Fiendish Finkbiner and other stories

I spend ages trying to find a video that is either enlightening, amusing or that fits the day’s post. However, I think I’ve run out of any originality, so I’ve had to repeat an old one. I have been tempted to place a couple of exclusive pictures in the blog somewhere and as usual, there’s two sides pulling me. One side says ‘Go for it! Commit some sort of blog hara-kiri and publish illegal pics’. The other side says ‘Don’t lower yourself to the level of the average journalist’.

Anyways. Prepare for a long blog post. There’s a recent piece just published that some people may think worth a read.

There’s only a couple of points I would complain about. Firstly, it seems to want to turn itself into one of those ‘it’s all the fault of men’ contributions. In a way, I think that’s fair enough. However, recent articles tend not to take one important aspect into account: men are far less likely so speak up. Statistics can never really be trusted.

Secondly, I would really cast doubt on any cases blamed on hacking. Yes, it’s true that webcams can be hacked, but I would allege that the vast majority haven’t been. In the same way, I would definitely eliminate many of the cases because the kids are canny enough to use the ‘I was blackmailed’ card to cover their asses.

From the article:

About Mijangos: ‘But all emails came from the same IP address in Santa Ana’. All these computer geniuses don’t seem very clever when it comes to hiding their IP.

‘In all, federal investigators found more than 15,000 webcam-video captures, 900 audio recordings, and 13,000 screen captures on his computers.[18] Mijangos possessed files associated with 129 computers and roughly 230 people.[19] ‘. Holy moley! Where do these people get the time for all this?

About teens: ‘They often “sext” one another. They sometimes record pornographic or semi-pornographic images or videos of themselves. And they share material with other teenagers whose cyberdefense practices are even laxer than their own. Sextortion thus turns out to be quite easy to accomplish in a target-rich environment that often does not require more than malicious guile.’ At least we get a more honest approach here. There’s no denial when it comes to teens producing the videos themselves, and the authors admit that it’s a ‘target-rich environment’. It reminds me of my saying from way back when: ‘without prey, there can be no predators’.

‘the problem of sextortion has not received sustained press attention or action in numerous state legislatures, in part because with few exceptions, sextortion victims have chosen to remain anonymous, as the law in most jurisdictions permits’. I’m not sure if this is true. Sextortion is a difficult subject as it plays well into victim-blaming territory. People read the news report and just blame dumb kids, dumb women or even dumb men for getting their tits/clits/dicks out. And who, really, wants people to know that they got caught out online, even if they have been tricked? And to be honest – sextortion certainly isn’t the clickbait it used to be. The Press will only make a meal of what people want to see, and cybercrime has had its day.

‘But don’t let the problem’s invisibility fool you’. Ouch! Always a risky path to take. I’ve seen too much of this recently, along the lines of ‘Just because there’s no proof, doesn’t mean it’s not true’.

‘”You just can’t put a portable porn studio in the hands of every teenager in the country and not expect bad things to happen’. I quite like that quote.

‘On the other hand, most sextortion victims in this sample are children, and a sizable percentage of the child victims turn out to be boys’. Oh dear. OK. All the SJWs will no doubt shout something about me being a misogynist or a rampant MRA, but at least this hints at the sexist attitude towards online sextortion. If we believed the media, it would only ever happen to Amanda Todd. Boys don’t make the headlines – they’re not pretty or cute. I’d best move on.

‘At least two cases involve either a father or stepfather tormenting children living in his house’. Norm??!!

‘The reason for this decision is that the primary phenomenon we seek to define here is the remote coercion of sex’. I feel this is a cop-out. Limiting the research to coercion of sex is bound to skew the results towards making all men guilty. It would have been better if they had included sextortion for money, which would have made it more gender-balanced. Having said that, examples shown later make it appear a lot, lot worse for young boys.

‘Every single perpetrator in the cases we examined is male. The vast majority of the victims, by contrast, are female. Among the adult victims, nearly all are female.[76] The picture is more complicated among the child victims, where a significant minority of victims is male. In 13 cases (17 percent) involving minor victims, all identified victims in court documents are male.[77] In an additional eight cases (10 percent), the victims include both males and females.[78] Several truly brutal cases focus on young boys. So it’s a mistake to think of sextortion as purely a problem of violence against women. There is clearly a problem with respect to boys as well’.  This oddly contrasts with the earlier ‘a sizable percentage of the child victims turn out to be boys’ remark. What exactly is ‘sizable’?

