOP Madeleine info, especially as 30th April seems very silent on what the Tapas lot were or were not getting up to, they've all glossed over it in their statements.  It all seems very hush, hush for that day between the whole lot of them.  I have a very curious mind so am just asking.

There are other crawl dates I was just demonstrating that 30/04 has a pattern and the 2007 is the biggie.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Resistor wrote:No, is there somewhere you click for a CSV?

I just right hand clicked and it gave me the option, if it doesn't work I can send you my copy (I only have a tablet now as my laptop is kaput but downloaded and e-mailed to myself from work pc at lunchtime of course)

I didn't get that option I'll PM you with an email addy.

canada12 wrote:

Resistor wrote:

caricature wrote:

Why would the police be interested?

That tells us absolutely nothing.
He's basically saying that if anyone feels a criminal offence has been committed, call the police.
And he's still using terminology that he clearly doesn't understand.

Sounds to me like it's already been handed to the police, along with data and information, and the police have said, please don't comment further on this as it's an ongoing investigation.

Quite.

here's another little thought for you :0
Chris Butler says he is "aware of the speculation", well if he is aware of it then so are Gamble, the McCanns and CEOP.
And the only thing we are hearing from that direction is the sound of the tumbleweed rolling up the main street.
Where's Pinkie, why isn't he screeching to any paper that will listen, that it's all just a ludicrous conspiracy, it's not possible, his clients are innocent and that Maddie is still alive and findable?
Or can they not do that, for some reason???

There's this.


https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/611446745566945280

Mo wrote:There's this.


https://twitter.com/JimGamble_INEQE/status/611446745566945280

I read that too Mo, strange there have been no recent tweets on the subject since 17th June.

Oh, dear. Where would one even start. Maybe the words of the late Mandy Rice-Davies would be most appropriate here.

"Well, he would, wouldn't he."

Resistor wrote:

Oh, dear.  Where would one even start.  Maybe the words of the late Mandy Rice-Davies would be most appropriate here.

"Well, he would, wouldn't he."

It's interesting that he's put 'deluded' in quotes as it suggests that he doesn't think they are deluded

Try explaining this:- 30/04/07 from the 2495 urls captured (according to the Dr Martin search) there are a number of repetitions,
for example.

Madeleine ceopupload com appears 9 times
Get advice mobiles good html appears 27 times
News items/articles appears 22 times
Press releases 2007 appears 22 times
There are plenty others however………

Madeleine 01 jpeg APPEARS 1 TIME
Madeleine 02 jpeg APPEARS 1 TIME

If Madeleine JPEGs had been repeated then some random error which repeated links would look likely however one capture of each when plenty others have multiple copies (it should be noted that each repeat has a slightly different url but not in the page name)