Amendment: Things were still confusing at this time. If the Amanda Todd story was still newsworthy, I would re-write most of this stuff to add more precision. People were still convinced she only had one photo in circulation. It wasn’t really until the ‘Sextortion of Amanda Todd’ documentary that most people saw that there was more to it. I was also under threats while writing this, so there’s a certain amount of anger reflected in the blog.
So – here we go again. Nine days! Nine days (and more to come) to point out a basic storyline – Amanda Todd was a narcissistic liar. There’s no ifs or buts or maybes. There’s no ‘yeah, but no, but yeah, but no’ – there are no excuses. We know for certain that she was a liar – we know for certain that the one-off exposure was about as far away from the truth as it is possible to get. She was hated – hugely so. And I don’t mean just disliked, or just picked on for no apparent reason – she was genuinely hated by her peer group. There are a few vindictive people out there who will make nasty comments about anybody for anything, but the sheer scale of the venom poured out to Amanda shows the level at which people despised her. I shall return to the reasons why later.
Day 8 left off abruptly. We had already established that she was a liar by her reference to the one-off exposure and to her surprise that the supposed stalker was able to find out who she was.
But we have to look at things more closely. Is this video a relatively clever attempt by a kid to make herself look the victim? If so, it worked brilliantly. Or is she really just plain stupid? Did she not think that people might be interested in her, do the research, and find out all her online activity? Did she really not know that she had left such a footprint all over the Internet that even a fool would know where she lived? Was she not aware that, by going back online, she was essentially waving at all her haters, and the potential stalker, and holding up a big sign saying ‘It’s me, your target’?
Another question to ask here is: how much was she guided/misguided by her parents and those around her? Who let her make the video? Was she encouraged to do so? Was it seen as a cathartic exercise? I think that she was almost pushed to do it, but we will get to that later. Now, we will resume with the video.
At 1:29 into the video, we get the ‘Christmas break’ story which, surely, looks very odd. (By the way, we now know that this episode is on December 23rd 2010).
‘Knock at my door at 4am’. Extraordinary. Ask yourself: why would the police turn up at 4am? 4am seems to be very, very early to turn up to announce news. And why physically turn up – when a phone call would have been easier, and less intrusive. Even assuming that the family might be early risers, it’s still difficult to explain. The police would know that the family would most likely be asleep, or at the least a bit drowsy. And what possible catastrophe would merit a 4am visit? Certainly not one kid’s photo doing the rounds. What would have been going on in the preceding hours to precipitate such a dawn raid? If the police had suddenly become aware of the existence of photos, why was all this in the middle of the night?
This is my explanation, and I will seek to verify it later (I have to compile my supporting evidence):
There are various press articles saying that the Canadian child protection services were contacted. I draw your attention to this quote:
A national child anti-exploitation group, cybertip.ca, says it received a tip almost a year ago about Todd.
‘A concerned citizen contacted the organization last November to report that images of Todd were being circulated online, said spokeswoman Signy Arnason.
“We did receive one report, and that was passed along to law enforcement as well as child welfare,” Arnason said Monday. “It was not a report from her, but it was a report from a concerned citizen.”‘
The above text is confusing (this implies that the tips were received in November 2011, bit another article seems to imply that it was November 2010, which would make more sense). I will have to clarify it. But back to my explanation:
I believe that the police arrived so early on December 23rd, 2010, because it WAS a raid. I believe that Amanda’s notoriety had finally become too much, and her photos had gone semi-viral. The Capper Awards for that month (more later) had blown the lid on her exploits, and I believe that the police, either knowing what was going on or having been informed, were worried for her safety – thinking that her behaviour was so appalling that she must be under the influence of an adult exploiter. It was a dawn BUST – to prevent any evidence being destroyed, and perhaps even to catch the perpetrators in the act. They were shocked when it was just a kid – our online celebrity, Amanda Todd.
I also think that it was at this point that the ever-resourceful Amanda concocted the story to cover herself. Rather than confess to having put all the photos out voluntarily, and thus ending up in trouble, she made up a story about having only done it once, and that it must be a stalker. The credulous parents (only too willing to cover up their inadequacies) went along with this, and the dim-witted police didn’t bother to do the research. After all, how could such a sweet and innocent kid possibly be a serial stripper and liar?