The most ‘oh my God’ part of the article features the descriptions of some of the worst offenders. Just a word of advice: DO NOT read any of the Finkbiner stories if you’re easily upset.

And lastly:

Recommendation #9: Victims need to be enabled to come forward and, to the extent they wish, speak up. Current victims of sextortion may or may not understand that the person victimizing them may also be doing the same thing to literally hundreds of other people and will not stop until someone gets law enforcement involved. Past victims have a role to play in making current victims understand that they are experiencing something that is both common and not their fault. Yet it can be extremely difficult for victims to come forward, especially in the absence of assurances that the law will protect them and that law enforcement will treat them with respect and dignity. In this context, it is especially troubling that child pornography laws in many jurisdictions have been used to punish minors for creating images of themselves—a reality that means that minor victims potentially put themselves in legal jeopardy by coming forward. Only by making it possible to talk about sextortion will society lessen the power of those who engage in it.

This simply won’t happen, and it’s mainly down to how dumbass adults have responded to sextortion. Even the authors admit it: ‘a reality that means that minor victims potentially put themselves in legal jeopardy by coming forward’.

Let’s for one minute – please, just for one minute give me a break and face facts – take the truthful Amanda Todd story as our template. Given all the new legislation, this is what might have happened:

When Amanda first went online and did her little cheerleading dance with Bianca, both of them, had they been caught, would have been charged in Court with creating and distributing child pornography.

Think for one minute. This makes the chances of sextortion even worse. In Amanda’s time it would have been ‘we’ll tell Ma and Pa’. Nowadays, it’s ‘we’ll tell the feds and you’ll be arrested’.

Why do you think that the RCMP were so powerless? When Amanda first performed, she might have got away with it if she had claimed some sort of juvenile ignorance. She might have had a chance of avoiding trouble in the December BlogTV flash if she had shouted blackmail there and then and finished with it. But when she upped the stakes on Dialogoo, she would have not stood a chance. Crikey, she even made a promise to the cops not to do it again.

That’s part of the reason why I stick to this cursed blog. If law makers are so completely stupid that they don’t understand that making criminals of the kids who flash online only puts them more at risk, then Heaven help us.

If Carol Todd spoke the truth now, or if she had done so in the past, proper action could have been planned like the stricter control of teen chat rooms, the control of the sites showing the capped videos, creative legislation to protect children. Instead, what have we got? Some 15 year old girl in Canada prosecuted for child porn, a 14 year old boy put on the Sex Offenders Register in the UK for sending a dick pic to his girlfriend.

So hey, kids. You once thought that flashing might get you grounded for a week. Nah. Now you’ll end up stigmatised for the rest of your life. So next time someone threatens to show your webcam wanking, give in to them. It’s that or juvenile court.

Really, you couldn’t make it up if you tried.

Laters, folks. Don’t have nightmares.



Sextortion of Amanda Todd

Note to Todd supporters: I know that most of you come here on a regular basis, and that none of you have the nerve to comment. However, even the most sceptical of you will see that this blog is pretty accurate – more accurate than a lot of you once thought. Some of the points I have raised in this review of the documentary are said – to a certain extent – to play Devil’s Advocate. One thing that all this has taught us – surely? – is to question everything.

To some degree, the quest for truth is over. The documentary supplied enough material to fill in a lot of gaps in people’s understanding, and we now know a rough, but much truer, storyline:

Amanda went online and got involved in unwise behaviour. Despite warnings, she continued. She was out of control, and perhaps the parents could have made a better job of looking after her. It could easily be argued that she was addicted to the Internet. Unfortunately, due to whatever circumstances (ADHD, mental illness, whatever), Amanda seemed to attract trouble by her own actions. To make things worse, the people she was involved with, both online and in the real world, made her life even more complicated. She became more unbalanced, more confused, and eventually caved in – not to the attentions of bullies, nor predators, but to a whole collection of problems.

