Has Carol Todd gone insane?

Well, we’re back in the Carol Todd Twilight Zone.

https://caroltoddsnowflakes.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/long-long-ago-there-lived-a/

In an obvious attempt to create attention for herself (a trait inherited by Amanda, I guess) the lovely Mrs Todd claims a false lived-experience like a load of people do. Give her time, and she’ll start carrying a mattress on her back.

Let’s take a look at this bizarre post.

‘Did I ever tell the world that I had been adopted when I was a baby?’ After a semi-choke on my dunked Digestive, I had to laugh.

‘And that I have been looking for my birth parents for years but haven’t had any luck in locating them. I know that when I was born, they were supposed to be university students at UBC and in their late late teens. They weren’t allowed to keep the baby because they needed an education said their parents.’

In the UK we used to have a show for kids called Jackanory. Hahahahaha! and another Hahahahaha! for good measure. Note that Carol’s long-lost parents can’t be low-lives (of course not). Carol’s version of Cho-Cho-San and Pinkerton have to be University students. But for people who have a questioning mind, how the Hell does Carol know that their parents told them they weren’t allowed to keep the child because they needed an education? I tell you why – she MADE IT UP.

Here is the suspicious part: ‘If a missing garden memorial stone can go viral, imagine this story of my life.’ Exactly. If the first attempt to gain sympathy via a cheap plastic memorial worked, then why not a new fantasy?

Now it gets weird:

‘Then my adopted mother passed away when I was 4’ish. My adopted father remarried and life became like Cinderella and the wicked stepmother. And I mean it. She was nasty. Things I remember …. I was an only child. The stepmother had a way of making my toys keep disappearing.  She was a nurse.  She was controlling.  (I will try and find photos.) One day coming home from kindergarten or junior kindergarten, I saw some things burning in the back yard.  Figuring it was leaves.  But never expecting to see some of my finest toys int he fire.’

Cinderella, eh? Carol will now trawl the Interwebz for a few pics of a nutty nurse. What race this person might be is anyone’s guess. If it were me, I would make it some sort of White Fright because everyone hates whites now.

‘I never really thought about having other relatives.’ That makes sense. If you have a mother and a father, it’s highly unlikely that there will be any other relatives.

‘That part made me sad. My adopted father also died last December. That’s the one where no one thought it would useful for me to know until February. Good fricken grief!! I told my son about this and he was interested in knowing tidbits more.’

Wow! This fantasy gets better.

You can read the complete load of garbage via the link.

Anyways. The insane Carol Todd returns with a new story. Like she says at the end of her post:

‘Will see what tomorrow brings.  xoxo’

Evidence for the lazy

aaa1

Another repeat episode.

OK. This post is to provide the evidence that most people are too lazy to find for themselves, or disbelieve. These screenshots are taken from the ‘Sextortion of Amanda Todd’ documentary – one of the worst documentaries I have ever seen for providing truth.

My aim here is to provide food for thought, but also to back up my claim that Carol Todd has deliberately hidden certain things away. Is she a liar? Everything is open to discussion. So maybe we should simply call her someone who just reports some of the facts – the important ones she conveniently leaves out. A storyteller, if you will.

The first screenshot is of the warning that Carol received. Don’t you think it odd that she was sent the Amanda video link, then the police arrived on December 23rd, then she got this warning but still didn’t put two and two together and put Amanda on webcam lockdown? And it’s odd that she responded to this warning so aggressively. Instead of opening up a dialogue and perhaps asking what she should do, she sends the message to the police. Well that might be a fair action – maybe she just panicked and didn’t know what else to do. But this message screams out ‘Amanda has to be stopped’. It’s a shame she never listened.

Now, maybe it’s important to understand what goes on online. Amanda would have been one of the easier people to track because she was so open with her details. Certain cyberpoliz look for vulnerable teens to warn them. This can be a simple warning directly to them, and in many cases it’s a fruitless act, sometimes resulting in being told where to go by the girls who people are trying to help – Peyton Ramsey being a fine example. If all warnings are ignored, some of the online investigators resort to threatening to contact parents, and then finally doing so. This is what happened here.

