Well, Carol went off the radar for a while, but came back with more nonsensical blog posts.
Of course, most of these questions are easy to answer, and Carol does, indeed, know the answers. However, in case she doesn’t, I will provide them.
As I read the news about the sexual pedophile from Airdrie Alberta that groomed young girls for sexual favours, I wonder if he was involved with Amanda? Or did he know the group of on-line cappers that were talking to my daughter?
A sexual pedophile, no less. Well, there’s a lot to be said here. Firstly, let’s just get this straight once and for all. The ghastly pedophiles that most people think of are just that – interested in pre-pubescent children, down to as young as infants. In this case, it was a nine year old (don’t get me started about what the fuck a nine year old was doing online, unsupervised). Basically, Amanda would have been too old. The people who would have perved after Amanda are perverts, but the pedophile tag does not apply. Now…surely, if we are to believe the Amanda Todd story, all she ever did was flash harmlessly just once. And, according to many observers, she was 12 at the time. However, Carol now seems to acknowledge that her daughter was involved with Cappers who were talking to her online. Around 2010. When she was fourteen. So what’s the game? – the one in which it was just one flash photo? the one in which Amanda was ‘a celebrity of sorts’? the one in which Amanda knew the Cappers quite well – well enough to contact them? Carol seems to have not really spoken much about all this. That’s why it would help if she told the truth. In that way, many more girls would be protected.
How far did the RCMP investigate back in Dec 2010 onwards?
Just what, exactly, was there to investigate? If they had done the job properly, they would have known that Amanda went online voluntarily and that there never was any coercion or real predator behaviour. They would have found Bianca Nitoi and interviewed her – the same with Shylah Watson. (Let’s face it, if I can work that out, then surely they can?) It must be difficult for the police – just how do you explain to a mother what her child has been getting up to? My guess is that they didn’t want to – it’s far too complicated. So I guess that, at the time, they thought it would be a severe warning, and that would be enough. Little did they know that Amanda’s desire for attention and her parents’ woeful neglect would see the same rigmarole acted out over the next twelve months. And I would add another thing – investigating the story would have opened up a can of worms – Shylah’s family, Bianca’s family, and God knows who else. The police are never ones to like shaking the tree too much.
When the names appeared on Facebook, did the RCMP go ask Facebook to check the accounts?
Well, we don’t know what names Carol is thinking of, but I guess it’s the ‘bullies’. Now, there are two things here. Amanda must have known who these people were, as we assume that these remarks were left on her profile or on her page. (Later on, Carol mentions that Amanda actually conversed with these people). And secondly, to a certain extent, why involve the police in what was, at that point, nothing more than the misguided behaviour of young kids? Really, all that needed to happen was a combination of blocking, ignoring, and avoidance. If the police got involved with every ‘go kill yourself’ remark on Facebook, there simply would not be enough time to deal with everything else. It is odd that the computer-savvy Carol Todd never worked out these things for herself.
Did the RCMP search Amanda’s computer and social media sites?
Of course they flipping well did, and what would they have found? Mandaa&Shyy, the apprentice strippers. Videos of Amanda doing you-know-what. Videos of Amanda and her friends doing you-know-what. Videos of Amanda smoking weed and drinking. Just like the videos of Shylah Watson and Celia Hutikka and Sam ‘Hemphill’:
They would have found a ton of incriminating stuff – stuff that would have incriminated Amanda and most of her friends.
Why did they say that instead of searching into the United States (which was a timely endeavour), it would be more beneficial to just take Amanda off social media?
Well, according to the myth, yet again, the villain (imaginary) is on Carol Todd’s doorstep, so to speak. So why are they looking in the USA? For the idiot Viper? For r0ra? But what exactly are they searching for? Would they have been looking for the hundreds of people in the chatrooms that Amanda frequented? Would they arrest the kid who typed ‘just do it’ when she flashed? Would they, indeed, arrest Amanda for what she did? (That’s a minefield. Just how would the cops have coped with trying to explain that it was Amanda who was the purveyor of porn? A sticky wicket. Best avoided by all, which it was.). But you have to stifle a little amount of dismayed laughter with the ‘it would be more beneficial to just take Amanda off social media’ comment. Just what part of ‘get your daughter away from the fucking Internet’ did Mrs Todd fail to understand?