End of story.

If you keep looking for revenge, or people to blame, you will never rest. Teachers? Parents? Bullies? Predators? Police? Amanda herself?  Society? Portions of blame can be attached to them all, but excuses can also be attached – the teachers probably did what they could, the parents (teeth grinding) made efforts, the bullies were just dumb kids, we’re not even certain that any ‘predators’ existed, the police didn’t know what to do with yet another case of online shenanigans, Amanda could have exerted a bit more common sense, society is all of us . The arguing could go on forever.

It really is time to move on. Forget all the Amanda Todd this and Amanda Todd that nonsense. She isn’t an angel, and she’s not a devil. Support anti-bullying campaigns, scream out loud about the perils of the online world, for God’s sake educate parents. But just take it from me – it’s time to let Amanda rest.

I will provide my opinion of the Fifth Estate documentary. This might be the last proper entry in this blog. I know I’ve said it a hundred times before, but it finally looks like it’s over.

So – what can I say about the documentary?

I’m torn. Part of me thinks that it wasn’t bad. It certainly added a lot of detail, but most of that was already known to people who have read this blog. I have a mixture of pride and relief – pride in that I got most of the information correct, and relief that things that I stuck to right from the beginning, such as the lack of truth in the Kody Maxson story, seem to be justified. However, I did appear to miss out on the ‘Austin Collins’ page and the existence of Tyler Boo. I will say a bit more about that later. And I have to admit to some surprise in seeing Shylah Watson.

Let’s look a bit more closely.

Finally, we have the first overt reference to the BlogTV activities. At least now, any of those people who still believed that it was just a photo, or something done on a one-to-one basis will, perhaps, now acknowledge that it was what it was – a show for 150+ viewers. However, the story still sticks with the erroneous opinion that it was a photo posted to a porn site when, in fact, it was actually a video. I can only guess that this is designed to stop people looking for it.

However, the program didn’t mention any activity prior to the BlogTV event. I’m not sure why. Again, I can only guess they didn’t want to involve Bianca Nitoi. But this means that the reaction of Amanda’s peers seems to be over the top – words like ‘camwhore’ and ‘pornstar’ being applied, as portrayed in the program, for one photo, rather than for the entire amount of Amanda’s exposure.

Carol’s reaction to the blackmail warning on Christmas Eve is odd. This was obviously sent by someone who was worried. They are not going to reveal who they are, as it is likely to have been someone known to the capping community, and she seems to take it as some sort of threat – not advice. It’s surely at this point that Carol should have gone into total lockdown webcam-wise, yet we know that Amanda had no interruptions whatsoever, able to re-emerge as ‘Announcing Amanda’ within three weeks.

Now we need to piece together some more things. We can now see that there was no effort at all to even slightly control Amanda’s access to webcams. I must admit, I find this REALLY difficult to comprehend. Had it been a case of teenage secrecy, I would have made allowances for surreptitious goings on. As Carol Todd says at one point – she didn’t want webcam activity but Amanda ‘won’. Couldn’t there have been some sort of compromise? But we’ve done all that to death.

So let’s look at the other two new things. ‘Austin Collins’ and ‘Tyler Boo’. What is their relevance?

I must admit I doubted the fake Facebook profile story, and it is one thing that I got wrong, suspecting that Amanda might have made her own Facebook page. But what was it all about?

OK. It wasn’t part of a blackmail set-up. This was someone who wanted to start a ‘shitfest’. As always, it’s best to take a simplistic view. We can, I think, discount any mention of digital self-harm here. This was, I believe, just set up by someone who hated Amanda. Not a pervert, not a predator, just a shitty little trouble-maker doing it for the lulz. Old geezers seem to think that this sort of sting takes time and effort – it doesn’t. It takes a kid less than five minutes to make a profile or a page, and no time at all to contact people to become friends (much in the same way it took me about ten minutes to locate Tara Murphy and work out who she was and who her friends were). If Carol had been as computer savvy as she reckons, it would have taken not long at all to trace this person. If anything, this just highlights how absolutely useless the cops are. But I guess it’s too late now (and yes, I have been tempted to find out for myself, and it would be possible if I could be bothered, but after the treatment by the Todd supporters, well….no).