Now at this point Carol Todd’s reputation still seems relatively intact if one continues to make a Hell of a lot of allowances – ignorance, panic, misunderstanding, a very cunning daughter. If the story had finished there, things would have been different. But it’s what Carol did afterwards that is so odd – essentially allowing Amanda to get deeper and deeper in trouble. Again I ask – isn’t it odd that she knew what Amanda was doing (hence all of her ‘evidence’ collected over the next 10-11 months) but never seemed to step in? If she knew her daughter was being harassed via Facebook, she knew her daughter was on Facebook. Solution: stop doing what you’re doing on Facebook. But maybe that was too obvious, and I am prepared to think that Amanda was immensely secretive and hid a lot from her mother. Until, that is, I read the next messages coming in.

aaa2

This is a freeze frame from the same documentary. I have spoken about this before. As evidence goes, it’s pretty poor as it is typed out, so we have no guarantee it’s true, but for now I will accept it as a faithful report. It’s the Tyler Boo message.

Now note what it first says. It mentions a warning sent to Amanda 6 months earlier. Note: a warning. This would have been to try to get Amanda to stop – yet again. 6 months earlier would have placed the warning around March-April 2011. So obviously, Amanda hadn’t stopped doing what she was doing.

I am perplexed by the comment about Amanda promising the authorities that she would stop because she is producing child porn, but I won’t go into that now, except to say it raises the alarm bells about the origin of the message.

The message is again very odd. The prelude has 4Chan written all over it: pester the person again and again to get them off webcam, send out the evidence to shame them, tell the parents and so on. It sounds like this person already did that, probably way back at the beginning, but is annoyed that Amanda has continued. He warns he will do the same again (tell everybody).

Now the rest, if it is true, puts the blackmail into question. Why? Well, we all think that Amanda was blackmailed into doing what she did, but we have no evidence of that. This message is from October/November 2011, well after Amanda has produced all her material. If the first instance of blackmail occurred in October/November 2011, what’s the excuse for everything prior to that?

What I don’t understand is the ‘three shows’ comment. It doesn’t make sense. Why spend time warning Amanda and then say that? I have my theories, but again I won’t go off on that tangent today.

OK. Are we still thinking that Carol is in some way a hapless helpless bystander in all this? No, not really. She knew what was going on, that much is plain. If your daughter comes to you and says ‘Hey, I got this message’ every single alarm klaxon would have gone off at maximum volume. It truly is bizarre that the family didn’t throw away every piece of technology in the house, or at least place Amanda under strict control. And that’s why I find the next extract so incredible.

full rcmp

The Todd propaganda machine, as we already know, criticised the police for apparently not doing enough. What I find weird here is that Carol seems to have taken a very odd position on all this. It’s almost like she’s saying that what Amanda was doing online was OK, and that all the abuse she is getting is not Amanda’s fault, nor Carol’s, but because of nasty people. Like letting your kid play football on the motorway and then attacking the driver of a car for asking the kid to get out of the way.

Raffi Cavoukian, Sandy Garossino, the Fifth Estate and Carol all chose to have a go at the RCMP, using the ‘there’s only so much we can do as police’ as some sort of damning accusation. But they conveniently left out the part that refers to how the police are almost reduced to begging Norm and Carol to get Amanda off the Internet. And no one mentioned the ‘new material’ that Amanda produced.

But it does raise the ‘What exactly were the police meant to do?’ question. They really had not much of an option. Amanda wasn’t the victim of creepy stalkers, so the police couldn’t take over her identity and just sit back and wait for grooming talk and then pounce. She was the victim of direct responses to her putting child porn online. How could the police morally follow a path of showing Amanda’s masturbation and flash videos as bait, and then telling people off? Their major concern would have been to stop Amanda producing more. What’s the point in catching a harasser if, as fast as they do that, Amanda posts more illegal stuff in chatrooms or on YouTube or Facebook? Here’s news for you – it’s up to the PARENTS and Amanda. The only remaining viable option for the police would be to prosecute Amanda or to physically prevent her – in jail or an institution.