At this point, I feel the need to digress slightly. This might appeal to anyone interested in the story on a deeper level.
I have contacted the parents – Norm and Carol – on more than one occasion. I have also contacted the police on four separate occasions. And not much of a response. They are fully aware of what I say, and have been invited to join in the discussion. Should any of this blog be considered worthy of civil action, I am more than ready to go to court.
I first contacted Norm when I saw his presence on an anti-Amanda Facebook page. I gave him kind advice: basically, stay away from Facebook if he doesn’t want to see all the pictures of his daughter and encounter the hatred that people have for her.
Later, he then arrived at one of my pages with a short and insulting post, containing bad language. He was invited to debate, to put his side of the story, or at least to offer something by way of a reply. It never came.
I left a few comments on Carol Todd’s blog. These highlighted some of the discrepancies in her story, and asked her to tell the truth. The comments did not get past moderation. She had ample opportunity to reply to me.
I left two comments on the British Columbia RCMP page, saying that the Amanda Todd story was a pack of lies, and that they were complicit with those lies. They were ignored. I left a further two comments – they were deleted, and I was told that they were considered to be off-topic and spam. I then wrote a highly critical email directly to the RCMP. There has been no reply.
So – what can I assume? That they ignored me, hoping I would vanish? Dismissed me as a misguided person? Or that they could not risk debating the issue? I think they are running scared.
Back to the video. ‘everyone’ has seen the photo. This isn’t surprising. In this day and age, it only takes one person to find a photo then, two minutes later, friends and friends of friends will see it. That’s the nature of Facebook and sending images. No-one should be surprised about how widely her photo was spread.
Next, we see the next fast-forward by Amanda. ‘I then got really sick’. Oh really? When did that happen? It certainly wasn’t apparent when, three weeks later she is STILL suspiciously online through Ustream as Mandaa&Shyy, she STILL has her YouTube isabella100555 channel, and she still has her Facebook and MySpace presence. No sign of her being really sick. Quite the opposite.
Ask yourself these questions: why, when the so-called stalker appeared, didn’t she tell her parents? She might have been ashamed, and wanted to keep it quiet, but her mother says they always were close and discussed everything, so why didn’t it get dealt with? At one point, mother also says she was aware of Amanda’s online activity. So why did they have to wait for the police to arrive? At this point, any normal family would have gone into lockdown mode – get off Facebook, get secure, don’t go on webcam, close all the accounts. The revelation would have been shocking. But no. Amanda is STILL massively online three weeks later, showing no signs of being frightened, complaining there’s a moderator, quite happy. No signs whatsoever of a reaction. Just what IS going on?
So – she get’s really sick? No, not really. Not yet anyway. And I dispute the term ‘sick’. Basically, she realises that she has been caught out, and is beginning to experience the consequences of her behaviour.
‘Anxiety, major depression, and panic disorder’. Really? At what point?
I have to admit that when I first saw the video, I found it heart-rending. Who wouldn’t? Yet another story – the flash-cards, the online hatred, the anguish. I fell for it. I was – for various reasons – interested. It was only later, after seeing more of the truth, that I realised it was all baloney. This was just the beginning of me seeking the truth, and it was to lead me into some horrible places – the Capper community, BlogTV, a world populated by troubled kids and perverts, and by liars and cheats. This was also the beginning of a sad and depressing set of questions – just where were the parents, the teachers, the friends in all this? How could they allow this troubled girl to get into so much trouble, and to dig herself deeper and deeper into a bad situation? And how have they managed to skilfully avoid any blame or further investigation? These are questions that deeply trouble me, and need answering.
There is little evidence of major depression, or anxiety, or panic disorder. I use this quote from her own mother, describing Amanda’s recent activity:
‘ I can honestly say that Amanda did call in her tickets. And when I groaned in my sleep, I always heard ‘But mom, you said that we could always call no matter what’. Well, I guess those were the magic words that make you crawl out of bed in your pj’s, grab a coat and get into your car to wherever you should end up. Yes, one night I ended up in the catacombs on Surrey to pick up Amanda and a friend. The story that night was ‘We met some boys at the mall and then ended up in Surrey and now there are no buses’. Never mind that 152nd and 78th is a long way from Port Coquitlam or Maple Ridge.’
