Where’s my head at?

I’m not in full blogging mode today. The weather in the UK has been grim, but now Spring/Summer is arriving the outdoors is a much better place to be. Blogging is a Winter activity, I think.

Nothing is happening much on the Amanda Todd story. I’ve said this a load of times before, but it definitely is dying out. And maybe that’s a good thing. Her mother should realise that her memory is becoming more tarnished each day, but I think she doesn’t believe that. It’s a terrible shame that more people know now about what she got up to than ever before.

Here is where we are at. We now know with certainty that she was naked online many times, flashing and much worse. But loads of people knew that right from the beginning. We know that the myth of it all starting when she was 12 and in 7th grade is just a fallacy – interpreted that way by the public and the media to make it sound even more scandalous.

We know that she was late 13, early 14 when she really got active on BlogTV. We have her join date as ‘cutiielover’ as being in November 2010. We know that, by December 5th, very soon afterwards, her photo had been spread.

And we know, without shadow of a doubt, that the photos were spread by her friends. There was no stalker, no predator, no pedophile, no older man. Sure, these types exist in these circles, and they may have seen Amanda’s videos. But the stalker myth was created by her as an excuse for her behaviour. Here’s a much truer – perhaps 100% true – version of what happened. And remember, this is backed up by FACTS!

Amanda went online from 2008 onwards. We know that from her activities as mandy_kinz.

In late 2010, she joined BlogTV – around about September/October 2010. Unfortunately, she got into the habit of flashing. She was, at least once, accompanied by a friend.

On December 5th, 2010, we know that her pictures were in the public eye. She told people that her friends had found them.

So this is what happened: she joined BlogTV in November 2010, and soon found out that flashing brought her popularity. She just loved the attention. So she continued. There are hints about just how far she went, and pictures that show her doing a lot worse than just a quick flash.

At some point, either her friend or Amanda boast about what they get up to. Word gets out, and the kids in her school find the evidence. The links are sent around, and pretty quickly half of Vancouver are aware. By December 5th, she knows this.

But this doesn’t put her off. After all, notoriety can be quite attractive. She still flashes again on December 17th, 2010.

Then, on December 23rd, the cops arrive. Just what is going on? A pornography scandal? Child abuse? Amanda is questioned, and quite rapidly tells the story of a blackmailer/predator/stalker.

This was the start of so many lies. There was never a predator/older man/stalker or whatever. She simply made it up. Of course, they existed. In the Capper community, in which Amanda had become infamous, there are plenty of them. So Amanda knew that if she just pointed at someone to blame, she would sound credible. After all, you would trust a naive 14 year old pretty girl, wouldn’t you?

If you don’t believe me, fair enough. But ask yourselves some questions. If Amanda had been so stalked, why did she stay online for so long afterwards? Why did she have such a strong Facebook and YouTube presence if she thought there was some monster out there to get her? Why did she continue getting naked throughout 2011? Poor stalked girl – or narcissistic attention-seeker?

And how come this stalker was never caught? All the messaging that would have been going to and fro, all the spreading of the video by this ONE guy – there would have been a trail a mile wide. The police have had since December 23rd, 2010, to come up with something. But you know why they can’t? Because it’s not true.

So just get this straight. No predator, no stalker. Just lies.

PS: for some reason, WordPress didn’t show all of my first post. Perhaps now it makes more sense.

Amanda’s last appearance as cutiielover

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:

https://philipjrose.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-story-takes-yet-another-bizarre-twist/

 

 

 

 

 

Day 11 – the Amanda Todd video – the aftermath

Amendment: It was still difficult to fathom what was going on at this point. The story was still relatively fresh, and it still held up in the media as a one-off photo and so on. Because the story was so outrageous, I thought it might be a hoax. I’m still not 100% convinced it itsn’t.

It seems like it’s been a long haul, but we’ve finally got past the video.

Let’s recap. We know much of the history of Amanda Todd. Some of it might not be accurate, but we know for certain – she was no angel. Far from it. We know for certain that the one-off photo – as we are led to believe in the video – is an extreme lie. She was a serial exhibitionist. The physical evidence clearly shows that she was in the habit of going nude online, and the mass of anecdotal evidence is too great to ignore.