As far as what Carol could have done, well, not easy I agree. But something went desperately wrong on that front. Amanda had her own top-of-the-range phone. She had laptops that got a lot of use. Christ Almighty, she had a microphone and webcam set up in plain sight. She was given a ton of time to do her famous video, yet Carol never seemed to worry about that, either. A decent parent would have spoken about it, got involved, warned that she might get more abuse and so on, but we know that Carol was basically didn’t care much about what Amanda was doing. Yet still it continued. But even now, I can forgive the appalling parental ineptitude. It’s all the lies and avoidance of responsibility since then that I can’t forgive. All the parents Carol speaks to see the online enemy as ‘the other’ – predators, pedophiles, enticers. They never realise that sweet Sally by day is ‘Saucy Sally’ by night. Who can imagine such a thing? They never realise that the main threats to a child’s safety online come from the actions of that child online.

So – now all you naysayers have seen the evidence. If you still think that I am some sort of magic photoshop genius, just go and check out the documentary on YouTube. If I remember rightly, the Tyler Boo messages appear at around 29 minutes in, and the RCMP email around 31 minutes. You just have to be quick on the pause button.

And now maybe some people might grasp why I have a certain amount of antipathy towards Carol Todd. There is something of the night about that woman. In my own mind, I made excuse after excuse. It was only relatively recently that I found these screenshots, and, to me, it strongly reconfirmed everything that I had thought – that Carol is a manipulative liar who spends most of her time, when not glorifying herself and her daughter, covering up the host of errors for which she and Norm were entirely to blame. And getting paid handsomely for it.

https://rhandalynn.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/dark-side-of-the-internet-has-it-gone-to-far/

 

Evidence for the lazy

aaa1

OK. This post is to provide the evidence that most people are too lazy to find for themselves, or disbelieve. These screenshots are taken from the ‘Sextortion of Amanda Todd’ documentary – one of the worst documentaries I have ever seen for providing truth.

My aim here is to provide food for thought, but also to back up my claim that Carol Todd has deliberately hidden certain things away. Is she a liar? Everything is open to discussion. So maybe we should simply call her someone who just reports some of the facts – the important ones she conveniently leaves out. A storyteller, if you will.

The first screenshot is of the warning that Carol received. Don’t you think it odd that she was sent the Amanda video link, then the police arrived on December 23rd, then she got this warning but still didn’t put two and two together and put Amanda on webcam lockdown? And it’s odd that she responded to this warning so aggressively. Instead of opening up a dialogue and perhaps asking what she should do, she sends the message to the police. Well that might be a fair action – maybe she just panicked and didn’t know what else to do. But this message screams out ‘Amanda has to be stopped’. It’s a shame she never listened.

Now, maybe it’s important to understand what goes on online. Amanda would have been one of the easier people to track because she was so open with her details. Certain cyberpoliz look for vulnerable teens to warn them. This can be a simple warning directly to them, and in many cases it’s a fruitless act, sometimes resulting in being told where to go by the girls who people are trying to help – Peyton Ramsey being a fine example. If all warnings are ignored, some of the online investigators resort to threatening to contact parents, and then finally doing so. This is what happened here.

Now at this point Carol Todd’s reputation still seems relatively intact if one continues to make a Hell of a lot of allowances – ignorance, panic, misunderstanding, a very cunning daughter. If the story had finished there, things would have been different. But it’s what Carol did afterwards that is so odd – essentially allowing Amanda to get deeper and deeper in trouble. Again I ask – isn’t it odd that she knew what Amanda was doing (hence all of her ‘evidence’ collected over the next 10-11 months) but never seemed to step in? If she knew her daughter was being harassed via Facebook, she knew her daughter was on Facebook. Solution: stop doing what you’re doing on Facebook. But maybe that was too obvious, and I am prepared to think that Amanda was immensely secretive and hid a lot from her mother. Until, that is, I read the next messages coming in.

aaa2

This is a freeze frame from the same documentary. I have spoken about this before. As evidence goes, it’s pretty poor as it is typed out, so we have no guarantee it’s true, but for now I will accept it as a faithful report. It’s the Tyler Boo message.

Now note what it first says. It mentions a warning sent to Amanda 6 months earlier. Note: a warning. This would have been to try to get Amanda to stop – yet again. 6 months earlier would have placed the warning around March-April 2011. So obviously, Amanda hadn’t stopped doing what she was doing.

I am perplexed by the comment about Amanda promising the authorities that she would stop because she is producing child porn, but I won’t go into that now, except to say it raises the alarm bells about the origin of the message.

