Have a good weekend!

Good morning!

I hope you all slept well, and are feeling fine for the weekend.

This post may not say much today. For a bit of background, I have a lot of work to do today. I have a habit of accumulating washing up and tasks, especially when my human dish washer is away on holiday. There’s only one thing more frightening than all my haters – and that’s the cry of  ‘Just exactly what DID you do when I was away?’. Apparently, washing up, doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, or doing a quick Hoover is more important than this blog or watching TV. I don’t think so!

I’ve got to make vegetable soup (so as not to waste the veg that I couldn’t be bothered to cook); I’m going to make some flapjacks; and all that after cleaning 722 mugs that seem to be lying around the house. Well – probably more like ten.

But – as you can probably guess from the tone of today’s post – I need to get away from it for a while. It can be depressing, especially if each day brings more lunacy from Amanda Todd supporters, and one particular person. During the next few days I will recap where we are in all this, more for my sake than the reader’s.

I have been tempted to show more pictures of Amanda Todd ‘doing what she does best’ in the words of the Capper community. This would be mainly to seek to show that what I have said is true, because there are still people out there who believe the ‘one-off’ photo myth. But I’m not sure if that’s necessary. Most people are aware of the existence of photos, and I hope that most people, even if they have not seen these photos, trust me enough to know that they exist.

What I would like to know, though, as I have asked before, is this: who was the girl in the earliest video? Shania or Sophie? Surely, she would have come forward to tell the truth? I am thinking that it might have been Shania or Sophie who first blew the story. Thirteen or fourteen year old girls are not renowned for their ability to keep things quiet. I think that Shania or Sophie (or perhaps even Amanda) simply went to school and told their best buddy ‘You’ll never guess what we did last night’ – best buddy told another best buddy, he/she told another – you know what it’s like.

So I’m being a bit lazy today. I have cut and pasted two of the emails I sent – one to the police, and one to the Vancouver Foundation. I have sent others. And my video post for today is a bit of weekend humour.

To the police, January 27th, 2013, headed ‘Complaint about your handling of the Amanda Todd case’. There has been no reply.

‘I’m finally writing to you to complain about your handling of the Amanda Todd case. I will try to be brief.

Firstly, I am shocked by the lack of information you have provided to protect Kody Maxson. You are no doubt aware that there are Facebook pages and YouTube videos accusing him of various things, but I cannot find any attempt by you to try to stop this. There was one announcement way back in October, but since then you have gone quiet. You could quite easily provide updates on your Facebook page, and I can find no trace of anything on your website.

Secondly, why no updates on the Amanda Todd case? You have had ample opportunity – since December 23rd 2010 onwards – to find information you may need. You have, supposedly, had a full team on it since October. But nothing reported – not even a ‘still looking’ update. You supposedly monitored all the Facebook/RIP pages, but that is doubtful, as you would have been allowing ongoing scams. But your email address seemingly remains open for ‘tips’, whatever they may be. Rumour even has it that I, myself, have been reported to you, but you’ve not got in touch. I even left a couple of comments on your Facebook page, but no response.

Thirdly, I am going to up the ante here. I have done a lot of research on this – all the way from Amanda’s first appearance as mandy-kinz, through Mandaa&Shyy, the appearance of her video on cameracaptures.com, one Hell of a lot. This has led me to believe that a vast portion of the story has been faked or, at the very least, covered up with lies. And therefore, it would lead me to believe that you, the BC RCMP, are, in some way complicit with a certain degree of fraud.

I would value your response, and thank you in advance for your attention.’

And an email to the Vancouver Foundation, March 9th, 2013. I have also contacted them again this week. No response.

‘Dear Faye,

I am writing to you because I am extremely concerned about the messages that Carol Todd seems to send though her blog.

I am mainly referring to this blog entry to be found here for February 18th, 2013 – http://caroltoddsnowflakes.wordpress.com/2013/02/page/2/

This is the quote: ‘So, looking through all the pictures of Amanda and her friends, I was happy to see her in good times, fun times, drunk times and even stoned times. Yes, she told me about the times she ‘blazed’. I commend her for being honest with me. There are still alot of her friends that find it hard to talk to their moms and/or dads. Amanda’s blazing was just a small piece of her life and problems. As we all say ‘We (as parents) pick our battles, and that wasn’t one I was picking.’ She wasn’t operating machinery or driving a car. So it wasn’t such a big one to me. Also, my friends who are parents and are around my age, what exactly did you do when you were in your mid-teens? I know that I wasn’t exactly honest with my parents and I did things that were quite similar to what teens do today. Did you? Now be honest with yourself… LOL!!!’

There are other similar indications of what I can only term as being Amanda’s dangerous behaviour throughout the blog and – indeed – throughout her life. However, if we put to one side just what Miss Todd was allowed to do, perhaps it is important to look at the possible connotations of this blog statement. To me, it seems to accept the fact that Amanda Todd smoked marijuana as something of little importance. Indeed, she says ‘it wasn’t such a big one to me’. It in no way attempts to explain the pitfalls of marijuana, especially for a young, vulnerable teen, and it in no way seems to say that this illegal activity was worth bothering about.

Carol Todd is free to say what she wants, and to parent in the way she wishes. But this blog is being used as part of the Amanda Todd Legacy and thus falls under some responsibility from you as head of the Vancouver Foundation. The blog is read by people not just looking for a story, but also for some sort of advice or learning experience. It may also be read by teens. Evidence has shown that, in cases where there are young teens with mental health issues, marijuana is extremely damaging. Yet this blog has done nothing to show the perils of drink nor drugs – simply writing a statement such as the above and finishing it with a LOL.

I believe that the Vancouver Foundation has a duty to bring the harmful aspects of marijuana to the attention of the readers of this blog. Indeed, as a charitable organisation, it has many duties, and warning about the use of drugs must surely be one of them.

I have already complained twice to Peter Jackman about the complexities of the Amanda Todd case and how badly it has been handled – leading to problems such as suicide ideation, and condonement of destructive behaviour patterns. However, maybe up until now, that has been ignored as being too judgmental. I also believe that the Vancouver Foundation has been too hasty in using the Amanda Todd story as a source of revenue and publicity. However, I feel I can no longer just sit idly by and let this sort of thing happen, and this attitude to the use of drugs was the final straw.

I would be grateful for any response you might give. A simple addendum to the Carol Todd blog would be sufficient – warning about alcohol and drug abuse. Unfortunately, I feel that I will be forced to take this further if this problem isn’t dealt with.

Thank you for your attention.’

To all my readers – thanks for reading this. Have a nice day. Hope you enjoy the video.

The continuing saga of Amanda Todd – Part Two for today


This is a screen capture of a conversation with cutiielover (aka Amanda, of course). In this conversation, Amanda was actually talking to her viewers, so it is difficult to know what was said. However, I have made intelligent guesses where necessary, and it should be relatively obvious from the tone of what was written that the subject matter was Amanda.

The screen capture should be seen in conjunction with the video, which has now been removed from cameracaptures and may no longer be available. In the video, Amanda is having fun. There is no hint of coercion or fear. After her flash, which happens during the conversation, she is seen to laugh, and she remains online for some time after that. As news spread, the room reached 191 viewers, which she would have known from her screen information provided by BlogTV.

As far as I know, this screen capture has never been published before. So let’s start.

