Amendment: In the documentary ‘The Sextortion of Amanda Todd’ the extract from the video is very different – Amanda is actually very colourful. This does make me think that someone helped her by advising she tone it down. We know that the chronology is up the shoot.
I have jumped ahead a bit – forward to the crucial video of 2012. I have linked this and given more information on Day 5, so anyone new to the story should go there first.
Let’s get a few things out of the way. I firmly believe that the video is a pack of lies. I would stake my life on it. My main, and verifiable, assertion is that the whole story does what a lie does best. It takes things that, at first glance, COULD be true and that sound quite plausible, and embellishes them, and then takes things that ARE true – like moving home, moving school, drinking bleach, sex – and exaggerates them out of all proportion. This isn’t ‘my never-ending story’ – this is ‘look at me, I am an innocent victim’. Following my research, I have also reached another conclusion – that her suicide was faked.
So let’s closely examine the video. There are so many questions to be answered here so, yet again, I ask for patience. There has also been some misleading rubbish, which I will get to later.
Look at the video in toto. Is it a bit too good? We know from history that Amanda is like a lot of kids – she knows a lot about online technology. So it’s not difficult for her to set it up. But we also know (for those new to the story, maybe not) that she was not too bright. But the video would have taken time and patience. The accompanying score matches perfectly, and the accompanying text is quite good. Did she get some help and encouragement? And the setting is different this time. She’s not in her usual bedroom/home environment. It’s a stark, black-and-white setting – perfect for dramatic response.
Questions to ask: was she helped? was she encouraged? where was it made (bear in mind she was hospitalised around this time)? Also – more importantly: if you had a history of online problems, with a stalker who was still, supposedly, on the loose, and if you had received hate-filled messages wishing you dead, encouraging you to drink more bleach and so on, would you, seriously, start a video channel and essentially advertise yourself all over again? Also, as an important note at this time, wouldn’t your parents keep you away from YouTube, knowing all the trouble caused by previous activity? This is just one of the many, many times the responsibility of the parents will be thrown into extreme doubt.
Now let’s look at her appearance. People have said that she looks like she’s had her hair done for the occasion. They have also drawn attention to the fact that it is in curls, whereas in all other instances her hair is straight. They have also said that you don’t see much of her face – all of which suggests a fake person. Personally, I think this is just going too far. It is her in the video.
So let’s go through the video. Within seconds, we are into the lying, e.g. the one-off flash story. It is true that she went on webcam in the 7th grade – that really isn’t uncommon. And I’m prepared to believe that, at some point, someone or other flattered her – that’s not uncommon either. And I’m quite prepared to think that she might have innocently flashed – according to current trends, it would appear that ‘everyone’ has! But what is extraordinary is the massive leap forward to ‘1 year later’. Let’s just forget BlogTV, Stickam, Ustream, the video and other alleged activity – let’s just move on one year.
So – the first flaws. No mention of her existence as isabella100555 and the rest. And why would a stalker wait for a year? That’s odd. Imagine, if you will, that you are a stalker. Every night, you have hundreds of kids going online to choose from – the supply (depressingly, as we will see later) is huge. Why pick on one person, then wait a year? It just doesn’t fit. But let’s just assume that it’s some fixated nutcase. Why wait a year? Why not continue the grooming, as is so often the case? The fish has been caught – why not simply just reel it in? Online stalkers wouldn’t have the patience – they are after quick gratification, then they move on.
The more reasonable explanations? At one extreme, a lunatic stalker who IS prepared to wait a year, but that, really, is too absurd. At the other extreme (the one I prefer to believe) – there never was a stalker, and she made up this story to excuse her behaviour when the cops arrived. Somewhere in between – Amanda has become notorious, and, one year later, someone, perhaps in the Capper community, shows some interest in her. We will see which theory stands the test.
So – she gets a message on Facebook. And – bear with me as I hold my head in my hands – she writes ‘Don’t know how he knew me’. So – the notorious Amanda Todd, aka mandy_kinz11 from Port Coquitlam, aka isabella100555, aka Manda&Shyy, aka AnnouncingAmanda, aka cutiielover, with a hotmail account, with a MySpace account, with a Facebook account, with BlogTV, Ustream, Stickam, SingSnap accounts, with an online presence the size of the Titanic – she doesn’t know how he knew her. The farce begins here, surely?
So – ‘if you don’t put on a show for me, I will send ur boobs’. Just wait a moment here. This guy has left a message. But, to this day, we don’t know who he is. And neither does almost the entire Canadian police force. We don’t even have a pretend name. Why does she never, ever say ‘xxxx sent me a message’? That would just about wrap things up. If he asked her to put on a show for him, he would have stated more details – how would she put on a ‘show’? Skype? through one of her channels? How would it be arranged? He would, at the very least, have left some sort of name. Any name. But no.
It is a thing well-known – in any story that is a pack of lies, there is always a shortage of names. Events are easy to make up; experiences are easy to falsify; and, with no names, they are impossible to verify. If the story were true, she would have given a name. Watch out for the lack of names throughout this whole fiasco.
Next: ‘He knew my address, school, relatives, friends, family names’ Well, he would, wouldn’t he? Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge can locate information in a matter of minutes. Add the online data already widely available to what she is very likely to have shown through Facebook, and you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes. To give some people the benefit, it could mean that the person knew her directly. Rumour has it that she boasted about her online activities to her peers. Such extensive knowledge might point to someone she actually knew.
Abruptly – I must go. This will continue on Day 9.