The message is again very odd. The prelude has 4Chan written all over it: pester the person again and again to get them off webcam, send out the evidence to shame them, tell the parents and so on. It sounds like this person already did that, probably way back at the beginning, but is annoyed that Amanda has continued. He warns he will do the same again (tell everybody).

Now the rest, if it is true, puts the blackmail into question. Why? Well, we all think that Amanda was blackmailed into doing what she did, but we have no evidence of that. This message is from October/November 2011, well after Amanda has produced all her material. If the first instance of blackmail occurred in October/November 2011, what’s the excuse for everything prior to that?

What I don’t understand is the ‘three shows’ comment. It doesn’t make sense. Why spend time warning Amanda and then say that? I have my theories, but again I won’t go off on that tangent today.

OK. Are we still thinking that Carol is in some way a hapless helpless bystander in all this? No, not really. She knew what was going on, that much is plain. If your daughter comes to you and says ‘Hey, I got this message’ every single alarm klaxon would have gone off at maximum volume. It truly is bizarre that the family didn’t throw away every piece of technology in the house, or at least place Amanda under strict control. And that’s why I find the next extract so incredible.

full rcmp

The Todd propaganda machine, as we already know, criticised the police for apparently not doing enough. What I find weird here is that Carol seems to have taken a very odd position on all this. It’s almost like she’s saying that what Amanda was doing online was OK, and that all the abuse she is getting is not Amanda’s fault, nor Carol’s, but because of nasty people. Like letting your kid play football on the motorway and then attacking the driver of a car for asking the kid to get out of the way.

Raffi Cavoukian, Sandy Garossino, the Fifth Estate and Carol all chose to have a go at the RCMP, using the ‘there’s only so much we can do as police’ as some sort of damning accusation. But they conveniently left out the part that refers to how the police are almost reduced to begging Norm and Carol to get Amanda off the Internet. And no one mentioned the ‘new material’ that Amanda produced.

But it does raise the ‘What exactly were the police meant to do?’ question. They really had not much of an option. Amanda wasn’t the victim of creepy stalkers, so the police couldn’t take over her identity and just sit back and wait for grooming talk and then pounce. She was the victim of direct responses to her putting child porn online. How could the police morally follow a path of showing Amanda’s masturbation and flash videos as bait, and then telling people off? Their major concern would have been to stop Amanda producing more. What’s the point in catching a harasser if, as fast as they do that, Amanda posts more illegal stuff in chatrooms or on YouTube or Facebook? Here’s news for you – it’s up to the PARENTS and Amanda. The only remaining viable option for the police would be to prosecute Amanda or to physically prevent her – in jail or an institution.

As far as what Carol could have done, well, not easy I agree. But something went desperately wrong on that front. Amanda had her own top-of-the-range phone. She had laptops that got a lot of use. Christ Almighty, she had a microphone and webcam set up in plain sight. She was given a ton of time to do her famous video, yet Carol never seemed to worry about that, either. A decent parent would have spoken about it, got involved, warned that she might get more abuse and so on, but we know that Carol was basically didn’t care much about what Amanda was doing. Yet still it continued. But even now, I can forgive the appalling parental ineptitude. It’s all the lies and avoidance of responsibility since then that I can’t forgive. All the parents Carol speaks to see the online enemy as ‘the other’ – predators, pedophiles, enticers. They never realise that sweet Sally by day is ‘Saucy Sally’ by night. Who can imagine such a thing? They never realise that the main threats to a child’s safety online come from the actions of that child online.

So – now all you naysayers have seen the evidence. If you still think that I am some sort of magic photoshop genius, just go and check out the documentary on YouTube. If I remember rightly, the Tyler Boo messages appear at around 29 minutes in, and the RCMP email around 31 minutes. You just have to be quick on the pause button.

And now maybe some people might grasp why I have a certain amount of antipathy towards Carol Todd. There is something of the night about that woman. In my own mind, I made excuse after excuse. It was only relatively recently that I found these screenshots, and, to me, it strongly reconfirmed everything that I had thought – that Carol is a manipulative liar who spends most of her time, when not glorifying herself and her daughter, covering up the host of errors for which she and Norm were entirely to blame. And getting paid handsomely for it.