The date at the top is given as December 18th, 2010, GMT. This means that in Canada it would have been late evening, December 17th. Six days before the police arrived at her house. It is twelve days after she went online and announced that her photos had been spread about by her friends (see earlier posts in this blog). So it appears that, for some reason (I’m guessing addiction to the attention she received), she still continues.

It is believed that during this conversation, Amanda liked to talk about herself. She allegedly referred to herself as being a slut in response to questions. I am not sure what had happened before all this, but I can guess that she was also on TinyChat, and may well have performed a few times before this date. Just how much is unknown, but for a room to attract so many viewers so quickly is indicative that they knew she would flash. She was infamous by this time.

XoX writes: tell (an invitation for her to tell the audience about her). Someone writes ‘nope’.

Someone – a commenter or Amanda – must have said she was flat-chested, because Rya*** writes: ‘no u arent flat’.

Someone writes: ‘we have the hottest girls here in Canada’. People knew Amanda was from Canada. People would have known Amanda’s details.

‘you***’ writes: ‘you are smexy, be serious?’ The word ‘smexy’ means ‘smart and sexy’. I think Amanda might have said this about herself, and this was the reply.

‘flat? I dont think so’ – then ‘TINY SUCKS NOW’. This would have been discussing Amanda’s appearances on TinyChat, I believe.

‘that looks nice ;)’….’can’t tell with your shirt on’…..’nice boobs’ – the stage is being set up for Amanda.

Is Amanda trying to build up the audience? She allegedly used to say that she would flash when she got to a certain level of viewers.

‘being a tease helps though’ – I believe that Amanda knew her audience. She knew what was going on. At any point, she could have closed the room, ended it all, turned away. But she didn’t.

‘USTREAM IS BETTER’ someone says. Amanda was also on UStream with her friend – as Mandaa&Shyy. She was everywhere at this point.

xxF*** asks to see something ‘real sexy’. He knows what is going on, and is probably getting impatient.

Someone asks her bra size, and then XoX*** has a guess ’32b?’.

Someone asks her to put on something ‘exsay’ and to tease.

Now there is a slight change in the atmosphere. Amanda’s on probation by BlogTV. She has been warned, and her account could be banned. People know this, and know that anything serious will likely result in her being thrown off. In fact, she was very shortly after this, only to return again as ‘Announcing Amanda.’

Zap*** says something that could be taken two ways. He is either telling her to swap rooms – to get out and stop, to get away from the situation – or to possibly to go to another less crowded room where the chances of a ban might be less. As I have said before, nobody knows whose side Zap*** was really on. He was well-known, and a suspected double-agent – either a pretend-Capper who was a hero, or the other way round. It’s complicated.

Amanda must have answered about her bra size – she must have said 32C. XoX*** says he was close….’lol’…..then Sky*** says ‘C is nice’.

XoX blames it on the dark shirt. Jas** says that c is perfect. abs** says ’31g’.

ste*** says: ‘only ops can switch rooms’ I don’t know much about that.

lef*** says something I don’t understand fully. But he does say he remembers her, which implies she is well-known.

At this point, I’m not sure what happens. you*** says ’32C is not small at all’. Maybe Amanda has complained that they are small.

jas says ‘nice’ but I’m not sure what is ‘nice’ at this point. As far as I know, this chat is building up to flash. Nothing has been shown at this time, I think. So I’m a bit lost as to what is going on. Just what match her undies? Has she displayed her undies? And at the end, just what is out of focus?

That’s the end for today. I would like to simply rush through all this and get it out of the way. But I know that viewers tend to like to digest bits at a time. This screen cap will be mentioned over the next three days.

As usual, it leaves many problems, but shines light on a lot of things. I have said before – the idea of a ‘one-off’ innocent flash is now out of the question. We now know that it was her friends who got hold of her picture and passed it round. We can’t be sure of who of her friends first came across Amanda’s pic, or how, but at this point a blackmailing predator story seems far from the truth.

We know that Amanda was fully aware twelve days prior to all this that her photos had been spread, but still she continued to flash. A whole book could be written about the possible psychological reasons why she did all this. Maybe it was a desperate cry to get attention – not from her viewers, necessarily, but was this all to do with something against her parents? If she wasn’t getting attention at home – there was a family split at the time – maybe she truly felt lost. She would have wanted to rush to her parents for solace, but if they weren’t listening or unapproachable, she might have felt the need to do something so over the top that it was guaranteed to get a response. Or she could just simply have been addicted to the feedback she got from her exhibitionism. Maybe one day we’ll find out.

Thanks for reading this. I will continue tomorrow. Please leave comments – though try to make them constructive, or at least positive.

Meanwhile, thanks to all of those people who took the time to complain about cameracaptures. It just goes to show that something can be done.

Until tomorrow….

The continuing saga of Amanda Todd

First of all, let me begin with a shout out to the Brighton Reading Group. Hello everybody! Hope you are all well.

As most of you will know, we had some good news yesterday. The video of Amanda that was on cameracaptures has gone. For a while, it was just a blank space, but now it has gone completely. I’m not one to veer towards sentimentality, but if you believe in all that sort of thing, it means that a tiny bit of disrespect of her memory has vanished. But there is still a lot to do. If you’ve been to the site, you will see that there are a lot more captured videos there. Those kids are just as valuable as Amanda. Keep complaining. It is only through the concerted efforts of MANY individuals that progress can be made. But this is going to be yet another lecture.

People will ask why I feel it necessary to try to protect Amanda’s respect by getting rid of the video, yet continue to destroy her story. It’s just unfortunate. Amanda didn’t realise quite how well-known her video would become. It was a desperate attempt by her to provide some sort of cleansing of her behaviour, but it failed miserably. The video has become a source of many problems – vigilante activity, suicide ideation, and so on. The Amanda Todd Legacy Fund and the Vancouver Foundation are immorally using it to solicit donations. The RCMP have wasted huge amounts of resources on it. But as we know now, it’s all lies. And it should stop. If it continues, then at least people should concentrate on the REAL issues surrounding this – the proliferation of online child nudity and vulnerable girls exposing themselves, the dangers of the Capper community and, of course, my favourite – the utter stupidity of most of the parents involved, who seem to let their kids drink, take drugs, go naked online without any danger of being told off.

This story should be allowed to disappear. As a mark of respect, YouTube dropped the video as soon as the news broke. Carol Todd had it re-published. She must have known that it was a pack of lies, so we can only wonder why she insisted that it should be shown. Now, the people in charge of those videos have the opportunity to call it a day. To truly let Amanda rest in peace. But they don’t. The Amanda story has become a source of revenue.

Contrary to what supporters think, Amanda isn’t remembered well. Whereas some may fall for the story, the vast majority know that it is untrue. If she figures in any news reports, it doesn’t take long for people to say something pejorative about her, and for angry exchanges to develop. I know from this blog that a significant majority of people are only interested in the worse aspects of the story – her pictures.

So yet again I say this: let the story go. Let Amanda Todd rest in peace and be remembered by her close friends and family.

Amanda Todd – One step closer to the truth.


Sorry about the jpg. Just click on it.

As soon as one thing seems to get resolved, something else crops up that turns a lot of the story upside down again. There is a lot of grief in this – not just for the main participants, but for those other, more innocent victims of the witch hunts, the hatred, the suspicions. And for all those people from all across the world, all those genuine people, all those kids who have cried about this, it’s a terrible shame.