However, what good would it do to pursue Austin Collins? Chances are that it is yet another 14 year old; almost 100% sure to be a minor. Chances are that they are fully aware of the story – whether or not they lose sleep is another question. And really – at what point do all the people in this story need to move on? Austin Collins is found – then what? Vilified, punished, slapped on the wrist, for what is just a stupid prank? Stigmatised forever? Is it worth it? Some people will say yes – those who believe that revenge is good. It would send a message out to future idiots.  But it never works. People get the electric chair – it doesn’t stop murders. Yes – there will be some kid wandering around maybe feeling guilty, maybe not. Maybe the child has his/her own problems. But it’s time to move forward. There’s been enough hatred emanating from this story already.

And to the Todd supporters. Think – if you have the desire to track down Austin Collins, then why not track down the people who made the anti-Kody Maxson pages? Why not track down and punish all those amongst you who threatened me with death, or threatened others with violence? Remember this – whatever I might say, it took a toll on me, yet never once did I report anyone. Take a good long look at yourselves before you embark on your next vigilante adventure.

But we need to pause. Is it not odd that the Todds seemed to have so much access to all this? Was Carol guilty of stupidity yet again? Should she, instead of becoming obsessed with collecting screen-shots and what have you, simply have concentrated on keeping Amanda safe and secure?

And another oddity. The Fifth Estate seem to have manfactured the Tyler Boo and Austin Collins profiles. Look closely – they are not screen-shots, they are reconstructed profiles. Not a wise thing to do for suspicious onlookers like me.

Tyler Boo. Much of what I have said above about Austin Collins can apply here. Not a predator, not some old guy – just a teen idiot. But here again there is an oddity, which I have mentioned in an earlier post. Tyler Boo knew a lot about Amanda, which means that either he/she was very close to the story or that Amanda gave out all her details. How would Tyler Boo know that she moved school, or that the police arrived? And it’s odd that he/she asks for three shows.

What else? Well, rather briefly we see what has become known as the ‘twerking’ video. The program presenter admits that Amanda just couldn’t keep away from webcams, but doesn’t say much more – like it was the public who complained in late 2011. There is still talk of blackmail, yet he acknowledges that the ‘twerking’ video was done by Amanda for attention.

OK – now a bit of observation. The September video done in Amanda’s bedroom? I will stick my neck out here and say ‘No it wasn’t’. But that’s just a gut thing. I could be wrong. It’s just that it doesn’t look like Amanda’s room.

So overall, what can I say?

This documentary proves that I was right. In some of my descriptions of what happened, I was spot on – BlogTV, her age, her problems, her continuation through to November 2011, the fact that she resorted to the Internet voluntarily and without coercion. All the people who said I lied – well, you were wrong.

The documentary was jumbled – it couldn’t decide if it was an anti-blackmail story, or a ‘keep your daughter off the Internet’ one. It conveniently left out the weed smoking, the drinking, and Amanda’s partying, rather overdoing the idea that she was almost a recluse.

We saw both Norm’s stupidity – even after the cops came, he still saw the webcam as harmless – yet we saw genuine grief from him.

What was noticeable, of course, was Carol’s rather weird approach to protecting her daughter. The role of the police has been questioned here, but they did all they could. Remember – there was no trace of any predator/blackmailer malarkey when they first turned up, and I guess that they must have thought that their presence was enough to ensure that the child would at least be supervised and controlled. If the cops go round on December 23rd 2010, then find out that Amanda and Shylah were back online three weeks later, what were they meant to do?

The ‘Austin Collins’ event was meaningless.  It wasn’t blackmail/predator activity, it was some idiot using the Amanda picture to create a ‘shitfest’. And in reality, it wouldn’t have done so. Unfortunately for Amanda, her reputation was out there. And it is sad. Any solution? Maybe change Amanda’s name; move her to another area of Canada; but hey, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What is still surprising is the ongoing nature of it all – BlogTV end of 2010, blackmail possibilities; still online three weeks later; still exposing herself and performing on Dialogoo; ‘Austin Collins’; it still goes on.