 

Paula Todd/Carol Todd – both liars or just idiots?

quote-media-is-a-word-that-has-come-to-mean-bad-journalism-graham-greene-328710

http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/the-interview-the-psychology-of-online-abusers/

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.

 

 

The RCMP emails to the Todds

People may note I’ve deleted some posts. Basically, I’ve decided not to argue with certain people. Like that common turn of phrase outside the pub at chucking out time: ‘Leave it! It’s not worth it!’. LOL. So we’ve gone back in time a bit. I have attracted a slightly new audience, and they can’t be bothered to look further than the main page. So I apologise to regular readers for the repeats that may arise this week. This post originally attracted quite a bit of interest, so I’ve gone back to it for now.

The video for today comes from British Columbia’s ‘Careers Advice for Canadian Girls’ series.

People will be familiar with the oft-quoted anti-RCMP words:

“If Amanda does not stay off the Internet and/or take steps to protect herself online, there is only so much we as the police can do.”

These words have been used to say that the RCMP didn’t care, that they were not fully concerned with the case.

I have recently obtained the full set of emails sent by the RCMP to the Todds from December 2010 onwards, and they show an entirely different state of affairs – one in which the police begged and pleaded with the Todds in order to try and protect Amanda from the consequences of her actions. Short of actually confiscating all of Amanda’s phones and computers, short of actually forcibly preventing Amanda from using social media, short of incarcerating Amanda in hospital (an action taken later on in 2012), there was not much they could do, especially when Carol and Norm took no effective preventative measures at all.

Here is the full email (I posted an extract a couple of days ago) from which the above words were taken. It was sent in October 2011, just before the IWF and Cybertip received warnings from members of the public about Amanda’s behaviour. It clearly shows that Amanda was way out of control, but you can make up your own minds. I have added my own thoughts below the email, and highlighted some things.

To: Todd, Carol; Todd, Norm

Subject: RE: Amanda Todd  October 12th 2011

To you both,

After our meeting with Norm yesterday we have been informed steps have been taken to keep Amanda off the Internet while in your homes. At this time Norm has stated that he has taken away Amanda’s internet access as well as her phone. We believe that the photo’s and video that have recently appeared is new material Amanda has posted of herself since last year. We identified twelve Facebook profiles Amanda currently has running. The main account still has 1100 subscribers on it.

Constable Schadeck with our section will be continuing with this investigation. As my colleague and I said yesterday and last week, if Amanda does not stay off the internet and/or take steps to protect herself online there is only so much we as the police can do.  Part of this is also attributable to her ability to have access to camera facilities. We suggest that Amanda ceases all further online communication and that she closes down all of her email accounts and her accounts on YouTube and elsewhere.

If Amanda cannot be prevented from further use of the internet we will have to meet again to discuss further action such as temporary protective supervision.

asdfghj, Inspector, RCMP.

Notes: The story goes that the police first arrived in December 2010, and that it was all down to one photo – we’ve heard this many times. Yet this email clearly shows that Amanda’s activities continued. These are not the actions of a young girl scared of predators and blackmailers. Indeed, there is no mention of this in this email – merely the police insistence, quite measured and polite, that Norm and Carol must take action to stop Amanda.

We know that Amanda’s access was taken away. She mentions this in a twitter communication (errrmmmm? lol) around the same time, in which she states that she needs to start gathering followers all over again. Yet it is astonishing that, after the crisis of December 2010, Amanda has managed to maintain 12 Facebook profiles, one of which has 1100 subscribers. I have heard rumours about the ‘new material’ that was used on these profiles (pages, actually) but I have, due to them being rumours only, refrained from publishing what is believed to be one of Amanda’s profile pictures. Also, due to the nature of the pictures she used, it is likely that I would be prosecuted under the new child pornography laws. It has also been rumoured that, as well as posting pictures of a sexual nature, there were also videos of her drinking and smoking weed with her friends. However, we do know that at least one of the videos she posted was a version of the infamous ‘twerking’ one.

It is interesting to note that this email stresses the importance of stopping Amanda, and puts the onus of  responsibility, quite rightly, on Carol, Norm and Amanda. Simply put, it implies that the only way to avoid trouble is to stop Amanda doing what she is doing. There is no talk of extortion, stalking, predators – just a controlled plea to get Amanda to stop.