As for the Airdrie case, the FBI were the ones who were investigating after a complaint. If the IP led into the U.S., then ….
Now here we have something of interest. Carol Todd has never once spoken up to defend Kody Maxson and his family. Why? Because she’s a vindictive and selfish bitch, only ruled by revenge and victimisation. Why this sudden interest in the US? More smoke and mirrors. What is Carol trying to say in her usual befuddled manner? Just who are the police looking for? Bullies? An imaginary predator? We assume she is thinking of Viper. Or maybe not. But that’s hogwash. No imaginary predator, no matter how vile, can be held personally responsible for Amanda’s exhibitionism. What she did was all done proactively by her, and that’s undeniable. However much her mentally unstable supporters whine on about how she was forced to do whatever she did, that’s a pile of baloney, and I am sure most of them know it. Again, if the police spent time investigating every pervert who would have watched Amanda’s performances (Norm – just where were you?) they would be working until doomsday.
Who was Alice???
See today’s video.
What about the kids who cyber-threatened and harassed Amanda online up to August 2012. When Amanda asked the girl why she was still bullying her, the girl replied ‘Because I can’. The wall posts were telling my daughter to try harder to kill herself. And to drink bleach. And pics of bleach in a ditch or a wine glass. OMG .. like really. If there parents knew. Will there ever be any repercussions from that? Any restoractive actions?
This is interesting, as it shines a lot more light on things. The whys and wherefores of Amanda’s online harassment are complex, but we know that to a great extent she manufactured it for herself and she also could have avoided it quite easily. Yet here she is seen to be breaking one of the cardinal rules – do not engage with the haters, block them, ignore them, report them, but do not engage. The girl answers ‘Because I can’. Precisely. We don’t know where these comments were coming from, but they appear to be wall posts. On Amanda’s wall? That would be odd, as it can only be done by people on the friends list. And Amanda could obviously post there. On a page? It’s all a bit unbelievable – not that I don’t believe it happened, but why wasn’t it dealt with? And the real oddity is that all of this stuff – the bullying – appears to have peaked way before August, it doesn’t fit chronologically. Even if these wall posts were on other people’s pages/profiles, why read them? Why was Amanda allowed to ask the questions? There’s a lot of unanswered questions here. As for parents knowing things – how come Carol never knew what Amanda was up to? And why does she still want repercussions? She still carries this sense of revenge about with her, which is an understandable, but not necessarily good, thing. What does she want to happen? For these kids to be hunted down like criminals? And just bear in mind – ALL of Amanda’s friends, AND Amanda, would have very likely done loads of stuff that was reprehensible. Choose – are all kids innocent because they make mistakes, or are all kids guilty? Or, for Mrs Todd, is it only some kids who are guilty, and definitely not her daughter? Restoractive. Now that’s a new one. I think she means retroactive (for an ex-teacher, she’s not much cop at spelling). Yeah, I’ll go for retroactive action – to investigate Carol Todd’s supreme neglect.
As I read more and more stories, it gets me more p*ssed that kids are getting away with what they are saying and doing. Is it like the speeder who never gets caught. They are encouraged to do it again and again. Freedom of speech is a gift, not an entitlement. I certainly don’t buy the excuse ‘Oh, it was just a joke’.
I agree, Mrs Todd. Just how DID Amanda get away with everything she did? Online pornography, under-age sex, smoking weed, drinking, Ecstasy – I think you should demand an investigation at the highest level. Amanda was never punished, and got away with things that should have resulted in heavy fines at the least. Yes, she was just like the speeder who gets away with it. I certainly don’t buy the excuse of ‘I’m just a parent, so what am I meant to do?’.
Well hear this now, those words you thought were jokes, they can KILL!! And they did.
Nah. Neglect, ignorance and stupidity killed her. Yours, Mr and Mrs Todd.