We have – and it saddens me to say this – been severely tricked.  I thought that  I would be jumping for joy as I learned that more and more of what I was saying was coming true, but instead I’m simply becoming more disheartened.

The details I have posted today are true. I will seek to evaluate them as clinically and as precisely as I possibly can. At first, I was just tempted to post the screen cap and leave it up to readers to make up their own minds. But, as usual, I will try to analyse what is behind all of this.

As you will see, the capture is from December 5th, 2010. That’s ten days after ‘cutieelover’ aka Amanda Todd joined BlogTV. What she did, or where she was prior to that, I don’t know at the moment. This is eighteen days before the police arrived on her doorstep on December 23rd.

Note that the BlogTV rules are absolutely clear. I have criticised BlogTV (now YouNow) for allowing things, but to give them credit, they were quite clear about the rules, and very quick to ban people who broke them. There is no real excuse for not knowing that nudity was frowned upon. As we know, cutiielover was banned twelve days later.

Amanda is quite well-known. It is possible that, from the commencement of her membership of BlogTV on November 26th, she could have received quite a following – reputations grow fast online.

Note: this may not be the full online conversation for December 5th. I originally thought that this might be the beginning of it all, but it is possible that there were earlier comments.

The first comment available is a cordial ‘sexy’. The second comment from cutieelover is – well, what? – poignant? Could that be the word? I don’t know. Or it could just be straightforward. Who can tell?

‘im not like that anymore’

What can anyone read into this? It sounds quite forlorn, like she’s realised something, and has decided to stop. On it’s own, it sounds like it’s a finality, but, sadly, we know that just a few days later she was flashing again, and that this behaviour continued on for quite some time. Can we deduce any period of time from this? Like I said – and I hope – her reputation might have simply grown in the previous two weeks, but I retain a slight idea that these are the words of someone who has been quite known for some time. But that is irrelevant, really.

It looks like one of her fans issues a ‘sigh’ of disappointment. Or of shared sadness?

I guess that the next comment is from someone new to the room: ‘what were u like’.  The answer is horrible.

‘a slut’

What in God’s name would make a girl say this? Here are some attempts to explain, but first let me say that it is significant and important. It points strongly towards why so many people used the word ‘slut’ to describe her – it’s the term she has applied to herself. It is actually Amanda herself who first uses the term to describe her own behaviour. People would have read these comments, and no doubt her friends would have heard her say it.

There are two reasons why she should have said this. The first is quite a cold-hearted suggestion; the second is gut-wrenchingly sad. I would prefer to choose the first. It kills me more to choose the second.

The first reason: Amanda is relatively proud of being seen as a slut. It’s a sort of show-off, attention-seeking phrase – ‘Look at me! I’m a slut! I’m not a mundane nobody, I’m someone who boys queue up to see! I’m the centre of attention, and that makes me feel important!’

Look at the news. We live in a society where sluttish behaviour makes you rich and famous. You know the names, I have no need to make a list. Reality TV praises the slut, denigrates the nice people. Look at the magazines aimed at later teens, read by 12-year-olds. In the UK, it’s ‘Nuts’ and ‘Zoo’. And those idiotic cretins who invented ‘slut walks’ – be proud that you look like a slut! Have they ANY idea what they are doing? (OK, reader, I’ll get down off my soap box)

Like so many words these days, slut has lost its meaning. It’s tossed around school playgrounds as easily as the old words like ‘fatty’ and ‘foureyes’. There is a distinct possibility that Amanda uses the term ‘slut’ as a badge of distinction.

The second reason: (this is appallingly sad) Amanda might have had such low self-esteem that she had become used to calling herself a slut. Why she would do this, I don’t know. From family background, I would guess the origin lay elsewhere. There are plenty of vile parents who will destroy their kids’ self-worth, but I don’t see that here. If anything, it might have been the opposite from her parents – they might have built her ego up to massive  proportions.

So why would she tag herself a slut? Did she go online, get naked, expect to get praise but get called a slut? Did she find that the only way to get the BlogTV viewers interested was to behave like a slut? It is extraordinary how dependent kids are on online feedback, and we know that Amanda was addicted to it.

Another, less probable but viable view is this: we know that Amanda possibly suffered from learning difficulties. She may well have had a huge sense that she was, in some way, a disappointment and failure. She had tried desperately to publicise herself online and elsewhere – singing, cheerleading – but it looks like the only thing she, as a person, felt that she truly excelled at, and that got her the attention, was to be a slut.

I must move on. The newbie answers a plaintive and shocked ‘oh’. Someone posts a picture.

‘lol….i kinda like sluts’ – seen as positive feedback?

The newbie asks her what made her change her mind.

‘idk why’ is Kon*** basically answering his own statement two lines above.

Another person enters the room.

Dun*** writes: ‘she is a slut she still is 1’. How is that meant? How is that taken? A joke? An insult? Horrifyingly aggressive male words? Or teen nonsense?

And then we have it:

‘all my friends found my pic’

Not ‘I’ve been stalked’. Not ‘I’ve been blackmailed’. All her friends found her pic. To me, this proves that the blackmail case is now closed. She said this to cover herself. There WAS a lot of stuff going on a la Peyton Ramsey, and it’s all very convoluted. But you can strike ‘blackmail’ and ‘stalker’ from the notebook for now.

I will leave it there for now. Tomorrow, there will be more about what really happened. It might take me time.

So – return to this blog – same Philip time, same Philip channel (that’s old skool Batman, just in case no-one knew).






Amanda’s last appearance as cutiielover


Today’s post is the one which has caused me most problems, and the most consternation. Will it cause major trouble, or will it just become yet another piece of Amanda Todd flotsam, floating on the sea of information surrounding the case? Does anyone really care any more?

I have to stop thinking and just get on with it. I had no idea how to approach this. For me, it is quite a key moment, as this photo initiates, probably, a much deeper investigation. As regular readers know, I have, at times, been lost in the forest – wandering off along cul-de-sacs, getting lost, turning back along paths I’ve already trodden more than once. But occasionally I have come upon glades of clarity – certain information shining light on many of the problems.

An honest and trustworthy source sent me this photo, and I will explain what it shows, just in case anyone wonders.

This is the last appearance of Amanda Todd as cutiielover. At almost exactly the same time as Amanda flashed, she was reported, hence the ‘Inappropriate content’ box in the middle. However, those of you following the story will know that Amanda went to great lengths to return as ‘Announcing Amanda’ very soon afterwards.

Note that she had 191 viewers at the time. This is significant. In Amanda’s video, we are led to believe that the ‘photo’ was perhaps the result of quite an intimate one-to-one webcam chat with a trusted friend. This, of course, shows that to be completely untrue. Amanda was aware that she had 191 viewers – it would have been obvious to her, as she would have seen this exact same screen in front of her. So, to a certain extent, it could have been any one of these 191 viewers who passed her video clip to a porn site. Or it could have been any other person on the planet – this video clip could have been sent around from 191 viewers, through various chatroom sites, to phones and laptops everywhere, before ending up where it did. Remember – Amanda was seen as a celebrity in the Capper world.

However, it is likely that the person who spread the video around was in the room at the time. You will see that names have been covered up. It is highly likely that those names are known. There is even a chance that those names might actually see this and know that they have been found out. The names have been blacked out for the time being, and I am not telling you who they are. However, I think I can safely tell you that Kody Maxson is nowhere near this – if people persist in believing that drivel, then so be it, but it is totally wrong. The story that Kody Maxson coerced/enticed/flattered Amanda into flashing is THE most ridiculous part of this case. It has let a lot of people off the hook. At a later point in the blog, I will investigate this further.

