HiDeHo communication with Wayback Machine

Title: HiDeHo communication with Wayback Machine
madeleinemccanncontroversy > WAYBACK MACHINE > Communications with WBM	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

For anyone who trys to dispute any of the timing or discussion between myself and Chris at Wayback Machine. and the reason he realised it necessary to update the previous email.

I called starting at 5am EST and continued calling in case there was someone to respond before their opening time of 9am. Just before 9am San Francisco Internet Archive (Midday Toronto time) answered and I was advised Chris from the legal department would not be there until 9.30am (5.30pm UK time)

I called back at PST 9.45am (UK 5.45pm) and spoke to Chris for approximately 30 minutes.

I first asked whether there could be a mistake on the page dates. He acknowledged that certain circumstances do create some issues and that it is automated.

I explained an overall description of the case and urged him that it was 'high profile' and in need of an urgent reply to prevent any damage that may be done by speculation. I also advised him of the importance for the answer to be correct as it could have serious implications

He acknowledged that he had returned an email to someone else but it was not based on the information that I had given him.

I 'gave him the CEOP website page which had several dates available for Madeleine page including April 30th

I pointed out to him that the link on the page was for the Help Madeleine website for downloading a poster. A website that did not exist until days later.

NOTE: THIS SCREENSHOT WAS TAKEN JUST NOW AND CLICKING ON THE APRIL 30TH DATE BRINGS UP THE PAGE FOR MAY 13TH. IT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED.

I then directed him to the HOME page for April 30th and pointed out that it had 'Latest News' for Ocober 2007 (six months later than the date) also that the home pages prior to April 30th and after April 30th had articles appropriate for the timestamp date. ONLY April 30th appeared questionable.

He acknowledged that the pages did not appear to be correct and that he would get his team to look at them immediately

I asked him to please send me an email with initial information about the validity of the dates and to please let me know the answers to the following questions as well as the above:

Why does a page exist for Madeleine on April 30th when she didn't disappear until three days later?

Is it possible for the source code/HTML to be tampered with?

Why did the source code have the same date of April 30th

(possibly more)

I continued to urge him about the importance, not only of the results but also of the time as it needed an answer quickly to avoid further speculation.

He assured me, although extremely busy day, he would work on it immediately and send me the first email so I could post it.

Our conversation ended about 10.20am EST (3.30pm UK time)

Once off the phone I saw the email that Isabelle had received and realised the time of his email was the reason he hadnt called me back earlier big grin

Knowing he had realised there may, indeed, be some issues with the timestamp I posted on HDH to let everyone know that an updated email was due based on further knowledge than the initial email was based on, and I added a few points that I had brought up with him.

I realised that the first email was gaining steam and that it had been sent to the PJ so I emailed again to once more urge a response of any kind because of the first email (to Isabelle) being taken as final result.

I waited for the email but it had not arrived by about 2pm EST (7pm UK time)

I called again but was told he was in a meeting and once again asked the person I was talking to to ask Chris to send ANYTHING to update the first email, or at least to let me know when I would expect one.

At 3.17pm EST (8.17pm UK time) more than 5 hours after Isabelle had received her email I received the following email. Posted and Twittered (I dont Tweet, I Twit and run) laughat

Since then I have seen all sorts of suggestions, from discrepancies with the time and Isabelle receiving hers after me, to some claiming the Archive were 'got at' by the McCanns and goodness knows what else....

I have tried to be precise about timings and what was said to diffuse as much as I can any further discrediting, though I would guess I will get it regardless.

For further proof of the receipt time I have included a screenshot of my inbox.

Now, hopefully that is enough information unless you want to know about my breakfast which is still pending at 6.45pm! sad

