Tråden om Madeleine McCann (försvann i Portugal 2007)

An observation I would like to make is the lack of reporting of this in mainstream media. When one considers how eager mainstream have been to report continually on their front pages in huge letters to millions of people, the slightest piece of unsubstantiated hearsay on the case. It really does demonstrate their modus operandi when they ignore a potentially game changing story like this. Whatever side of the fence you are on at this time - surely it is news? For two and a half hours it seemed there was proof, confirmed in an email by a highly reliable organisation that CEOP must have known about Madeleine McCann on or before 30th April 2007. This fact, if it is true would have shown the whole official story to be a pack of lies, something which millions of people now suspect. Then there was a second statement by the same organisation claiming they got it wrong, and are now working to fix the issue. Many people understandably do not believe the second statement for a range of different reasons. Looking at ALL our mainstream publications - it is as if nothing has happened. A simple internet search for "CEOP 30th April Madeleine McCann" reveals there is no mainstream coverage of this issue.

There would have been no risk of libel for the mainstream with this issue. They could have reported it and sat on the fence. All they had to do was publish both the emails, then provide links to all the debate and discussion and perhaps get a few interviews with people on either side of the issue. But they chose to ignore it.

In my opinion they chose to ignore it because even bringing attention to this story would open the public's minds to the facts of the case. Facts which MSM have been helping to bury for the last 8 years.

To Mr Brewster Kahle
Director
Wayback Machine

23 June 2015


I wrote to your Office Manager Mr Butler on 17 June asking him three questions about your apparent capture of a page on the site of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.
This followed one email from Mr Butler (to Isabelle McFadden, 17 June, 9.47am) confirming that the capture was accurate and, moreover, attaching copies of what data were captured on that occasion.

The three questions I asked were:

1. Can you confirm when this page was first recognised and archived by your servers?
2. Can you also confirm what were the contents of the page read on that date?
3. Please can you provide the exact date and time?

He has not since replied, although in one of his three emails that day he did say that Wayback was investigating the matter.

I am asking these questions again because as you may now know the has been a great deal of interest about this 30 April ‘capture’ on a number of websites which closely follow the case of missing Madeleine McCann, since someone examined the Wayback Machine and apparently found a ‘mccann’ page on the CEOP site three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

On one Madeleine McCann forum, ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, for example, there have in the past 7 days been over 26,000 views of threads discussing Mr Butler’s 3 contradictory e-mails. On another similar site, Madeleine McCann Mystery’, there have been a further 16,000 views. There will be many more until Wayback provides a convincing and conclusive explanation for Mr Butler’s contradictory e-mails on this matter .

There has been on these two sites (and elsewhere) much technical discussion. It can be summarised as follows.
Many suggest that your ‘capture’ was perfectly accurate and consistent with some of the possible scenarios in this as-yet-unsolved case. A typical such post was this:

“Through all of these pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments 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”.

Others have come forward with a whole variety of different scenarios as to how an error might have occurred, if that is there ever was any error. These suggestions often conflict with each other and are fiercely contested amongst those who think there might have been an error.

I am not aware of any further e-mails or any statement yet by your company about the controversy raging about this capture on 30 April 2007. This must surely be of significant concern to you and many others as well. After all, as many have observed, if there was indeed an error affecting that ‘capture’ then:

* what kind of error was it,
* why did it happen,
* how many other similar errors have been made by Wayback
* and over what period of time?

Indeed someone asked the obvious question: Can we actually rely on Wayback any more?

Furthermore, concern has been expressed by some that they have reason to believe that you are not only trying to find out what the problem is (if any), but have been trying to ‘fix’ it and, even more worryingly, are altering the data you had captured. Some have observed that this amounts to the deliberate falsification of data. A further obvious concern is that if the 11.58am capture on 30 April is not correct, it is scarcely credible that only one fault, on this ‘mccann’ page, has been found. There must be others, and Wayback surely has a duty to its customers to fully explain the nature of any error.

If Wayback has any value, it must be accurate. Any errors must be fully explained: people have even been convicted of crimes on the apparent robustness of your data. If you have altered data in this case, how will anyone in future know whether the data they see on your website are the original data - or have been subject to all manner of amendment?

I should be glad therefore if you could please answer my queries or let me know when you will be in a position to make a full statement on this controversial issue.

Anthony Bennett