You will also see a few comments – like ‘JUST DO IT’. We can imagine the scene. Amanda has appeared. She is well-known and, as far as we know, relatively new to the BlogTV set up. Already, 191 viewers have crowded into the room. Some of them will be heros, some of them blackmailers, some of them will simply be there for the fun of it. Amanda flirts with her audience. Now, at the moment, I have to state things that are mostly rumour for the time being.

It is rumoured that this Amanda appearance was a two-way thing, in that she played to the audience, and was fully aware of the game she was playing. But, without concrete evidence of that, I will only continue with a kinder version.

So – Amanda is in a room with 191 viewers, most of them being a mixture of stupid kids, rabid Cappers, maybe a few perverts. They egg her on – ‘JUST DO IT’ and so on. And she does it. People have seen the entire scene at cameracaptures. She laughs. It’s just a game.

Surely, people can see that this is light years away from the story we are meant to believe. The media would have you think that, at minimum, everything was the equivalent of a one-off Snapchat type of sexting photo. It was what Amanda wanted us to believe. The media does allow a certain leeway. Somewhere in the middle ground, the media would like it to be a story of one small video, maybe one or two, that were created by a naive, innocent young girl who was tricked, cajoled, coerced by some Devil figure. And, of course, a few of the online news breakers have actually shown more details about Amanda’s BlogTV escapades and more, but the general public doesn’t really want to think about all that.

But what this shows is that, on December 17th 2010, Amanda was a willing participant in what was, essentially, an online piece of tomfoolery. I won’t go on too much here, but later in the blog I will describe what I believe actually happened around this time in more detail.

Now look at more detail in the photo. Amanda clearly admits to being 14. I have to admit to being wrong in the past. I had assumed that Amanda might have lied about her age, as she did in so many other places, but here it is clear that she didn’t. That, obviously, means that people should have been aware that she was a minor, and morality should have dictated that people responded accordingly. Some people – in fact, a lot of people – did, hence the reporting and the ban from BlogTV. But for the rest, remember that the BlogTV situation is feral. There is no concept of decency for them.

But here we enter into a dichotomy. At one extreme, the authorities and fervent – how shall I put it? – uninformed people have cried ‘child pornography’. Yet within the melee of nonsense surrounding the case, more people have stated that flashing is, really, an innocent pastime undertaken by naive young girls. So what do we believe here?

Here’s how I put it. The vast majority of people think that child pornography is just that – a level of sexual content in pictures involving children that can be seen as disturbing and evil. It conjures up all our worst nightmares. But flashing is seen just as a harmless activity which, in 99% of cases, it is. The thousands of kids swapping flashing pictures don’t see it as child pornography. It’s become almost a part of growing up. Of Amanda’s audience, many would have seen all of this as just a laugh, all part of the game. The fact that Amanda was 14 was irrelevant – some of the spectators would have been in the same age group. Only a few would have seen the dangers for Amanda, and only a few, if any, would fulfill the criteria of being a pedophile, old-man pervert predator. I will go into more detail later in the blog.

The details show that Amanda is from Canada. It wouldn’t have been difficult to trace her. As we know, her online presence was huge. We can also see the dates of Amanda’s entry into the BlogTV world – November 26th, 2010. Now, surely, this completely destroys the myth that Amanda was 12 and in 7th grade. That is simply not true, but has become part of the mythology. I think I can confidently state that she was 14, at the tail end of being 13, when all this began. The December 18th date is false. That is the date in a different time zone. This all happened on December 17th, Canada time. Shockingly close to the police raid of December 23rd.

Now, what is more interesting is that you can see the half-covered stills from two other archived videos of Amanda – entitled ‘ill be’ and ‘bored’. What does this tell us? It tells us that Amanda’s appearances were archived. She would have not known, perhaps, that she was being capped (I find it hard to believe) but she would have been totally aware that her videos were archived. This complicates matters. Any person could have returned to Amanda’s profile at any point and seen the archives. I don’t know what happened after the ban – I asume that her records were erased. But it shows just how public Amanda was.

Now, this photo really puts the cat amongst the pigeons, and I will have to think hard and dig deeper to work out what happened.

Here is an assumption that I need to clarify: I now assume that this appearance was the one that kicked off all the fuss. We have an absolutely certain date – December 17th, 2010. I assume that this appearance was the one that was passed around her school. I have no data concerning the flash episode where she has her friend with her, but I think it’s obvious that it is around he same time.

So where does this put the blackmailing story? According to Amanda, she flashed once, and it was a year later that the stalker turned up. That is now, clearly, utter nonsense. After December 17th 2010, things must have moved rapidly. It doesn’t make sense. Did a ‘blackmailer’ get his act together almost instantaneously? It’s possible. Within seconds of Amanda’s flash, the picture could have been anywhere, and we all know how quickly things spread. But still, according to reports, Amanda also had time to be banned and then re-appear as ‘Announcing Amanda’, so that would have added a day or two to things. And then the cops arrived on December 23rd.

Amanda’s lies cloud the issue. I hate speculation, but I must admit my gut feelings have, in the past, been very close to the reality of the situation. My gut feeling is that Amanda got caught out about her flashing, and simply panicked and said she was blackmailed.

What I find more confusing is why she continued, and things got worse. This post has gone on a bit too long, and I need to think and find out more details.

Thank you to my source for giving me this information. For my two readers, I hope this wasn’t too much of an anti-climax. I will now revisit the Amanda story – it seems like it’s the millionth time I’ve done so. And by the way – you won’t find any of this online, so there’s no point looking.

I look forward to receiving any comments and any more information that anyone out there can provide. This post hasn’t covered many things today. More will be clarified in later posts.

Please go on to this link for the next instalment:







The Capper Community – in which Amanda was famous


‘Amanda’s mother, Carol, told me that she had a very open relationship with her late daughter. Around the time of Amanda’s blackmailing, Carol said that she and her daughter were having regular conversations about the dangers of her online behaviour. Carol knew about The Daily Capper and the blackmailing world in which Amanda had unwittingly become a celebrity of sorts.’

These cartoons show the world in which Amanda was a celebrity. Enjoy.

Day 23 – the Kody Maxson stalker myth

Let’s begin with a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:

“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

I have already explained that Kody Maxson was thrown to the wolves by Anonymous in an act of revenge. However, those who believe the story will, as usual, need convincing. It’s not enough that the police have said he’s not involved. In most cases, that would be sufficient. But we have to bear in mind that the RCMP do not have a good reputation, and that the ardent believers in the Kody Maxson story all think that the RCMP have said it to protect him. And the ardent believers – some of them anyway – actually believe that I am Kody Maxson, or that I am a relative or friend out to protect him. That’s how ridiculous this story gets. Then those who realise I’m not Kody Maxson pursue the well-balanced argument that I must be some member of an evil group of stalkers/pedophiles/Cappers. Heck, I’ve even been accused of being THE stalker, the ‘murderer’. Because I know too much. For the first time, I resort to…LOL.

The idea that someone might be interested in facts, that someone might be interested in something as close to the truth as possible, that someone might be against violent lynch-mob mentality and espouse rational and civilised behaviour – that’s beyond them. But, thank God, most of us are more reasonable.