This means that one of the core factors of the 2012 video – the innocent flash – is invalid. It’s this that also destroys the credibility of the rest of the story. By not telling the truth about her online behaviour, everything else crumbles. But, even without knowing about the nude appearances, the rest of the video seems to have too many holes in it. There are limits as to how long we can go on assuming that all the people involved are idiots – they are just too stupid. From the central character of Amanda, whose repeated acts of stupidity have to eventually be put down to mental illness, through to the parents’ complete inability to protect their daughter – it’s all too incredible.

So – what are we to believe? At this time, we can easily reach the conclusion that the video is a pack of lies, fabrication and exaggeration. In normal circumstances, it would be easy just to turn the page, move on – it’s sad, but we can’t spare time for every suicide case – there’s one every 40 seconds.

But it is what happens afterwards that makes this case so extraordinary. The conflicting stories from mother’s own mouth; the differing and changing accounts of what happened; the weird responses from the police; the deification of Amanda; the vigilante hunt for the imaginary stalker; the Capper Awards; the flood of hatred from people who knew her, and the flood of love from those who didn’t. It all added up to make a strange legend. And, as you are probably aware, the extremeness of all the discrepancies leads me to believe this: either there is a massive cover-up by parents (mainly them), teachers and social services or it has been entirely fabricated. Let me try to explain:

If we assume that ALL the story is true, and we take the video as it stands, it is clear that there were many, many issues that weren’t addressed, but it came to represent the bullying cause – totally wrong. The physical bullying – the playground fight – was a one-off, and came relatively late into the story. The events surrounding it – the drugs, the drink, the sex, any causes – tended to fade into the background. The stalker issue was seized upon by more hysterical people, but even this wasn’t properly dealt with – like why wasn’t she more protected? The online bullying was highlighted but – again – why wasn’t more done to prevent it? And the woeful attempts to save her when it seemed her life was spiralling out of control hardly got a mention. I believe that the story, as it continued, was an attempt to draw attention away from all the inadequacies of parents, teachers and the police when it came to dealing with all this – to avoid all blame, putting it fairly and squarely on the shoulders of others.

If we DON’T take the story at its face value, then there is a lot more going on. Why was there no shock/horror over her online activities? Why were the BlogTV events never mentioned and – for a long while – denied, covered up, suppressed? Why did the mainstream press never mention it? I think the press rushed in too quickly, and when the truth began to appear they were too scared to deal with it. Why didn’t the story develop around the dangers of online nudity? Why were there no extreme warnings about keeping children away from the worst aspects of the Internet? No warnings against drink, drugs, sex – just bullying. Why did the police suggest that they had dozens of people looking into the story, when the stalker events had happened two years prior to the video, and had never been resolved? Why did the story become so legendary?

My theory is this: the authorities knew that Amanda’s situation was out of control. In December, 2010, when it all really came to a head, they knew there was trouble. They knew about the BlogTV history – it was on the Daily Capper show, and members of the public knew. The 4am raid was an effort to bring it to an end – to get her off the Internet, to tell her off, and to resolve things. It failed miserably. They hoped that lessons were learned, but she was still online three weeks later – possibly up to her old tricks. They hoped she would get off her webcam, control Facebook, close down YouTube. But no. She remained at risk.

As we have seen, things got worse. We assume, given the proclivities of Port Coquitlam youth, that she got, as she says, into drink, drugs and sex. So she remained in danger. What could be done? A change of schools, a change of environment? All failed. She made her own problems. She was a problem magnet. Maybe she should have been taken into care. So she was still at risk. Still on Facebook, still indulging in risky activity, still exposed to hate. She was going downhill fast. Bleach. Overdose. Hospitalisation. But STILL it continued – no efforts by her or parents to stop her actions – the actions that put her in so much danger. And then the final straw. All moves to protect her – to keep her away from the Internet – all failed spectacularly with what, to all intents and purposes, was an eight minute Amanda Todd advertisement, accompanied by the now obligatory video of her singing. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

With plenty of previous examples of online madness available – Marjorie Raymond, Megan Meier and, Queen of them all, Jessi Slaughter – any informed person would know that it called for drastic measures – a complete change of identity.

