An interim post

Amendment: well, votes are in and I should be nicer, it seems. So this has been slightly altered to be more polite. Also, it’s odd. The person posts things and then deletes them. Very typical of a woman.

There have been some shenanigans on the above Facebook page. It’s run by a bit of a noob, who didn’t realise that the very mention of my name would bring the idiot bullies to her inbox, if you pardon the expression.

I guess her questions aren’t unique.

‘In the beginning, one stalker/blackmailer was mentioned, then in the Fifth Estate, two different names came up for people doing the same thing. Why the discrepancy? Were there any stalkers at all? If there were, how many, and were they doing the typical chatroom perv thing, namely aggressively asking or demanding for more, rather than stalking as it is known in the “real world”.

Indeed, in the video and throughout the history, it’s ALWAYS been one imaginary stalker. But we’re used to discrepancies (i.e. lies) aren’t we? There never was a stalker. How many more times to I need to say this? Amanda would have named him in her communications – she had plenty of opportunity, but never mentioned names. Any person online could have chanced their arm at ‘blackmail’ because Amanda gave all her details away, and they would have no problem in manufacturing a threat. So you’re right about no stalking as in the ‘real world’. And ffs THINK. Everyone already knew about the photos, so any blackmailer would have been stumped – ‘Do a show or I will…ermm…..send out all the photos that everyone has already seen’. Am I the only one who can see through this rubbish?

‘Why didn’t the parents take away two laptops and a webcam as soon as the cyberbullying/stalking was made evident by RCMP?’

Oh good grief! Hasn’t this been asked AND answered a million times? Because they were incompetent.

‘If there was a blackmailer/stalker, could it have been a peer or classmate who had already seen the videos? Alot of teenage boys watch webcamming girls on the Internet, including school classmates. Who sent the pictures to the family and to Facebook friends? That is central to the story. An IP trace would help.’

It would almost definitely be a peer or classmate. Why don’t you pay attention? Attention was drawn to the videos because Amanda and Bianca blabbed at school – it was no big deal, remember? On BlogTV, videos get archived by the user. Most likely scenario? A combination of BlogTV viewers, cappers, and schoolkids distributed all the info – not one single source. For Pete’s sake. It went locally viral, a parent or parents caught a kid looking at it, and she/he sent it to Carol Todd and family as a warning.

‘The girl was known to self mutilate, talked about it openly, and referred to it in her YouTube channel. Could she also have been into digital self harm? Setting up the blackmailer identities? The only way to find out would be the RCMP tracing the IP address(es). Has the RCMP done this? If not, why not?’

Aaaaaaaarrrggghhhhh! She WASN’T known to self-mutilate. She SAID that, but the picture on the video is a fake. Carol Todd also writes that she was PREVENTED from self-harm. Look at ALL the pictures – if you see any evidence of scarring or wounding…..erm….you won’t.¬† OK – keep it simple. Digital self-harm is a nice bit of ‘OMG’ stuff. It’s worth a minor thought, and she could have done it. Or even the Todds could have done it for attention. Now there’s a thought – Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. Did Carol Todd WANT it to happen? Back to simple answer: Amanda loved the thrill and attention of it all, and may well have encouraged responses from people online. We all know that she loved being both victim and centre of attention. Think of it this way: ‘Can I do anything I like, mom?’. ‘No’. ‘Not even if I’m being stalked and victimised?’. ‘Oh, go on then, honey.’

‘Why has the RCMP assigned 20 investigators, with no outcome yet? This either speaks to the competency level of the officers, or to information that they don’t wish to be made public.’

OK – RCMP panicked and overreacted, like so many others. They assumed it was the ‘stalker’ who triggered the event, and they had to be seen to react after the bandwagon. Then, by the time the myth had caught on, how could they possibly announce the whole truth? That Amanda wasn’t quite the little angel we all thought she was. The public wanted a hanging. My guess? They will wait until they think the story is dead before a final announcement, unless this documentary has provoked them. btw – I haven’t completely dismissed the possibility that the event never happened. We are still short of that funeral/inquest information.