I will be looking at three aspects of the Kody Maxson story currently online. Most people will be familiar with them – the hypervocal article, the articles of Patrick McGuire from the ultra-reliable vice.com, and the lesser-known but equally foolish burblings of a YouTube guy called ‘Enigmahood’.

I will start with hypervocal. As usual, you may have to bear with me. The sheer stupidity of it all makes me angry, but I will try not to let it show.


A sensationalist headline. I can’t blame the journalist – it’s his job to get read. It’s an unfortunate way of the world that people prefer this type of thing to good reporting. Look at the tags – pedophilia, sex crimes. Guaranteed to get people excited. Look at the ads accompanying the article – Kim Kardashian, Beyonce nip slip. Say no more. The media that criticises prurient behaviour, and also encourages it.

The picture of Kody Maxson. Investigate it. What does it show? Certainly not a 30 or 32 year old man, that’s for sure. Allow ourselves a certain amount of the same sort of tabloid mentality. Pedophile stalkers are old men in raincoats, surely? Or middle-aged vicars. Priests. Headmasters. Dirty old men. Gary Glitter. You know what I mean.

Now look at the picture of Kody Maxson. What does it show? An ordinary 19 year old. He would have been 15-16 at the beginning of this story. By definition, he’s not a pedophile. He’s not the epitome of evil. He’s not on his way to University, he’s not Captain of the Team – he’s just a run of the mill young man. Unfortunately, he’s not a pretty girl. If he was, he would be a blameless saint.

Note the escape clause sub-heading: “a person of no interest”. That’s to avoid libel.

“she gave an anonymous informant the name of an older boy” – well, no, she didn’t. But hey, who cares? Even in the entire article, no name is ever given by Amanda. No information at all. But at least we get closer to the truth – a ‘boy’, not a man.

“His name: Kody Maxson” – well, no. But at least he’s 19 now.

The Daily Capper. I will dedicate a whole post to them soon. The Internet miscreants who have managed to grab some of the moral highground. I shake my head.

Next picture and header: disgusting attention grabbing by the writer. He’s written a few words, so he has to show something a bit shocking. ‘Tits’ – I ask you.

Nice bit of feeble suspense making – ‘a user named cutiielover’. Who can this be?
Important note: This is December 17th 2010. Amanda is at the peak of notoriety. Six days later the police arrive on her doorstep.

But I will hand it to the writer of this piece. At least he acknowledges that Amanda was a regular flasher.

“An unknown capper —” Well, he says it was Kody Maxson. But here the truth is told. Unknown. A good ploy. He can then allege all he wants without getting into the libel problems. ‘one of many lurkers of teen chatrooms who coerce young women into stripping’ – OK, I’ll look at this later. But he doesn’t mention the The Daily Capper encouraged all this, handing out awards for blackmail. And whilst there may be a certain amount of enticement from the ‘lurkers’, coercion isn’t prevalent. In many cases, no-one holds a gun to these girls’ heads, and they, too, compete for awards such as ‘Attention Whore’. Really, these girls are not being coerced.

Maybe I need to explain further here. I was going to leave things and deal with it under a ‘Daily Capper’ heading. However, some readers may be saying ‘Coercion? Of course there’s coercion’ and stomping out of the room in a huff.

The coercion ploy is a myth. In the ‘Daily Capper’ page I will go into much more detail of how it was all a GAME. Kids competed to be ‘Cam Whore of the Year’, ‘Hero of the Year’ (part of the game I believe Kody might have been involved in) and ‘Blackmailer of the Year’. It was a GAME. Girls competed for attention. Yes, GIRLS, those innocent creatures like Giovanna Plowman, Alyssa the dog-lover and the rest. What most people call coercion or enticement is the simple equivalent of the common usage: ‘tits or gtfo’. It is the 21st Century online version of ‘Doctors and Nurses’ – just taken further.

Yes – this game can get out of hand. It’s dangerous. Like the boy forced to drink out of the toilet bowl (‘What?’ I hear people say. ‘What’s that all about?’) Well, that story didn’t get much publicity. Victimised males don’t get publicity. It’s not just girls, you know!

But in Amanda’s case, you can forget coercion. Think – she was FORCED off of BlogTV. She was actually IP BANNED. But she simply made another identity. She called herself ‘Announcing Amanda’ – hardly the actions of a scared, shy individual.

But still I ask people to think. Let’s imagine that at some point Amanda WAS coerced into doing something. This all came to a head on December 23rd. Not before. She was happily flashing (the video clearly shows this). No story of coercion came then. The supposed blackmail wasn’t ‘get on to the Internet and flash’. It was ‘you are constantly flashing on the Internet, do some more’. She was already in the danger zone. Then, supposedly, it exploded on December 23rd. Game over. End of story. Coercion done, photos spread, finished. The blackmailer would have no more power. So why was she still there in January, 2011? Nobody could have coerced her – that was finished. Why did she continue on as isabella10055, Mandaa&Shyy and all the rest? No – the idea that she was dragged, kicking and screaming to BlogTV is wrong. She enjoyed it, got out of her depth, and couldn’t handle the consequences of being found out. Or, to put it another way, the responsible adults around her never helped her deal with the consequences.

But onwards.

We see the chat. Any trace of Kody Maxson yet? No. We see a reference to perso365 (19 in 2 days – more evidence that this is youngsters we’re talking about); johnnycage; tommds; no Kody.

‘Over the next few days, cutiielover returned to Blogtv, occasionally stripping.’ Not that one-off flash myth, then. ‘Eventually she was banned:’ Time to take a hint? …’But the damage was already done. Lurkers had recorded every minute, and that week, several videos of her were shared and discussed.’ Hang on, I thought that this was all about a one-off flashing? But I’m intrigued – how does the author know that ‘every’ minute was recorded? ‘several videos’?

The viewers know she was Amanda. There are seemingly no secrets on the Internet, especially when you publicise all your details. She gets banned. But lo and behold, she’s back. And we can see that she is well-known for her isabella100555 channel. She is everywhere!

But this is about Kody. Note a reference to heroes and traitors: ‘who is the hero in blogtv room’ – ‘WE GOT SOME TRAITORS’. Heroes and traitors, I’m guessing, may be White Knights or purely people acting to protect the girls. I speculate, but I have a theory: Kody may have been such a hero/traitor, and his actions earned the revenge of Anonymous and others. That is even if he was within a hundred miles of all this, which I doubt.

‘On December 18, 2010, Amanda Todd, who had just turned 14, started receiving threats from an unnamed capper.’ I’m prepared to half-believe this. What I mean is that I completely doubt it. This part of the story is lifted from Amanda’s video, but I need to at least be prepared to believe it. The placement of an actual date gives it certain credibility, but it worries me that it IS so specific. How does the author know? But look – it’s still an UNNAMED capper. This is odd. If the author knows that there is a person, Amanda knows there is a person, WHY NO NAME? ‘He demanded that she perform private shows for him on webcam, and he promised to send topless images of Todd to her friends and family if she refused.’ I think this is part of the legend. We only have Amanda’s word for that, and we know she lies. But for now, it’s irrelevant. What we do know for certain is that this is NOT a one-off flash story.

‘The harassment tactics were typical of Kody and his group’. Think. This doesn’t link Kody in at all. It doesn’t condemn him. It shows nothing. It simply isn’t possible to say ‘it was typical, therefore it MUST be him’. Why not perso, johnnycage, all the others mentioned? And what about the mysterious ‘group’? Why not them? This is almost like saying ‘his eyes are too close together, therefore he must be guilty of something.’