They couldn’t just take her into care. It might have been easy just to put her in some sort of ongoing detention – constantly supervised, and given therapy until she was ready to live a happy life. But there was the massive problem of her history. If she had recovered, the likelihood would be – given the nature of the Internet and her addiction to it – that she would have gone back online and it would start all over again. Even years into the future, the pictures and videos would be there to haunt her, no matter what she did.

So the only answer was to seek to destroy her identity. Straightforward death wouldn’t do it – too much bother to construct an accident or an illness and to go through with a funeral, autopsy or death certificate. But a suicide would do the trick. An excuse not to give away too much detail, and to keep things secret, and to gain publicity – Amanda Todd is no more, an announcement to the world.. A convenient way to turn her into a poster child for a cause.

But they didn’t know it was going to go viral. If they had, they would have made the story watertight, foolproof. No mystery; no holes in the plot; just a sad story. But it exploded. And lie upon lie followed.

Note: my theory as I’ve described it might seem to be outrageously mad. Maybe it is. But the aftermath provides much more of a substantiation of it all – the contradictions, the puzzles, the strange lack of openness and truth-telling. And, again, I ask you to look at the stories of Megan Meier and Jessi Slaughter – both stories that are stranger than fiction.

My next entry will start looking at events after the supposed suicide of October 10th, 2012.

Thank you for staying with the blog.

Day 9 – the video (continued)

amanda todd copycats

Amendment: At this point, I realised that people liked some sort of picture or video on a post. I also began to realise that people didn’t like long posts. I was still working very much on my own – the Todd story was still very much the ‘one-off photo’ style.

We are now at 3:01 in the video – ‘Then nobody liked me’. See the previous blog entries, and the previous Day 9. We can safely assume that Amanda Todd was not very well-liked throughout most of this story. She has simply managed to alienate herself through her own actions.

‘name calling…judged’ – well, I’m not surprised. What would you have thought? Given what you now know about Amanda, it’s very likely that, if you were a parent of any of the kids who knew her, you would discourage your kids from having anything to do with her. Her reputation was firmly established – she was not the sort of child you would want to see your kids with. If you’re a kid, you’re dealing with revenge – the fall of the bullying cheerleader; the comeuppance of the attention-seeking YouTube channel show-off; the decline of the BlogTV celebrity. She deserved it (a phrase used commonly).

‘I can never get that photo back’ – more lying. No mention of all the other stuff that was, by now, all over the Internet. Does she seriously believe, at this point, that no-one is ever going to find out her history? Is she really that stupid? Or is she just simply locked into having to retell the pack of lies that she has been telling everyone? Is it really possible that her parents and family were still, at this point, unaware of her activity? Why does she never come clean and admit to all her past errors?

‘It’s out there forever’ – she knows that for sure.

‘I started cutting’. Interesting. Yet again, no evidence. Sensationalism at its finest. Look at all her photos – no wounds, no scars, no bandages, nothing. She wears short sleeves in nearly all of them, and it is clear to see – no cutting. Short sleeves are not normally worn by cutters. And in one of her mother’s seemingly endless interviews, mother actually states that she was prevented from cutting. So yet more lies.

‘Didn’t have any friends and sat at lunch alone’. Probably true, but, yet again, not in keeping with the news that followed.

‘So I moved schools again’ – why ‘again’? We have no record so far of her moving schools. There are rumours that she moved around schools many times BEFORE any of this, and that it was due to ‘problems’. I’m guessing that she moved from Maple Ridge Secondary to CABE – a school for special needs.

http://www.sd43.bc.ca/secondary/CABE/About/PrincipalMessage/Pages/default.aspx

Note: ‘Our small, welcoming environment creates an alternative structure that allows students who have struggled in other Coquitlam Secondary schools to excel.’