HiDeHo
Rank：Diamond Member Score：2851 Posts：2851 From：USA Register：26/01/2013 4:34 PM	Date Posted：17/06/2015 11:08 PMCopy HTML For anyone who trys to dispute any of the timing or discussion between myself and Chris at Wayback Machine. and the reason he realised it necessary to update the previous email. I called starting at 5am EST and continued calling in case there was someone to respond before their opening time of 9am. Just before 9am San Francisco Internet Archive (Midday Toronto time) answered and I was advised Chris from the legal department would not be there until 9.30am (5.30pm UK time) I called back at PST 9.45am (UK 5.45pm) and spoke to Chris for approximately 30 minutes. I first asked whether there could be a mistake on the page dates. He acknowledged that certain circumstances do create some issues and that it is automated. I explained an overall description of the case and urged him that it was 'high profile' and in need of an urgent reply to prevent any damage that may be done by speculation. I also advised him of the importance for the answer to be correct as it could have serious implications He acknowledged that he had returned an email to someone else but it was not based on the information that I had given him. I 'gave him the CEOP website page which had several dates available for Madeleine page including April 30th I pointed out to him that the link on the page was for the Help Madeleine website for downloading a poster. A website that did not exist until days later. NOTE: THIS SCREENSHOT WAS TAKEN JUST NOW AND CLICKING ON THE APRIL 30TH DATE BRINGS UP THE PAGE FOR MAY 13TH. IT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED. I then directed him to the HOME page for April 30th and pointed out that it had 'Latest News' for Ocober 2007 (six months later than the date) also that the home pages prior to April 30th and after April 30th had articles appropriate for the timestamp date. ONLY April 30th appeared questionable. He acknowledged that the pages did not appear to be correct and that he would get his team to look at them immediately I asked him to please send me an email with initial information about the validity of the dates and to please let me know the answers to the following questions as well as the above: Why does a page exist for Madeleine on April 30th when she didn't disappear until three days later? Is it possible for the source code/HTML to be tampered with? Why did the source code have the same date of April 30th (possibly more) I continued to urge him about the importance, not only of the results but also of the time as it needed an answer quickly to avoid further speculation. He assured me, although extremely busy day, he would work on it immediately and send me the first email so I could post it. Our conversation ended about 10.20am EST (3.30pm UK time) Once off the phone I saw the email that Isabelle had received and realised the time of his email was the reason he hadnt called me back earlier Knowing he had realised there may, indeed, be some issues with the timestamp I posted on HDH to let everyone know that an updated email was due based on further knowledge than the initial email was based on, and I added a few points that I had brought up with him. I realised that the first email was gaining steam and that it had been sent to the PJ so I emailed again to once more urge a response of any kind because of the first email (to Isabelle) being taken as final result. I waited for the email but it had not arrived by about 2pm EST (7pm UK time) I called again but was told he was in a meeting and once again asked the person I was talking to to ask Chris to send ANYTHING to update the first email, or at least to let me know when I would expect one. At 3.17pm EST (8.17pm UK time) more than 5 hours after Isabelle had received her email I received the following email. Posted and Twittered (I dont Tweet, I Twit and run) Since then I have seen all sorts of suggestions, from discrepancies with the time and Isabelle receiving hers after me, to some claiming the Archive were 'got at' by the McCanns and goodness knows what else.... I have tried to be precise about timings and what was said to diffuse as much as I can any further discrediting, though I would guess I will get it regardless. For further proof of the receipt time I have included a screenshot of my inbox. Now, hopefully that is enough information unless you want to know about my breakfast which is still pending at 6.45pm! HiDeHo MM Research Group Posts: 1678 Join date: 2010-05-07
Ex_Member	Share to: #1
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM	Re：HiDeHo communication with Wayback Machine Date Posted：20/06/2015 7:43 AMCopy HTML Perhaps the egregious Gamble could throw some light on this. You say Madeleine went missing three days later. Perhaps more accurately "was reported missing" three days later. But this certainly fits with the altering of the EXIF date on the Last Photo, which was clearly taken on 29th April.
HiDeHo	Share to: #2
Rank：Diamond Member Score：2851 Posts：2851 From：USA Register：26/01/2013 4:34 PM	Re：HiDeHo communication with Wayback Machine Date Posted：30/06/2015 12:50 AMCopy HTML I'm going to be as honest as I can here, at the expense of not being popular... I can see MY WORDS taken and scrutinised as if there is something to be gleaned from them if one reads between the lines.. There is nothing that should or should not be read into my comment about the phone call to Chris. He was very helpful, forthcoming with anything I asked and attempted to explain the issue but was (understandably) way above my head and the only word I recalled was 'subset' which I mentioned purely because I thought that may mean something to someone with knowledge. I am a very skeptical person and often try to read between lines myself but I am also able to have a normal conversation with someone when there is nothing to hide. (and also recognise if I am being 'conned'.) Chris was very forthcoming and helpful. There is no reason, whatsoever, to feel that my conversation had any more meaning than to ask if he could supply us with anything further than he had told us in my first email He basically said there really wan't anything further to add... They had been honest in recognising their mistake and had acknowledged it. He couldn't think of anything further to add. Recognising it was a high profile case and that he was barely familiar with it he saw that nothing he could add would be of benefit. I am sure their only concern is the website. There was no effort to avoid my calls, no excuses for anything and apart from the technical information that went over my head no attempt whatsoever to try to avoid anything I asked. There was a mistake and they acknowledged it. What more would he be expected to say? He gave me almost half an hour of his time and gave no indication that I was 'using up his time' He was very accommodating and with no other solution he could provide, suggested that anyone who felt it was important enough could resort to the police and he would be happy to respond... He wasn't hiding anything, he wasn't telling people to go to the police, he was merely showing he would be willing to help all he could. Any suggestions that he is 'involved' or 'complicit' are totally disrespectful to a man who has done his best to try to help. I have learned a lot from this. I went directly to WBM at the earliest time and have followed up with further phone calls. From my conversations with Chris, I am absolutely confident that WBM have no more involvement in this case than to have recognised a technical error. If anyone chooses to believe there is a big cover up and the CEOP website was in place by April 30th 2007, then thats their prerogative. My time and effort will be to continue focusing on the outrageous discrepancies in the statements in the police files.