It’s odd, isn’t it? The police desperately pleading for Amanda’s camera activity to be controlled, then we have the story from Carol about how Amanda – in September 2012, almost a year later with her YouTube channel ‘TheSomebodytoknow’ – does a video, of which Carol had no knowledge and about which she so proudly announces ‘she didn’t ask’, and we see Amanda back online on October 3rd, 2012 – obviously filmed in her room and with total unfettered access. Didn’t anybody learn?

We have to realise – if we haven’t already – that we have been lied to by the Press, lied to by the Todds, and we are beginning to be lied to by the RCMP who are between a rock and a hard place – tell the truth and be condemned, not tell the truth and sink deeper and deeper into controversy.

Tomorrow I will explain how messages sent to Carol and Amanda have not only been kept secret, but those that have been publicised have been not only edited, they have been added to in order to provide more shock and horror. This is a terrible, terrible fraud, and it has now crossed borders into Holland.

The RCMP emails to the Todds

The video for today comes from British Columbia’s ‘Careers Advice for Canadian Girls’ series.

People will be familiar with the oft-quoted anti-RCMP words:

“If Amanda does not stay off the Internet and/or take steps to protect herself online, there is only so much we as the police can do.”

These words have been used to say that the RCMP didn’t care, that they were not fully concerned with the case.

I have recently obtained the full set of emails sent by the RCMP to the Todds from December 2010 onwards, and they show an entirely different state of affairs – one in which the police begged and pleaded with the Todds in order to try and protect Amanda from the consequences of her actions. Short of actually confiscating all of Amanda’s phones and computers, short of actually forcibly preventing Amanda from using social media, short of incarcerating Amanda in hospital (an action taken later on in 2012), there was not much they could do, especially when Carol and Norm took no effective preventative measures at all.

Here is the full email (I posted an extract a couple of days ago) from which the above words were taken. It was sent in October 2011, just before the IWF and Cybertip received warnings from members of the public about Amanda’s behaviour. It clearly shows that Amanda was way out of control, but you can make up your own minds. I have added my own thoughts below the email, and highlighted some things.

To: Todd, Carol; Todd, Norm

Subject: RE: Amanda Todd  October 12th 2011

To you both,

After our meeting with Norm yesterday we have been informed steps have been taken to keep Amanda off the Internet while in your homes. At this time Norm has stated that he has taken away Amanda’s internet access as well as her phone. We believe that the photo’s and video that have recently appeared is new material Amanda has posted of herself since last year. We identified twelve Facebook profiles Amanda currently has running. The main account still has 1100 subscribers on it.

Constable Schadeck with our section will be continuing with this investigation. As my colleague and I said yesterday and last week, if Amanda does not stay off the internet and/or take steps to protect herself online there is only so much we as the police can do.  Part of this is also attributable to her ability to have access to camera facilities. We suggest that Amanda ceases all further online communication and that she closes down all of her email accounts and her accounts on YouTube and elsewhere.

If Amanda cannot be prevented from further use of the internet we will have to meet again to discuss further action such as temporary protective supervision.

asdfghj, Inspector, RCMP.

Notes: The story goes that the police first arrived in December 2010, and that it was all down to one photo – we’ve heard this many times. Yet this email clearly shows that Amanda’s activities continued. These are not the actions of a young girl scared of predators and blackmailers. Indeed, there is no mention of this in this email – merely the police insistence, quite measured and polite, that Norm and Carol must take action to stop Amanda.

We know that Amanda’s access was taken away. She mentions this in a twitter communication (errrmmmm? lol) around the same time, in which she states that she needs to start gathering followers all over again. Yet it is astonishing that, after the crisis of December 2010, Amanda has managed to maintain 12 Facebook profiles, one of which has 1100 subscribers. I have heard rumours about the ‘new material’ that was used on these profiles (pages, actually) but I have, due to them being rumours only, refrained from publishing what is believed to be one of Amanda’s profile pictures. Also, due to the nature of the pictures she used, it is likely that I would be prosecuted under the new child pornography laws. It has also been rumoured that, as well as posting pictures of a sexual nature, there were also videos of her drinking and smoking weed with her friends. However, we do know that at least one of the videos she posted was a version of the infamous ‘twerking’ one.