So – it’s for kids with problems. Like Amanda.

She feels better. But then – for God’s sake – she’s back to her old self. ‘After a month later I started talking to an old guy friend’. Well, for the nutcases out there, this has provided a marvellous opportunity for hysteria. The idiots have interpreted this ‘old guy’ as meaning just that – an ‘old guy’. In context, it means old as in ‘from the past’. This smooth-tongued (or is it now ‘smooth-texted’) devil leads her on. But, as she writes, she knew he had a girlfriend. She willingly walks into the problem.

She knows the girlfriend is on vacation. She knows this boy has this girlfriend. Bad territory for any teen, even one as dim-witted as Amanda. But no. She goes ahead. I get the impression that she’s not new to this, if you know what I mean – she’s no virgin, for those who don’t.

She writes ‘huge mistake’. Hindsight is always 20:20. But then she writes: ‘He hooked up with me’. What? While her back was turned? While she wasn’t paying attention? Did she have no part to play in this? Could she not say ‘no’? Very typical victim behaviour. Put the blame on him. They text; girlfriend goes away; he says come round. She thinks it’s for a cup of tea and a slice of cake followed by polite conversation and a game of Scrabble? You’ve got to be kidding me.

‘I thought he liked me’ – well, he probably did. With a modicum of sympathy, I’ll allow her a degree of leniency. She’s not the first, and definitely not the last girl to tread this well-worn path. She was young, naive, easily led. Drastically in need of love and attention. But hang on a minute! We’re talking sex here – not holding hands and sharing a milkshake. What is going on? In case people out there are unaware, under-age sex is a felony – a felony in which it’s nearly always the guy who gets punished. In my country, Social Services would have gone batshit crazy by now. After the online events, it is very likely that she would have been seen as at risk; the drugs and alcohol would have brought on major responses; and this event might even have tipped the balance into serious action – maybe even taking her into care or supervision. So we really must think here – just what was going on around her? Where were the responsible adults? It’s really difficult to find any.

By the way – how come the boy seems to have got away with it? He’s never mentioned by the press – maybe because he’s a minor. And I don’t think I can risk naming him now, however much I would like to – it’s too close to being illegal, though I don’t think I’m bound by press rules. But he does exist – I know who he is, as do many others. But it’s irrelevant. Let him be.

So – she gets a text from the guy’s girlfriend. The torrid soap-opera of the school playground. ‘get out of your school’. The pistols-at-dawn threats from over-dramatic kids. The girlfriend and 15 buddies, including him arrive (cue the Ennio Morricone music). It’s showdown time.

Perhaps I should not be too flippant here. Teens can be evil little shits – the nice ones are rarities, and should be prized. The bad ones are almost feral, especially girls. They know exactly what to say or do to get at someone – they can spot weaknesses a mile off, they can detect the smell of a victim from across the other side of a football field. And Amanda has presented herself – signed, sealed and delivered. She has broken the rules – the unwritten rules of teenhood: don’t sleep with another girl’s boyfriend; don’t even talk to him, even if he leads you on; and don’t have a reputation. She is doomed – yet again, by her own actions.

The girls begin. Note here: several commentators have chosen to use this story as an example of misogyny. They are wrong. This is girl against girl. It is very likely that boys wouldn’t care. This is all about girls, and you can see it in nearly every story of female teen bullying. The most vehement shaming comes from girls.

‘nobody likes you’. Words will never hurt? Rubbish. A thump in the face hurts for a while; phrases like ‘nobody likes you’ can lead to therapy thirty years later! It’s one of the most unkind phrases in the ‘revenge’ repertoire.

But was this true? The Amanda Todd story repeatedly has two parallel and opposite threads: in the press, she was well-liked, with few enemies; in reality, it looks like she was hated, with a few friends. Establishing the truth is not easy.

Things develop. We have Amanda, a group of 15 trouble-makers, and now an audience of 50 from her new school. And no-one helps. Why? Where are all her friends (the ones who attended her memorial and in all her pictures)? Is she truly alone? No-one notices. No responsible adults. Strange.