‘a producer of The Daily Capper told HyperVocal.’ Give me strength! Investing any trust in what the Daily Capper has to say is poor. It’s like asking Rupert Murdoch for an unbiased opinion of Hugh Grant!

“Kody wasn’t quiet about what he did.” Well, he was quiet enough. Have we seen any direct quote from him? Have we seen any evidence about him? For a person who wasn’t quiet, there’s not a lot to go on.

“He was very open about blackmailing before that so I’m sure he was open about this too.” Umm…was he? If he was so open, why are you finding it so difficult to provide definite links? Why was he never traced two years ago? How come his name is never mentioned in the story

‘And when Maxson tracked down a victim, his messages weren’t requests, but “demands using threats,” our source said. “Some [cappers] will blackmail the same girl for a long period of time until they’ve gotten everything they can.”

Come on, guize. My patience wears thin. ‘tracked down a victim’? Laughable. You don’t need to track down a victim when they appear every night. ‘Announcing Amanda’ isn’t exactly a super-secret pseudonym. And she was completely open about all her details, as we’ve seen. Tracking down Amanda? Oh, you mean going to Facebook.

“demands using threats”. Part of the Capper game. If you don’t flash, we’ll tell your parents. If you don’t play, we’ll stitch you up. Shameful activity. It IS possible for a girl or boy to get caught. It IS dangerous. The victim is caught – can’t just close down, or the stalker will tell everyone. Can’t tell parents, because they will go mad. You’re stuck.

But the Amanda case is much different. She was in this up to her neck. But she played the game. She continued AFTER being banned. She continued AFTER the police arrived. She knew the Capper community. She had multiple channels. She was notorious. You don’t call yourself ‘Announcing Amanda’ if you don’t like the game. And she gave them everything. There was little need to ask for more.

But still no link to Kody Maxson. Moving on.

‘For two years, a stranger stalked her on Facebook, demanding private cam shows and repeatedly sending her nudes to friends and family.’ The author’s getting lazy. Naughty. ‘a stranger’ – we have no idea if that is true or not. It’s only a stranger because there is never a reference to any name in all this. And it could have been someone who knew her. And it might NOT have been the same person. Many questions. But it wasn’t for two years. If it’s true, it was for a couple of weeks in December 2010 and then a year later. It wasn’t sustained over a period of time. There were no repeated demands, no ‘repeatedly sending her nudes’. Utter rubbish.

“Afterward, a classmate wrote on Facebook, “She should try a different bleach. I hope she dies this time and isn’t so stupid.” Really? We’ll assume the author knows exactly what was written. But for some reason, this classmate seems to escape any opprobrium. That’s because we need to blame Kody. But an aside – we see that Amanda really wasn’t liked.

Now we reach true farce levels. kodypwned. This is phenomenal, and shows what is TRULY happening. Let’s look closely:

kodypwned. A made up name, like so many. Why does nobody ever show their true faces here?  This guy is the first person to mention Kody Maxson, and link him to Amanda. And this is the day on which the cops turn up to her house.

I think it’s part of a frame up. But let’s assume it’s true.

While I think about it, I have to introduce another problem here. And it’s difficult to reconcile. If one is to believe this Kody Maxson story, and all the accompanying information about cutiielover, isabella100555 and so on, then one is forced to acknowledge that Amanda was lying in her video about the innocent one-off and using webcams to just meet friends. If one believes Amanda’s video, then one must see the hypervocal article as being a pack of lies. Which do you choose?

So – kodypwned. Ask a few questions. Would a super-intelligent stalker who nobody has yet found call himself by his own name – kody1206? Why are other blackmailers blackmailing him cos they hate him? Why would it be a lulzy arrest? It doesn’t make sense. Other blackmailers would support him, surely?  I think people had it in for Kody. And I think it was because he was not on their side.

‘How did kodypwned get the info? Amanda Todd sent it to him.’ How do we know that?

The screen shot with isabella100555 shows nothing but more oddity. Where the Hell did this screenshot come from? Just whose inbox is this screenshot from? And how did it get published? We are assuming that isabella100555 (Amanda) sent a message to kody@hotmail.ca asking him to add her. OK – we must be seeing kody@hotmail.ca’s inbox. But how? Why, if it is Kody Maxson, did he let someone display a screenshot? But look. Amanda doesn’t say ‘clear off’ – she says ‘add me’.

And the preceding text: ‘Kody had reached out to Amanda on MSN and sent her his email address. They must have struck up enough of a conversation for her to learn a few personal details, such as his full name (Dakota William Shain Maxson) and where he lived.’ Strange – she never, ever mentions his name in the video. He never features anywhere. She can’t have told the police all this. Yet he’s her Nemesis. Odd.

‘On January 4, Amanda messaged The Daily Capper to confirm that she was being blackmailed and that she’d already reported it to police. “its amanda here,” she wrote. “ah i am getting black mailed and the cops are out looking for the guy that posted the video of me flashing to all my family members and friends because i didn’t do stuff with him on cam. put that in ur news people are also getting charged but the site is shut down.”

I’ve dealt with this before, so I’ll try to be brief: she doesn’t say who she is getting blackmailed by when it is a perfect opportunity (he’s just the ‘guy’); it’s January 4th, nearly two weeks AFTER the police have knocked on the door; if she knew her stalker was Kody, why do the police have to search (he’s well-known to them); and why, in her time of need, does she turn to The Daily Capper, who brought a Hell of a lot of the trouble her way by mentioning her? It’s all too ridiculous. She has made up the stalker story to cover her ass!

But then we get even more nonsense!

‘Following Amanda Todd’s suicide, the hacker group Anonymous released all the known information on Kody Maxson. Some of it, such as his address, was false.’ And age. And job. And telephone number.

‘The connections between him and Amanda are flimsy’ – erm..non-existent, but hey, flimsy is enough..’Maxson was a lurker on Blogtv. He traded “jailbait” pictures of underage girls. He was a creep, sure, but not a creep who conclusively drove a teenage girl to suicide.’ Good Lord!! What a strange admission from this journalist. It’s all a pack of lies, but does it really matter?

‘But even if he never blackmailed Amanda, Anonymous argued, Maxson is still a creep who stalked other teenage girls. True or not, the information deserved to be made public.’ No. The truth should be made public. Not a pack of lies and false allegations. Anonymous, yet again, setting themselves up as guardians of the public morals – judges and executioners! ‘True or not’. So whether it’s true or not, it must be told. I can tell you the truth – Anonymous are morons.

I need to hurry along a bit now. This is just one article, and I have Patrick McGuire to deal with next – twaddle writer of the year.

So – the police announce Kody is innocent. Not enough for the lynch mob. The RCMP are a disgrace, along with the press – they should have done a lot more to stop all this nonsense.

Now we get to the point where Kody does himself no favours. The sexual assault and sexual interference charges. BIG note here for readers from the USA: in the USA sexual assault = rape. In other countries, it can range from a pinch on the buttocks through to major assault. In other countries, rape is called rape. This has led to confusion from USA people, who think he was involved in rape. This is false.

I’m not going in to detail. There are not enough facts. As far as I know, the case has been dropped. The warrant for arrest issued recently was for theft, that’s a fact. Kody has been in court a couple of times since October, 2012. That’s a fact. He’s due back in court in July of this year, but I don’t know the details. But know this – whatever he is up to, it is NOTHING TO DO with Amanda Todd.