What do we see here? More evidence that Amanda – now 14-15 – was hardly protected. Mother has gone to bed, so we assume it’s late. Amanda is not at home. Who cares? Where did mother think she was? Was mother concerned that her daughter was not at home? Obviously not. Amanda is somewhere off in the back of beyond. ‘We met some boys’ – well, that doesn’t do Amanda’s reputation much good – it fits her description of being a bit of a gallivanter quite well. But ask yourself this: mom has gone to bed. Amanda is…well, could be anywhere. What would have happened if she hadn’t phoned? Mom would have slept on. Really – I ask you – is this right?
But also look at what Amanda is doing. There’s no sign of social anxiety (in which people are frightened to go out or meet people); there’s no sign of depression or disorder. What there ARE signs of is ongoing delinquent behaviour, and the negligence of the parents. Remember – there are stories of drinking, sex, drugs. Hardly surprising, given such freedom.
But onwards. She moves. My guess is that she moves (just the once) from her dad’s house in Maple Ridge, back to Port Coquitlam with her mother. There must have been family problems – it is VERY rare for offspring to stay with dad rather than mom. But she gets into drugs and alcohol.
What? I repeat. WHAT? Drugs and alcohol? Does this not raise alarm bells? OK – where do I start?
We have a very vulnerable child. She has already got into a lot of trouble online, and is showing indications TWENTY MILES HIGH that she needs help and support. No-one is showing any signs of protecting her. I’m guessing that her parents were too preoccupied. She is 14-15 years old. But somehow she manages to get into drugs and alcohol.
Do we take this as a lie? An exaggeration? Kids have a tendency to have one sip of whiskey and then boast that they know everything about drinking; or they take one tablet or one toke of a spliff, and suddenly they are into drugs. If you’re trying to go for the ‘look at me, I’m a sad victim’ approach, it pays to embellish.
But what if it is true? We’ve seen the habits of Port Coquitlam youth earlier in the blog. Alcohol and drugs are prevalent. So who facilitated all this? Who supplied the drugs and alcohol? She was a kid, for God’s sake – it’s not like she could just go into the shop and buy it. Where the Hell was the parental supervision? Most kids have episodes where they get hold of alcohol from someone, it’s not a rarity; fewer kids have access to drugs. But to say that she got ‘into drugs and alcohol’ implies it wasn’t just a single event. At what point would you, if you are a parent, have gone into emergency mode? At what point would you have realised that she needed proper control and supervision? I’m finding this really hard to comprehend.
‘My anxiety got worse…couldn’t go out’. Really? – this stretches the imagination. I’ve already quoted that she was out gallivanting, but look for yourselves. Dozens and dozens of photos from this time, a video of her on a quadbike, descriptions from her mother that she was a friendly type, always surrounded by friends, she still has her YouTube channel. No overt signs of anxiety.
‘A year past and the guy came back’ (placing this event around December 2011). OK – it’s taking a lot of effort to stay with this increasingly bizarre story. What do we make of this?
We can only assume certain things have been going on in the background. We know that, even after the events of December 2010, Amanda remained online with her Ustream identity, Facebook, MySpace, and her YouTube channel. So she is still widely known online. I have assumed that her online nudity finished in 2010 but, of course, those images remain forever. But I can’t say for certain that Amanda had abandoned her risky online behaviour. The dates supplied by cybertip.ca are confusing. The more trustworthy report implies that they received a tip in October-November 2011 that her images were online. Was this referring to old images? or current ones? Other reports imply that cybertip got more than one tip over the 2010-2011 period. I will try to find out more. We also know now that Amanda is uncontrolled – she is severely lacking in protection and guidance. Who knows what she was getting up to? However, I will go with the story that, at this point, the online images are old.
So what’s happened?