Like something out of ‘Lord of the Flies’ someone shouts ‘punch her’. It probably didn’t matter who the victim was – it’s now just a spectacle, an entertainment. A fight ensues – similar to fights that occur every day at school. Nasty savagery. The Law of the Jungle. Kids film it. It’s probably online somewhere, even now.

We are now at 6:09. The fight has occurred. But what about the response? ‘I lied and said it was my fault and my idea’. This is an odd statement, and out of context. What did she say was her fault? And what was her idea? And who is she telling this to? Teachers? Police? Parents? She’s not talking about the fight – it’s not her ‘idea’. She’s talking about the episode with the boy. She’s talking about discussions AFTER the fight – investigations.

I’m going to take a break. These posts are getting longer, and maybe they are getting boring. I’m also conscious that I’m beginning to rush things. The points raised by the video are important, and I wish I had the time and ability to give them proper treatment. I will return to the video tomorrow. Events after the fight take more strange turns, and raise more important questions – mainly about the responsibility of responsible adults in all this.

All comments/criticisms are appreciated. Thank you.

Day 8 – Where do I go now? The photos

Amendment: This post is about the main photos available online. It was still pretty jumbled at this point.

I approach this blog with no real plan of what I’m going to write. If I sat down and actually mapped out the complexities of it all, and how much research I would have to do to properly do the story justice, I would retreat from the immensity of it all. And then, of course, there’s that old enemy – self-doubt. Does anybody really care about Amanda Todd any more? Does anybody really care about the truth of the situation? I’m not sure. It would help if I got some feedback from people who look at this blog.

But I’ve started, so I might as well continue. I will try not to rush to my conclusions – that the whole story is a pack of lies from a troubled child, with a tragic ending OR that it has been almost completely faked in an attempt to protect her, and she is still alive and under supervision. And I will try not to let boredom and frustration take me down the route of sensationalism – the publication of one of her pictures, or the video, though highly illegal now, would at least give me those empty-calorie thrills of watching my stats go through the roof!

Meanwhile, I would like to thank a few supporters. And also, for my one, lonely follower, I will be commenting about your recent post soon. And I will apologise in advance: I think the story might be slightly out of order over the next few days, but I will do my best to get it back on track.

So – Day 8 begins. My first post will take a step back from the chronology, and look at the infamous photos/videos of Amanda Todd.

It is very difficult to draw real conclusions from the photos and the video, as there is no certainty about the dates. But let’s try. Note: I have no idea where I stand legally concerning the photos. The uncensored ones are definitely a no-go area, and I have a feeling that even the heavily censored ones are too risky. I have supplied a link earlier in my blog – but I think that may be also risky.

By now, most people should be familiar with the main Amanda Todd flashing episodes. There’s the video and accompanying photos, which I will call ‘Yellow Top’; the single photo which I will call ‘Green Top’; and the series of photos I will call ‘Black Top’. All these photos can be found by Googling images using ‘Amanda Todd BlogTV’ or ‘Amanda Todd 4Chan’, but remember to switch the image moderation off. I think the video has completely gone underground – anybody showing it on Facebook will not only get banned, but is likely to be contacted by the police. I think the video still exists on certain sites. It did get posted on Facebook early on, but  have a feeling it might have led to the New Zealand arrest:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7841362/Teen-questioned-over-global-cyber-bullying

Before I begin, I am aware of the fact that, if Amanda was actually online so much, the amount of pictures doesn’t bear this out. It would be possible to draw the conclusion that she only appeared three times over a couple of years. However, it’s odd to assume that her pictures would be captured EVERY time she was online. Also, in conjunction with the Daily Capper Awards, it is unlikely that, given the plethora of teen girls flashing online, Amanda would have achieved notoriety with so few appearances. Why, for instance, would she have been banned from BlogTV? And what about her other online identities on Stickam and Tinychat? Anyway, let’s continue.

CORRECTIONS: The ‘yellow top’ photos are from around late 2010; the ‘green top’ from December 17th 2010; the ‘black top’ at any point in 2011.