Then we get ‘Tyler Boo’ – really? Almost inevitable. But it’s all confusing. From what some commentators and Carol Todd say, it’s totally acceptable for Amanda to go on BlogTV, Dialogoo, Omegle and so on and expose herself for likes, but when people actually watch, that’s all bad. ‘Tyler Boo’ was a chancer, but Amanda and her family already knew that all this stuff was going on. It’s like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in the worst part of town, and then complaining when it gets stolen.

Of course ‘Tyler Boo’ and ‘Austin Collins’ were little shits, but it goes back to what I said ages ago: where there’s prey, there’s predators. Amanda not only made herself that prey, she was allowed to do so.

And let’s not forget. These events tailed off around November 2011. To a certain extent, it was a closed book. Within a few months, it was mostly forgotten. Amanda just made a new rod for her back in the sex episode, kicking off yet another round of trouble. Then what do we get? The (I believe) fatal September video.

The Amanda Todd story, as I seem to have said a million times, is incredibly complex. I am reminded of the ‘For Want of a Nail’ rhyme – there were many opportunities, many forks in the road, many mistakes, but I still point my finger at those who should have been more protective. My rhyme might be ‘For want of a jot of parental discipline’. Carol says that Amanda ‘won’ when it came to the question of a webcam. It would appear that Amanda won when it came to more and more web access, to smoking marijuana, to drinking – to just about everything. She was out of control.

For Amanda, it’s all too late. So (maybe) I finish with my last piece of advice:

Parents. Look after your children. Love them and protect them.  Get wise. Get educated.

Ta ta! And if I don’t get round to another post – Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Joyful Eid, May the Force be With You!

Enjoy the video. All proceeds for the song go to the NSPCC.

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).






Day Two – the early Amanda Todd

So – Day Two didn’t get off to a good start, as I lost my original text due to WordPress glitches and – as I don’t prepare text in advance – everything was lost. However, we learn from our mistakes, so hopefully it won’t happen again.

Now, let’s get something out of the way. People tell me that I am a terrible person for trying to get to the truth about the Amanda Todd story, and that I should leave it alone. Well, that’s not going to happen for a couple of reasons. Had those people close to the story chosen to make it slightly more private, I would back off. Instead, her family and supporters – most noticeably ‘Amanda Todd’s Safe Haven’ – have chosen to display countless photos of her to demand attention. If the photos portrayed any sense of decorum, I might have had some sympathy. But no – endless pictures of a young girl flicking two fingers up, flipping the bird, or striking some sort of pose for the camera are in poor taste. Seriously – is this how the family want her remembered? You have to be joking! Add to that the family’s never-ending efforts to cover up the truth about their daughter – one has to ask just how far will they go in covering up their own woeful inadequacies – and, basically, it makes the story fair game. Message to supporters: if you want her to rest in peace, stop using her for ‘likes’. Simple. So, rant over, let’s start at the beginning of the story.

The earliest appearance (that I can find) of the young Amanda Todd comes from April, 2008, when she would have been 11 years old. She was known then as mandy_kinz11. I assume she was also on MySpace and Facebook at the same time, but this is the earliest substantiated date.

Why is this important? Several reasons.

First thing to note: it clearly states she is in Port Coquitlam in 2008. According to her embellished history, she moved cities time and time again to avoid the mythical stalker (Note: I use words like ‘supposed’ or ‘mythical’ in conjunction with the stalker. It is my firm belief that the stalker – in the way the media has come to describe him – never existed.) So think for a while. In 2008 she was in Port Coquitlam; in 2012 she was in Port Coquitlam; all of her online registrations say she was in Port Coquitlam; her mother says she spent most of her life in Port Coquitlam. Really, it doesn’t look like she moved around much. The only verifiable move in the years from 2008-2012 was from her father’s house in Maple Ridge back to her mother’s house in Port Coquitlam – a massive 15 miles! And I will discuss why she was living with her father, and why she moved, in a later post.

Second thing to note: in her video, Amanda seems surprised that the supposed stalker knows her details. But this comment shows just how freely and unwisely she gave away all her details. We have her email address, her first name, and where she lives – all in one easy place. Even the most stupid of detectives would have found it easier, if they had so wished, to open up communication with her. Once you join this in with MySpace and Facebook, her identity becomes open to all.

