Paula Todd’s writing about Carol Todd in her book suffers from two major problems: her own hopeless inability to check the sense of what she writes, and the central subject which is, in itself, a pack of lies that demands heightened attention to detail.
The Macleans piece is head-shakingly bad. Just what has happened to journalism these days? It seems to be full of idiots churning out mind-numbingly unresearched and unchecked copy, then publishing it for all to see as if it is some kind of big deal. I will more than likely come back to the rest of the article later on in the week, but for now I will just examine the ridiculous Carol Todd nonsense. The rest of the crap can wait.
So. I ask you to think about this:
‘Seven months after Amanda’s death, I asked Carol Todd to take another look for any evidence of the bullying and extortion.’ Fair enough.
‘Todd had recalled that Amanda had borrowed her laptop. In the computer’s trash, she found Facebook posts Amanda tried to delete.’ OK. Doesn’t that ring some alarm bells? Seven months later Carol Todd suddenly decides to look in the trash and finds posts Amanda tried to delete? It just doesn’t ring true.
Let’s think. How would Facebook posts end up in the trash? It simply doesn’t happen. On Facebook, you can only delete either your own comments or things on your timeline or page, and they don’t go into the trash. Any simpleton knows that. Except experts like Paula Todd and Carol.
For comments to end up in the trash, they would have to have been either screen-capped or subjected to a cut and paste job. But why would that have happened, and why did they end up in the trash on Carol’s laptop seven months later, and why would Carol decide suddenly to look there?
OK. Let’s make up a story. Amanda sees the comments while using her mom’s laptop. But then what? She copies them for some reason and then deletes them. Did she send them to someone? It’s unlikely, as she could have just directed people to the Facebook location. Why, having read them, would she copy them and then delete them? As usual, I would love someone to help me out here by commenting, but that never happens. All I can do is apply my own quite sensible rule – if something doesn’t make sense after every attempt to make sense of it, it’s a lie.
Here is my theory. If you have a laptop and you are, as Carol Todd has called herself, quite tech-savvy, you would maybe empty your trash more regularly. However, we’ll give Carol the benefit of the doubt. So. Seven months later, having not bothered about emptying the trash, someone asks about evidence of Amanda’s bullying, a light bulb lights up over your head and you say ‘I know what I’ll do. I’ll look on the trash on my laptop’. Does that make sense? Never in a million years. Another rule: if something seems extraordinarily far-fetched, it’s a lie.
I have a big suspicion – supported as usual by observation and experience – that Carol and/or Amanda falsified this evidence. It is just too peculiar that it shows up by some miracle seven months later. But people can make up their own minds. And bear in mind that Carol has always said that she knew who the bullies were, so it wouldn’t take much for her to fill in the names to make it look believable.
Paula Todd then writes this bilge: ‘I’ve given them pseudonyms in consideration of the ongoing investigation’. There is no ongoing investigation concerning bullying. Like I said – Carol and Amanda knew who these people were, there’s no big Sherlock Holmes inspection going on. Rumour has it that all the bullies involved have been dealt with. It’s all fiction.
However, all the Todd supporters will still be finding some excuse for all this, pretending that Carol was capable of suddenly having the idea to look in the trash, and that there is some ongoing investigation. So I deliver the ‘wtf?’ punchline as usual, in this utterly give-the-game-away statement:
‘Carol Todd says the RCMP had taken Amanda’s computer as evidence after her death. “They would have checked the deleted material, right?” She sounds incredulous as the information sinks in.’
What the Hell does that mean? Look closely and ponder. Earlier on on the article, Carol Todd says the ‘evidence’ was on HER laptop, One minute the deleted material is on Carol’s laptop, next minute it’s on Amanda’s? Can anyone explain what this is on about?
When lying, people always make huge mistakes. When writing piss-poor polemical books, the over-zealous author tends to overlook glaring errors. If this evidence was so shocking and incriminating, why did Carol Todd choose to share it with Paula and not the police? I’ll tell you why – because it’s faked.
Thanks for your attention.