The Yellow Top photos. These are confusing, and difficult to place chronologically. Personally, I think they are very early on in the story, at any point in 2009. If they are the source of the photo which was supposedly sent to all her friends, and if they were the precursors to her online fame when she was still in 7th grade and aged 12, then maybe they are from August-September of 2009. However, the BlogTV logo puts me off, as I have estimated her appearances there as being a year later. Could it be that she recorded these pictures earlier, and then released them to BlogTV? I doubt it, as BlogTV seems to be mostly live. But it’s a possibility.

The Yellow Top photos are taken from the video. Anyone who has seen the video will be struck by two things: she wasn’t alone, and she was having fun. The video lasts a couple of minutes. The two girls are basically prancing around their bedroom, behaving in a manner which, rather coyly, I would term as being coquettish. If we see them as being too young to really understand what they are doing – which, to a certain extent is giving them the benefit of the doubt – then we can be more lenient, and just explain it as a piece of childishness foolishness – two kids who have suddenly realised that they have boobs, and these can gain attention. What is important to note, though, is that it is done for fun, for a laugh. It’s just a game – one which was to prove, it seems, quite addictive for Amanda. The two of them strike various poses until, possibly egged on by each other, they flash. It’s over and done with, and in many other cases it would have probably been the end of the story.

Now we move on to the Green Top photo. I have placed this as later in the story, simply because she looks slightly older and more confident. We still see the BlogTV logo. I’m not sure where this takes place, as it looks like there’s a laundry basket in the background, but we can clearly see a microphone set up, so it doesn’t look as if it was a spur of the moment thing. I would place this as being possibly late 2009, but more likely early 2010. I would welcome any thoughts on this, as I am still wondering how long she was on BlogTV for, and whether or not this was placed there later.

Next – the Black Top photos. These are far more serious, and I would place them around September-December 2010 – the time just before the police arrived on her doorstep.

There are actually five black top photos. Currently, I can only find the collage photos, and I cannot find the photos that are accompanied by the extremely damning text. I will endeavour to find these but, for the moment, I will have to go by memory.

The collage is odd. In the top left, Amanda is obviously on webcam, but what are her aims? Is she just chatting? Or is she preparing a show? The photo to the left of it is difficult to work out. She appears to be undressing. But who for? Or what for? It could be that it’s for a boyfriend – relatively innocent – but, with reference to the text in the other set of photos, things look more dubious. The two remaining photos – bottom left and next to it – well, I can’t make out what is going on there. Suffice to say that this is the most common evidence of Amanda going beyond flashing her boobs, and it would be very difficult to try and explain it away as some sort of error.

The other Black Top collage takes three of the four aforementioned photos and adds another – I think it is of her in a pose on her bed. Like I said before, I can’t find the original, so I am working from memory. But what is so strange about this second collage is the accompanying text.

It is a warning to parents – not particularly well-written but, I believe, strongly felt. It warns parents not to allow their kids to follow the same path and it is, almost, one of the  wisest pieces of advice to come out of the story. However, it’s veracity is questionable. Supporters will say it’s just venom and spite, but I have chosen to take it as an indication of the truth. The text accuses her of online masturbation and of going online with a title ‘Flash at 1000 likes’ (I need to find the original!) What makes it credible is this: why would anybody bother to go to the effort of saying it, making a collage, and putting it online? There was already a huge tsunami of hate-filled things being published, and there would be nothing to gain from simply just throwing insults. Whoever wrote it seems motivated by a moral impulse – to prevent kids from repeating mistakes, and to warn parents about letting their offspring have unfettered use of webcams. However, the writer also seems to know a lot more about her online activity than most, and has possibly witnessed it. Therefore, I have taken this to be true.

I will move on now. We are fast approaching the September 2012 video and its aftermath. I think I have shown enough history now. Maybe there are bits missing, but I will try to fill in as much detail as I can later.

Each time, I put out the same plea. Could anyone out there supply me with more insight, more information, or some clarification of the event?

Thank you for reading this.