Third thing to note: we can begin to see the first hints of risky online behaviour. At this time, Amanda was pretending to be much older online. For various reasons, she was registered on MySpace as being 18, and she also lied about her age in other online registration in order to circumvent rules put in place to protect kids like her. In this thread, we can see that it’s not just some childish desire to join a band – the band is hardly One Direction! No doubt, the band would have laughed at her application, but she is already showing signs of not being able to make correct decisions by involving herself in an age group well beyond her own.

Lastly, we can see the signs of the commencement of the type of attention-seeking that she would take to new levels in the coming years. ‘I love to sing and I have been singing since I was 2 years old. I love concerts and I am not afraid to dance and move around in front of a big crowd.’ Well – I’m not going to say much, except to mention the word ‘narcissism’ – something that will crop up time and time again.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. All comments are welcome.

Go to:

Amendment: It is obvious that Amanda was online from very early on. However, there is no evidence that any stalking began then. Later on in the blog, definite dates put Amanda’s trouble as starting in December 2010 just after her 14th birthday.

Day One – my first foray into quest for the truth about Amanda Todd

Well, I’m new to this, so any readers will have to excuse any errors in format or any unnecessary waffling and ranting as I begin my new attempts to unravel what most of my friends will now know as the great mystery of Amanda Todd.

I will begin – please bear with me – with a small, but angry, welcome to those people who are likely to be members of the ‘Amanda Todd Reporting Team’ or ‘Amanda Todd’s Safe Haven’. You have contributed nothing whatsoever to the important points that have arisen from this story. Not only have you denied all aspects of the truth, you have launched slanderous and aggressive attacks against people who have expressed any opinion going against yours. The sanity of your members is questionable – one would have to ask: is it healthy that grown men seem to be fixated on pictures of a young (supposedly) dead girl, and seem to spend most of their waking hours making collages of her in provocative poses? Is it acceptable to wander the pages of Facebook accusing people of being pedophiles just because they happen to be well-informed? Is it sensible to deny all evidence that is put in front of you, preferring simply to believe what amounts to the voices in your head? I will, more than likely, return to this later.

Back to the theme. People who like to comment ‘tl;dr’ on posts should perhaps look away now.

The Amanda Todd story is complicated and complex, and cannot simply be dismissed with a few short remarks. Trying to sort out fact from fiction takes time and effort, and trying to highlight the most important aspects of the story is difficult, simply because so many things need to be looked at. Here are a few of the aspects I will be investigating:

Given that Amanda Todd committed suicide, why was this seen as inspirational and why was it seen as something that a role model should do? This has set a dangerous precedent for young, vulnerable teens.

Given that the sane people amongst us know that she was virtually addicted to exposing herself on BlogTV, Omegle, Stickam and other channels, why was this all glossed over, once more becoming the accepted activity for the inspirational angel, and setting yet another bad example for impressionable teens?

Why did the idiotic fools known collectively as Anonymous originally announce that it was all fake, then choose to use the bandwagon to advertise their own stupidity in the persecution of Kody Maxson?

Why did the mighty Royal Canadian Mounted Police fail – in more than two years, and with many resources – to find any (mythical) stalker?

Why, in all the story, did aspects such as under-age sex, drinking and substance abuse become swept under the carpet, again becoming acceptable behaviour for this role model?

And there are many more things to deal with as the history of this litany of lies unfolds. But I will need some help. To begin with, can anybody out there put a name to the person who appeared alongside Amanda in her notorious flashing video? I have a couple of suggestions, but surely someone will know.

Lastly, I welcome all feedback concerning this blog. Have I missed anything? Are there any questions people would like answered?  Does anyone actually care any more?

My next entry will begin at the beginning: Amanda Todd’s first appearance online as mandy_kinz, and her connections with people at that time. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Amendment: Later in the blog, the girl who appeared gains a name. It was an old friend of hers. The story has had the addition of Aydin Coban. It remains to be seen if he was actually involved. Though I still have to find the truth about the whole story, my view that it had been faked and was some sort of hoax has now passed.