It is interesting to note that this email stresses the importance of stopping Amanda, and puts the onus of  responsibility, quite rightly, on Carol, Norm and Amanda. Simply put, it implies that the only way to avoid trouble is to stop Amanda doing what she is doing. There is no talk of extortion, stalking, predators – just a controlled plea to get Amanda to stop.

It’s odd, isn’t it? The police desperately pleading for Amanda’s camera activity to be controlled, then we have the story from Carol about how Amanda – in September 2012, almost a year later with her YouTube channel ‘TheSomebodytoknow’ – does a video, of which Carol had no knowledge and about which she so proudly announces ‘she didn’t ask’, and we see Amanda back online on October 3rd, 2012 – obviously filmed in her room and with total unfettered access. Didn’t anybody learn?

We have to realise – if we haven’t already – that we have been lied to by the Press, lied to by the Todds, and we are beginning to be lied to by the RCMP who are between a rock and a hard place – tell the truth and be condemned, not tell the truth and sink deeper and deeper into controversy.

Tomorrow I will explain how messages sent to Carol and Amanda have not only been kept secret, but those that have been publicised have been not only edited, they have been added to in order to provide more shock and horror. This is a terrible, terrible fraud, and it has now crossed borders into Holland. I will be contacting the MLAs yet again and going further in order to get this story investigated.

It’s not over. I wish it was.

A lot of hard work

Note: original post edited.

I am the firestarter.

I seem to spend my days experiencing various levels of emotion – most of them unpleasant. Yet there are times for elation, and today there is great news. The Daniel Perry case has resulted in major action.

I am filled with disgust and contempt for the Press, especially the American and Canadian versions. I am filled with anger and rage at the neo-Feminists who spew out misandry and misinformation. Where was Daniel in all of your splenetic rantings? Where was he in all your accusations of misogyny? Where was the concern for male victims of crime? It was nowhere. Whilst the tale of a narcissistic, out-of-control girl makes major headlines, whilst every other instance where a girl is involved in online insanity gets outpourings of wasted empathy and grief, explosions of sanctimonious wailing and gnashing  of teeth, the true tragedy of this poor lad passed by – hardly noticed.

It’s time to wake up. Wake up to the truth and the reality, and wake up to the fact that those are only present here on this blog.

So – it’s time for an announcement. An announcement that probably no-one will read, and that no-one will pay any attention to.

Readers will know that there are things on this blog that exist nowhere else. I have recently released an edited version of emails sent to Carol and Norm – these are nowhere to be found online, they are my property. I have released a true version of what Tyler Boo sent in his message to Amanda – a version that was doctored to make it look much worse and, in fact, criminally embellished for shock factor. At the moment, it would appear that, apart from police and investigators, only I have these documents.

Readers will also know that I have hinted heavily that I have a police informer, who I have protected for several months. Well – that time is up. I will give you the name you all want: Police Constable A***** S*******. How else do you think I know about the parties at Norm’s lake house? the chatlogs? the emails to the Todds? Sorry love, had to be done.

I am half expecting this blog to disappear at any time soon.

I have written to the RCMP yet again, knowing they will not deign to respond. I know that they are liars. When the police start lying to you, you know you’re in trouble. It’s truth time. I’m fed up with playing about. Aydin Coban? Nonsense. The Dutch legal announcement was nothing to do with Amanda, nothing to do with Canada. Online extortion? Nonsense. The Flying Dutchman legend was invented to make it look like the police had finally got their man, in an effort not only to look good, but to try and close the case once and for all.

I will show one of the full emails sent to Norm and Carol tomorrow. It will show that Amanda was allowed to do whatever she wanted, and that there was no other person involved in making her perform online. And it will show that Carol and Norm did nothing to prevent it – perhaps even encouraging it for the sake of their own misguided attention-seeking. And I will show the fakery behind Tyler Boo and Austin Collins – evidence that was manipulated for a gullible audience.

Like the heading of today’s post – it’s a lot of hard work. I will bring the fantastic Daniel Perry news from the Philippines to the blog soon. Meanwhile, have a nice day – and keep your kids safe!