Kody says that he and Amanda were friends. We don’t have to believe that. Why take his word for it? But we know he lives in Amanda’s locality. Amanda’s circle of friends was pretty extensive, ranging across Maple Ridge, Surrey, Vancouver and further afield, and he falls into the top end of the age group of her friends. It is highly possible that he knew her personally, or through acquaintances (another reason why he wouldn’t need to be a stalker online). But even if he didn’t know her personally, we know they might well have ‘met’ online. She was in all the places he would have been. Her video was at least on one central site – cameracaptures – and probably more, not just BlogTV. Get this straight – she was hugely and widely known. And she was all over Facebook and YouTube, so the likelihood that he knew her is high.

At this point – Brandon Reid, Amanda’s boyfriend, has an account on BlogTV. It seems to be THE place for friends to meet. I think it is highly likely that’s where he met Amanda. How romantic!

So it is hugely possible that Kody knew Amanda well. And it is just as likely that he might have been playing the White Knight.

Kody points to Viper. You can believe what you will. Pointing at others is always the first resort. But it still doesn’t matter. There is NOTHING to link him to being the stalker, or to be any way involved in the tragic tale of Amanda, as will be more explained in my next post.

Viper? Not relevant to the story. But note how we immediately get TWO Vipers. Ridiculous. Make up your mind, Anonymous. What next? Siamese twins?

Something to think about: there are a bunch of vile kids out there – I’ve dealt with some of them. They have a habit of sending pictures to Anonymous or vigilante anti-bullying or anti-pedophile sites. These pictures are usually of their teachers – even their parents! – and people fall for it every time! Please – just be warned.

Kody and Viper friends? Evidence please. There is no evidence of Viper and Kody trawling rooms. THINK. We have conversations mentioning Amanda. We supposedly have screenshots of personal messages. These people seem to spend their time screen capturing everything. But no Kody conversations? No Kody and Viper evidence. Give me a break! It’s because there isn’t any. It’s false.

‘Kody was directly involved with Amanda in December’ Really, says who? Oh, The Daily Capper – those lovely people.

Come on – I know that I’ve had to make assumptions, but at least I’ve tried to provide as much evidence as I can. And I will endeavour to show more as time goes on. Unlike this guy.

‘If Viper is the culprit, Kody was likely still involved and assisting him.’ Yes. If someone else is the culprit, we still have to go for Kody. That’s the game.

But for effing bloody Hell’s sake (see, I’m getting fed up):

‘But The Daily Capper doesn’t buy Kody’s story. Here’s the second reason it thinks Viper is innocent: Having tracked Viper for years, The Daily Capper knows his actions well enough to conclude that “while Viper may have been a pedophile, a troll, a psycho and many other things, one thing Viper was not was a blackmailer.”’

Please God, tell me what that means. ‘Jeffrey Dahmer might have been a serial killer, a rapist and a cannibal, but at least he wasn’t Kody Maxson’. And you have to keep asking questions. If the Daily Capper knew all of the above, why didn’t they send all the evidence to the police regarding Viper? Why did they just watch – for years?

We get a conversation with Viper. STILL no Kody, though.

Then more laying it on thick. What a load of rubbish. Viper – a minute ago described as ‘a pedophile, a troll, a psycho and many other things’ would never be a stalker. Well, he has his limits I guess. And what was it that Amanda’s stalker did that was worse than all of Viper’s traits? If it’s true – sent her pics to people.

But think for a minute. Just where are all these accusations coming from? The Daily Capper, for Pete’s sake. A group set up to exploit all the kids on webcam and to encourage all this activity. I will deal with them later, but like I’ve said – a community that invite votes for ‘Cam-Whore of the Year Award’ and ‘Blackmailer of the Year’ and more.  A community that shows pictures of young girls, names them, displays them – suddenly they’re getting all righteous?

I need to continue. Have patience. Bear with me. We’re on the final part of the article.

‘And it circles back to Maxson’ – no, it doesn’t actually. ‘The Daily Capper insists the capper community gave him up because they all hated him’ – so, why did they hate him? And if they hated him, isn’t that why this vendetta is being carried out? “Even if you wanted to believe his claims” – well, why not “you can be sure it all happened within his circle … a small group of hackers and blackmailers, most of whom are infamous for using the exact same tactics used against Amanda,” the video states. “There’s no big mystery here. Kody had been ID’d as a blackmailer even before it was a hot topic.”

Even if Kody is what everybody says – still no connection to Amanda.

“If Kody was a hero,” – mmm…nobody has used that word in the press. Nobody, nowhere. This is The Daily Capper giving things away. In Capper terms, a hero is someone who tries to stop what is going on, who reports things, who White Knights. Could it be that Kody WAS a hero?

“why is there so much wrong with the logic of his story?” because it’s all bollocks, that’s why! ”

“Why were so many people able to connect him to Amanda as soon as she was being blackmailed?” – well, that’s odd. Nobody can connect him. That’s the point. Nobody can provide decent evidence. The idiots of Anonymous tried and failed. The Daily Capper tried and failed.

And if you think they Peyton Ramsey story is enough – it isn’t. I will deal with that separately, but for now – even if Kody blackmailed Peyton, if he personally went round her house with a gun, whatever he did or didn’t do, that does not link him to Amanda. There is no link to Amanda.

Like I said – I will have to talk about the Peyton video separately. But look closely. There is still no clear link to Kody. We only have The Daily Capper’s word that iStream_Peyto is Kody

At this point, people will be saying that, of course, Kody would have kept himself secret. But it’s codswallop. Think:

Kody is not the brightest spark. He’s been in Court, it looks like he’s always in trouble. Reading not too much into it – he’s an idiot. The sensible side of me would say that he is a troubled youth who needs guidance. It’s just simpler to say he’s an idiot. If he was clever, he wouldn’t leave his pictures online. He wouldn’t let people possibly trace him. He wouldn’t call himself Kody, he’d call himself some pseudonym like Viper or perso. He wouldn’t be able to avoid the police for over two years – especially as he seems to be on nodding terms with them! He wouldn’t introduce himself to Amanda as the article implies – ‘Hello, my name’s Kody. Can I stalk you?’ He’s stupid enough to allow Peyton to supposedly broadcast his name all over BlogTV, even as far as address details and so on (cut from what is now available). I will track the original – it is out there somewhere. He’s just too plain dumb not to have left a massive trail with his name all over it. Yet this article and others really struggle to put anything together, resorting simply to guilt by association. Kody just isn’t clever enough.

God this seems to go on forever. But I must persist if I am to assist! Or should I just not resist the urge to desist! I’m beginning to go wander off track! Please accept my lack of lucidity.

Let’s look at Peyton’s transcript:

‘A month ago he recorded me for the first time, and then I was stupid enough to keep doing it because he said he’d never do it again, and he was stupid and he didn’t want to ruin our relationship. And he just used me and he stopped calling me, stopped calling me and just wanted me out of his life because I gave him what he wanted.’

OK – the stupidity of young girls online has already been discussed at length. At least she admits it. I love the word ‘relationship’. A lovely relationship. But enough of that. But what is it that arch-villain Kody does when he tires of Peyton? He stops calling her. Call the police immediately! He just wants her out of his life. Oh no! Arrest that man!

