Lie-day

Here is Carol Todd’s latest little escapade.

It’s 51 minutes long. If you have the time, view it all as some of the things discussed are important. It’s just a shame that it’s all overshadowed by Carol Todd’s lies again. It looks like the whole story has changed.

Listen to the first 10 minutes, which pretty much sums it up.

Carol says that Amanda was 13 when she went online and flashed. By my reckoning, Amanda joined BlogTV on November 26th, 2010, the day before her 14th birthday, but was probably active on TinyChat before that. So that’s true.  So we can kiss goodbye to any nonsense that she was 12 years old – that was ludicrous sensationalism spread by idiots. But just wait for the next bit.

We get the same old crap about the stalker/predator. Really? Does anyone still believe that? Carol Todd speaks of the ‘photo’ but we know that she is talking rubbish. How do we know? Because in her own words here, she says it was videos and pictures – not one photo:

http://on.aol.com/video/amanda-todds-mother-on-her-daughters-legacy-517717382

But just wait for the next bizarre addition to the saga. I try to get my head around all the variations on this theme, but this is new – in December 2010, Amanda had flu, therefore did not respond to the ‘stalker’, therefore he posted the ‘photo’. Flu – where did that one come from? She looked fine on December 17th.

So what next? Right. This ‘stalker’ posts to Amanda’s Facebook profile page. If that’s true, then the ‘stalker’ must be a friend of Amanda’s. Carol just says ‘page’ but she must be talking about her profile. Why? Because the post is seen by all her friends, and it is likely that all her friends will have been accessed via her profile – ordinary pages don’t display friend information.

And this super-secret ‘stalker’ also posts to Carol’s own Facebook messages. But we never get the name of this so-called ‘stalker’, do we? Carol never says ‘the message was from Mr XYZ’ does she? And Amanda never said ‘I am being blackmailed by Mr ABC’ when she had every opportunity to do so when she contacted the Daily Capper. Why is this? Especially as we find out later that this same ‘stalker’ keeps coming back like a yo-yo.

So it’s midnight. Carol has been sent the ‘photo’ and she’s just about to call the police when – miracle of miracles – they magically appear on her doorstep. And it’s not to say there is a ‘stalker’ – it’s to check up on Amanda and see that she is safe. Safe from what? A concerned parent would have reported the occurrence because they were worried about how on earth a young girl would be allowed to do such things, and that’s what has happened.

But of course, Amanda’s not there. Why? Because she’s living with dad. Carol Todd always conveniently overlooks the fact that super-mom was never around for most of the time.

Note: at 5:36 Carol Todd mistakenly says ‘video’ then corrects it to ‘photo’. Really, she should have this script memorised by now.

So what do we learn now? The police open a case, and Amanda is spoken to to get her to stop. Well, we all know how far that sunk in. But Carol isn’t sure that she stayed off or what she got up to. What she means is that Amanda continued doing what she did, regardless of all the police activity.

The story continues in much the same old Carol Todd way. If only it could have been laid to rest then (e.g. if only my daughter had stopped stripping). But we have a new slant on all of it. The ‘stalker’ now returns – regular as clockwork – every three months. But we still don’t know who he is. But what is odd is that we seem to know that this one individual bothers to make a special fake profile with which to befriend all of Amanda’s new school mates.

But ask yourself a couple of questions:

Question One: we are led to believe that this ‘stalker’ is a mysterious older guy. OK. And we are led to believe that Amanda would have been strictly warned not to give him any information nor speak to him ever again. OK. So he knows what school she is about to move to? Preposterous. There are only two possible ways he could have approached it. Either he would have had to contact every possible school in the district and befriend virtually every teen in the Vancouver area on the off-chance that he would cover every possibility (a hefty task by any standards) or he somehow knew what school she was about to attend. How would he know that?

Question Two: let’s assume that he somehow knows what school Amanda is going to attend. How the Hell does he then track down all the pupils in this school to say ‘hey, I’m about to attend your school, can we be friends’? It’s just too much to believe. In fact, it’s impossible.

The ONLY explanation that makes sense is that – if it ever existed – this profile actually belonged to a genuine kid who was about to enter the new school, and this kid knew who Amanda was. What better way to make an impact than to pass around her picture? But – if this kid did know that Amanda was to attend this school, then it had to be someone who knew Amanda well. Not a mysterious and very hard-working imaginary stalker.

So that’s that sorted.

And now for the next destruction of part of the legend. In the famous video, Amanda states that she moved because of the bullying and harassment. Of course, in my blog I have said that this is wrong, and she moved simply to be with the parent who happened to be in favour at the time. As usual, you can guess who was telling the truth. Luckily, Carol confirms that I was right.