‘If the webcamming started at a prepubescent age, to facilitate singing, was this so the girl would be discovered by a talent scout? The parents’ motivation would be interesting. Not clear. Eight years ago there was plenty of knowledge of Internet risk.’

This is a bit speculative. All the early pics are pretty yucky – cheerleader borderline-pervey stuff. Or, if you’re an idiot, then cute. Parents might have wanted her to find fame, but again – keep it simple. They were just too thick to realise what might happen. I think that maybe there’s no blame pre-2010 – it was after that, when things should have been done, that is odd. It was Amanda who wanted the fame.

‘Could the webcamming have interfered with normal stages of development, in terms of socialization with school peers, thus creating a basis for bullying later on? Was she addicted to it?’

Nope. Have you not seen ‘Mean Girls’, ffs? Amanda was, for a certain crowd, very popular and correspondingly very UNpopular for other groups. The webcamming was fun, it gave her ample opportunity to show off and brag, she just never realised that those who hated her (the girls she herself may have vilified) would get their revenge. Honestly, did you never go to school? Were you never a teenager? And for God’s sake – the bullying was about her having sex with another boy and basically being a big-headed sleep-around. The flashing had almost been forgotten.

‘The girl had a learning disability and other mental health issues. Didn’t this make her more vulnerable to Internet predators?’

Careful where you go with this. Being, for want of a better word, thick, does not necessarily mean mentally ill. Her ‘other mental health issues’ may have been simple teen behaviours (self-harm is de rigueur these days). The real mental health issues came later – after the attack at the school. However – she was VERY computer literate from a very young age, which doesn’t tie in too much with there being any intelligence problem. I don’t know for certain, but she does appear to be quite juvenile. At that age, some girls can have more sense than an adult, be quite street-wise, world-wise and sensible whilst others can still be just past the Barbie doll/OneDirection stage. I think she may have been a naive 14 year old who was in a group that was out of her league, mentally. BUT I think this is worth considering. Carol Todd never came to terms with her daughter not being of the highest intellectual calibre. Carol might even have felt some shame. We know there was no emotional bond. It was maybe Carol – by making an issue of Amanda’s abilities, instead of accepting them – who made Amanda feel that she would only be loved if she performed – and then, for someone else.

Finally: ‘Asking these questions is not bashing the parents. Doing so would be unconscionable.’ Bollocks to that. Carol and Norm forfeited any rights to respect more than two years ago.

3 thoughts on “An interim post

  1. That is an interesting theory Philip on Munchausen’s. It does take some intelligence to think of it. Only a Psychiatrist would be able to diagnose it, however. By the way, I finally got around to changing my user name, so people will no longer see “Amanda Todd Child Abuse Petition” but will see “Cyber Bullying Awareness and Advocacy BC” as the address. It took several tries. Please change your references to the page accordingly, thanks! And a big hello to John Golden! He is a reader of your page as am I. Not sure if “fan” is the right word. Noob? I’ll have to look that up.

    • I thought you might like it – the Munchausen syndrome. How many people would have got that? So far just me. SOME intelligence? Cheeky!
      I’ve now lost your page completely, but maybe I’ll relocate it soon.
      John Golden? You mean these people can read? LOL. They all read my blog – even they know it’s the only decent source of information.
      Tara Murphy’s pics covered by the new law? Interesting. One could argue that she published the pictures, therefore it would be more to do with copyright law. This new law will only apply to pictures that were intended to be private – hers weren’t. Now look again. This law is designed to cover sexting type of stuff between individuals – Amanda still wouldn’t have been safe, as either a link to her BlogTV archives would have been provided (thus not actually distributing the images) or she would have been seen as broadcasting – again, copyright rules. And of course, Amanda, under other new laws, would have been guilty of producing child porn. Anyway – I will cover that in another post.
      btw – posting about Tupac does not make you look cool.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.