But what is missing from this? Come on – it’s not Mastermind. This isn’t a trick question. Blackmail, perhaps? Am I missing something? Does Peyton mention blackmail? Threats? A metaphorical gun at her head? Nope.

It’s childishness. She flashes (we assume). He caps it. He says he’ll never do it again. She keeps doing it. He keeps doing it. Not exactly a shameful history of intrigue and deceit. A tale of two idiots. ‘he just used me’. Christ Almighty! Possibly one of the most repeated dramatic phrases used by womankind since the beginning of history – from 14-year-olds to the ex-Mrs Huhne! Pass me the smelling salts! And that was it. He moves on. He got what he wanted (we don’t really know what that is, but we can guess) and he gets bored and moves on. No blackmail, no coercion, no threats. Juvenile idiocy.

‘I have his address … he lives in Canada, I know his cousins’ names, his family … his full name is Dakota William Shain Maxson … I know his phone number … I was just, like, liking the attention he was giving me.’

So what dreadful revelation is this? Kody has been open with her. He’s not hidden anything. She knows all about his family, all personal details, he’s told her all this. Not exactly predator stalker behaviour. And what was he doing? He was giving her attention. And she liked the attention. When it stopped, she got angry. So she gives away all his details when asked. But just note: no mention of blackmail, threats, coercion. Just in case you forgot. And, of course, no mention of Amanda.

If Peyton is meant to be an example to condemn Kody, it’s failed miserably.

‘Some cappers say she still has a relationship with r0ra, which is why she’s refusing to speak publicly about the community.’ Talk about making things up as you go along. It is far more likely that Peyton wants this buried.

‘Like Kody Maxson, he was a known stalker of Peyton’. Hang on a minute. Ten seconds ago we just saw that Kody didn’t stalk Peyton. They were friends – in a ‘relationship’. He didn’t stalk her. He got to know her, she did whatever she did, he capped it, he moved on. He didn’t track her down like some hunted animal, she was just silly enough to trust him when he said he wasn’t capping her.

‘Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person.’ Peyton got miffed because he WASN’T paying her attention. She got annoyed because he wasn’t obsessive and moved on. She WANTED his attention.

I love the next bit: “Viper has been upset at the way Peyton has been treating him since she found out his real age.” So the lovely Peyton chooses to hang out with weirdos, even when she knows what they are up to. Stone the crows! And I have to put up with useless mothers saying they don’t know what their daughters do online. I tell them, and they hate me.

‘And thanks to Amanda Todd’s story, we now know what cappers are capable of when they get upset.’ What? Just what exactly?

Kody? Gets bored with Peyton. Simply moves on harmlessly.

Viper? A nutter who is ‘in love’ with Peyton and cuts HIMSELF.

Just where is this example of cappers being harmful? Peyton and the others seem to take it all in their stride. However much you might hate the Capper community, however much you might despise the likes of Viper and the rest, there is NO evidence that they have caused any harm outside of that community. There is no evidence in this article. We are simply stuck with this ridiculous Amanda Todd story in which we THINK it’s the Capper community, we THINK it’s Kody Maxson or some monstrous predator.

In nearly all the other ‘spread your picture’ stories – the true ones – it’s been school people, close, known people.  Felicia Garcia – classmates. Hope Witsell, Jesse Logan, Dina van Cleve and many others. All the problems came for those close to the person.

Look at the hate poured upon Amanda Todd. It wasn’t from the Capper community. It was from her classmates, people who knew her. It wasn’t the Capper community that told her to drink bleach. In all the other cases, the photos come from classmates.

People know what I think by now. We know that Amanda was notorious. Someone close to her found out. Amanda had lots of enemies. Her photo got sent out not by some predator, but by some mischief maker. She made up the stalker story to cover herself. THINK! The story of the stalker was AFTER the police arrived. She sends a note to the Cappers two weeks AFTER the police arrive.

I need to finish this article.

The recap. One of the worst pieces of journalistic conclusions I have seen.

“Here’s what we know” well, we know nothing. “— or at least have enough evidence to conclude is true:” No. There is nothing we can conclude is true.

“Kody Maxson blackmailed Amanda Todd in 2010”. Laughable. Except it’s not. It’s shameful.

“The whole capper community knew it and reached out to The Daily Capper to try to expose him.” No. Somebody call kodypwned said something. This is not the whole Capper community. But wait – wasn’t it the Daily Capper that first broadcast Amanda’s identity all over the place?

‘Amanda even helped Maxson’s fellow cappers “dox” him.’ No, she didn’t.

‘Two weeks later, she told The Daily Capper she was being blackmailed, but didn’t say by whom.’ Isn’t that suspicious in some way?

‘Blackmail was Maxson’s specialty.’ No, it wasn’t. Have we any evidence of this? Certainly not from Peyton. No evidence whatsoever.

‘He was infamous for harassment so heinous that even Viper and other peers rejected him.’ No, he wasn’t. You made that up. Again, Peyton seems to have quite liked him. No heinous harassment to be seen.

‘He spoke publicly about blackmailing Peyton using the same formula of Facebook stalking and personal threats that Amanda faced’ No, he didn’t. You’ve made that up, too. Does Peyton mention any blackmail?

The Daily Capper notes sarcastically, “It could just be a coincidence that [Maxson] openly blackmailed every other girl before and after Amanda.” Who is ‘every other girl’? We’ve seen no evidence of this. It’s all just baloney. If ‘every other girl’ is Peyton, we’ve already seen that there was no blackmail.

Then it gets even more ridiculous. Having just written: “Kody Maxson blackmailed Amanda Todd in 2010” we then see ‘If Maxson wasn’t involved, his friends were’.

Blimey, I’m getting tired.

‘Todd was one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of young girls who became subject to the whims of a network of pedophiles who specialize in the sexual exploitation of minors.’ No – she wasn’t. That is utter, utter nonsense. I’ve already mentioned all of this in the blog, but for anyone who is just reading today’s post, I’ll be brief:

Yes, there are hundreds of girls going online. But they are not ‘subjects to the whims’ – they are doing it voluntarily, for fun, for attention. There is not a ‘network of pedophiles’ out there – it’s a mishmash of dirty old men, hormone driven adolescents, curious kids and maladjusted others. These people don’t ‘specialize in the sexual exploitation of minors.’ They are idiotic voyeurs on the Internet. The pedophiles are watching ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’ and Honey Boo Boo. Not watching stupid 14-year-olds. I have mentioned this ALL before.

‘The men who secretly recorded and shared pictures of Amanda Todd — and other young girls — are complicit in her suicide.’ That’s a big, big statement. And it’s not fully true. If you want to make a Court case out of Amanda’s suicide, you would have to include the girl who hit her, the people who watched her getting hit, the teachers, the police, the parents, the people who supplied her drink and drugs, the boy she had sex with, the kids who said ‘Drink bleach’, even her doctors. The Capper community and all it entails was only a fraction of the story. And of course, you must think in all this – just how much did Amanda willingly walk into the lion’s den? Or was it inevitable that her mental illness and self-destructive tendencies would catch up with her in the end? Nothing is straightforward.

‘What does The Daily Capper want? Justice’ Ha ha. If there was any justice, the Daily Capper would be sued for what they did. It’s a joke.

That’s about it. There’s a final paragraph of sanctimonious twaddle. The article is finished. And so am I – just about!

I will return to look at the Patrick McGuire articles.

Thanks for reading this. It’s a bit longer than usual, but I hope it’s worth it.