At 9:38 Carol is asked how many times Amanda moved. She hesitates and says it’s three or four times (don’t you just love her precision?). But wait – that’s nothing to do with bullying and harassment – it’s due to parental moves. We now have it confirmed. She moves away from mom (Move One). She starts another school, living with dad. Dad buys a new house so she has to move school (Move Two).  Then it would have been Move Three back to mom in March 2012. Three moves – four schools. Due to parental disruption.

So that’s that sorted too.

So the first ten minutes sets the scene. But if you can, listen to the whole thing. Like I said before, there are some points worth listening to.

Just in case that, like me, you want to know more about the real vileness of Carol Todd, make an effort to listen to the bit at 21:40. Carol talks of Amanda’s heart-rending ‘I need someone. I feel alone’ plea at the end of her video. Carol, in her usual ‘meh’ fashion, dismisses it as ‘teenage stuff’. I believe her pleasant and caring parental virtues are astounding.

One last thing. Carol always talks of various websites. But why does she never warn people about them? She talks of Facebook and YouTube, yet never mentions Omegle, BlogTV, TinyChat, WickedCamChat, UStream, Dialogoo nor any other of the many channels on which Amanda appeared. If she had ever once tried to do what she should be doing – stopping young girls from going to these sites and stripping – then I would not be doing this. And why does she never campaign against these child pornography sites? Why does she never mention the cameracaptures site or any others? I can tell you genuinely – hundreds and hundreds of people have complained about that site and Amanda’s video through my blog (I estimate 10% of my view numbers) and regular readers will know that Amanda’s video disappeared within two or three days of me steering complaints in that direction. That’s more than the whole Todd Squad managed.

Oh and by the way. Look at the world map that appears in the radio interview video. Just where the Hell has Great Britain got to? It’s a disgrace!

Have a good weekend everyone! Tomorrow, I promise some humour. Cross my heart. Something nice for the weekend. Not Carol Todd.

2 thoughts on “Lie-day

  1. Minor notes here – with the demise of Stickam and the merging of BlogTV into YouNow, online pedophiles are complaining that their biggest sources of “win” have dried up. There is a disturbing increase, though, in videos of Omegle sessions now being posted on numerous sites. While it used to be possible in the past to send warning messages or advisories to accountholders, I don’t believe that’s possible with Omegle or Chatroulette, is it?

    And I’m still kicking myself for not having a copy of something Amanda said after the December 2010 police visit. I KNOW she stated that her mother had ceased speaking to her, but of course there’s no way to know now who would have been telling the truth – they were both accomplished liars. I’m regretfully thinking it was something she said directly to me in Youtube, a message long ago deleted.

    • It is one of my theories that Stickam and BlogTV have merged as ‘YouNow’ to give themselves a more family-friendly name after bad publicity, but it might also be just to make economies. It is also a theory of mine that they both feed captures to other websites run by them for basic porn income. Is that too far-fetched? The income from porn would be much higher, I guess.
      As far as I’m concerned, all the sites like Omegle should be tightly controlled. Any underage events should result in a ban for the site. Simple as that. But it has also gone through my mind that the parents should get in trouble. In the UK, if kids play truant, the parents get fined. The same thing should apply to all this online stuff. If the kids are caught, the parents get fined. That should maybe scare these shitty parents into action.
      I’m not sure of what happened with Carol and Amanda, but this is a rough guess:
      Carol was aware of the shenanigans, and was at her wit’s end. She responded by clamping down. In the background, there were marriage problems. After Carol clamped down, Amanda chose a soft option of living with father, who was more lenient – and probably more stupid. With Norm, things got worse, as he spoiled her and she was indulged.
      Amanda thus becomes a sort of pawn in the game.
      When Amanda continued with her performances, culminating in yet another warning in November 2011, the problems resulted in yet another move back to Carol – thinking that this would be a solution.
      However Carol, afraid that she would lose her daughter again, opts for a hands-off approach, allowing everything to continue. This was to prove even more disastrous – like allowing an alcoholic free access to drink, in a way that was like ‘if you can’t beat it, just let it happen’.
      One of the reasons Carol won’t tell the truth is that she doesn’t want to come to terms with the fact that a) she failed once in 2010, and lost her daughter’s love b) she wasn’t around when it was important, preferring to build her new relationship and c) she failed big-time second time round, resulting in Amanda’s ultimate demise.
      Carol is seen as this sort of super-mom. To admit that she had any failures would not only just destroy her image held by other people, but would destroy her own self-image.
      The whole story is really quite tragic – like a Shakespeare play for the 21st century. But Carol would achieve so much more if she told the truth, she just doesn’t realise that. The public likes a saint, but not a show-off – but there’s nothing they like more than a fallen idol who repents and tells the whole story.
      Thanks for commenting, Roy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s