Firstly, let me digress again. Online, people are frighteningly unaware of the risks. There is, I think, a person who reads this blog. I won’t mention her name. This is a person who I don’t know, and she doesn’t know who I am. She lives thousands of miles away. And yet, within a short time, I knew intimate details of her life – her children’s names and ages, her dog’s name, her age, where she lived, her phone number, her husband’s name, and secrets that only I and a few of her close friends know about. Too much. When bored, I play about – people are astounded when, in online conversation, I reveal details about them that they thought were well hidden. Some think that I am a ‘friend’ playing a joke. The more hysterical ones think that I am some sort of genius expert hacker. But no. Every bit of information is freely available to me via either their Facebook profiles or Google. They are simply too open to snooping. So – anyone wishing to ‘stalk’ Amanda would have found it shockingly easy, especially given the huge amount of information that she left lying around.
So – the ‘stalker’ returns with a new list. But it’s simply been lifted from Facebook. No skulduggery, no mysterious hacker powers, just simply taken from her various accounts online. He’s not a super-criminal.
But this is where it gets bizarre. Is it the same stalker? OK – let’s assume it is. Yet again, he would have a name – some sort of identity. Why does she never give a name away? She never says I was contacted by xxxx. Why? He’s made a profile (or maybe a page). What was he called on the profile? Or on the page? Why no clues? Fake stories never give names and identities.
But let’s assume he’s real. After another year, he comes back. This stalker is incredibly slow. He took the picture way back in 2009; he waited a full year to get round to blackmail; then he waits ANOTHER year before he contacts her again. Rubbish. He wouldn’t be that patient. We don’t even know for certain that it is the same guy. But – benefit of the doubt – let’s assume that he’s a slow, but persistent nutcase.
So he makes a profile with her boobs as the pic (note: there are some rumours going round that Amanda’s profile pics were not exactly decorous). Is that it? She doesn’t make much of it. Right – this profile wouldn’t last five minutes, even on Facebook. A quick complaint about harassment, or about the profile picture, would have it rapidly taken down. But there’s no overt stalking mentioned – no blackmail or threats. And still no police involvement, no further investigation into who it is. It seems to be a storm in a teacup.
So it’s theory time. We know that Amanda has enemies – she is strongly disliked. I’ve seen Facebook pages aimed at people who are disliked. They are made by people who know the person in reality, people who are close. I think that this is an example of that – somebody at her school, or who knows her, out for revenge. I will provide this comment from someone who knew her:
‘Im sorry but she was not bullied. She went to my school and she slept with a lot of guys. She bragged about showing her breasts and made fun of girls like me who had none at the time. She slept with a girl in my grades boyfriend and an older man as well, and then would brag about it. How is this considered bullying? She did it for attention. Just like anyone else usually does it. The victims of bullying at our school aren’t the ones who cry for attention, they’re the ones everyone ignores, and they sit alone at school. Do you research better next time. She is not a martyr. She is not a saint. She is not innocent, though it is sad. It’s even sadder when you have to throw all journalistic credibility out the window to appeal to the sheep masses of the new fad of bullying. I might just kill myself if I have to read another biased, faux article.’
There sure was a lot of hate out there! This is very similar to other online comments.
Back to the video. We’re at 2:45 out of 8:55. ‘Cried every night, lost all my friends and respect’. One word – codswallop. The one thing that keeps on being reiterated in the press is that she was surrounded by friends. Many of them turned up at her memorial service. So just what is the truth? My guess is that one of the reasons why her friends dumped her is that not only was she not very well liked in the first place, but she was too risky – at this stage, anyone who was also involved in her online activity (Shyy and the mysterious girl in the flashing video) would be panicking. Basically, she was persona non grata. The consequences of her actions are beginning to hit home, and she doesn’t like it. Time for more attention-seeking!
‘people had for me again’ – why? Basically, the existence of her pictures, coupled with her behaviour, makes her a target. That’s just the way it is – school life. She had made herself unpopular. Unfortunate, but that’s the way it is. She wasn’t a sweet innocent being picked on for no reason. She was an attention-seeking show-off who had overstepped the limits of her peers. She had basically doomed herself – with the help of her invisible and ineffectual parents, of course.
The first part of Day 9 is complete. I will resume soon, continuing with the video. Meanwhile, I will display a picture.
Thanks for your attention.