Recycled for newer visitors

cutieelover1a

Copied from April, 2013

Sorry about the jpg. Just click on it.

This is Amanda Todd on BlogTV.

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’.

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.

The blog that never dies

Oh well. It looks like this blog may get a slight new lease of life this month as the trial of Aydin Coban starts on January 25th.

Carol Todd will be there, but she might miss all the action, which is weird. The trial is set for a length of eight days and Carol is going over in the first week of February. She’s raised quite a bit of money on her crowdfunding which I must admit I was surprised by. She must have more fans than I thought. Still, it’s not without at least one criticiser who objects to paying for Carol’s other half. One has to ask where Norm is, though. It’s like he never existed.

As usual, I always doubt Carol Todd’s motives. She’s always ready to hijack every possible moment to make it all about Amanda and I wonder sometimes if the parents of other victims are sick and tired of it as they don’t want their own children to be seen as being in the same league as our dear Cutieelover.

It’s strange that Aydin Coban has already been pre-judged by everyone, even when it is highly unlikely that he has anything to do with Amanda. The trial doesn’t feature her, and it’s a really big stretch to bring him in to the history. So far, Carol has managed to avoid any real questions from the media, but as time goes on there’s much more of a risk that someone may at least raise the BlogTV incidents. I believe that Carol is so blinded by the myth that she thinks that nobody will ever dig a bit deeper. That would explain why she doesn’t seem worried by the extradition, but she should know that a court case won’t be like an interview with the Vancouver Sun – it will look into every detail and rake up a huge amount of stuff that may not look good.

If Aydin is released (which is a possibility) extradition might be tough. I’m not sure that the Dutch officials will find someone innocent or deem that they have been in prison long enough already then just hand him over to what is essentially a lynch mob. But I have a feeling that if he’s not released and is found guilty of various crimes then the RCMP and others may say that’s enough. It would be hugely convenient to accept a guilty verdict in Holland, and then just close the case with an assumption that he was involved with Amanda. I’m also guessing that the Canadians would accept that. They would dismiss the Dutch as being too lenient, say it’s all a terrible miscarriage of justice, rave and rage for a few weeks and then move on. Seriously, it would be better to go that way than to bring out all the details in a Canadian court.

I might restructure this blog. To be honest, I’m a bit too lazy to bother but I expect that viewing figures will rise at the end of the month. For me, it depends on whether or not the trial gets much publicity.

So we’ll see. This could be the biggest anticlimax ever. In a way I sort of hope that Aydin will confess to being the killer predator villain that everyone wants him to be. At least that would be an end to it. Yet something tells me this won’t happen, and the story will drag on and on and on………

 

Amanda Todd – One step closer to the truth.

cutieelover1a

Copied from April, 2013 – re-written 7th April 2016

Click on the jpg above to make it readable.

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 and misled.

The details I have posted today are true.

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. 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.

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?

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? It is actually Amanda herself who first uses the term to describe her own behaviour.

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’.

The second reason: 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’.

‘lol….i kinda like sluts’

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.

 

 

Amanda Todd – One step closer to the truth.

cutieelover1a

Copied from April, 2013

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: 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.

Lie-day

Here is Carol Todd’s latest little escapade.

It’s 51 minutes long. If you have the time, view it all as some of the things discussed are important. It’s just a shame that it’s all overshadowed by Carol Todd’s lies again. It looks like the whole story has changed.

Listen to the first 10 minutes, which pretty much sums it up.

Carol says that Amanda was 13 when she went online and flashed. By my reckoning, Amanda joined BlogTV on November 26th, 2010, the day before her 14th birthday, but was probably active on TinyChat before that. So that’s true.  So we can kiss goodbye to any nonsense that she was 12 years old – that was ludicrous sensationalism spread by idiots. But just wait for the next bit.

We get the same old crap about the stalker/predator. Really? Does anyone still believe that? Carol Todd speaks of the ‘photo’ but we know that she is talking rubbish. How do we know? Because in her own words here, she says it was videos and pictures – not one photo:

http://on.aol.com/video/amanda-todds-mother-on-her-daughters-legacy-517717382

But just wait for the next bizarre addition to the saga. I try to get my head around all the variations on this theme, but this is new – in December 2010, Amanda had flu, therefore did not respond to the ‘stalker’, therefore he posted the ‘photo’. Flu – where did that one come from? She looked fine on December 17th.

So what next? Right. This ‘stalker’ posts to Amanda’s Facebook profile page. If that’s true, then the ‘stalker’ must be a friend of Amanda’s. Carol just says ‘page’ but she must be talking about her profile. Why? Because the post is seen by all her friends, and it is likely that all her friends will have been accessed via her profile – ordinary pages don’t display friend information.

And this super-secret ‘stalker’ also posts to Carol’s own Facebook messages. But we never get the name of this so-called ‘stalker’, do we? Carol never says ‘the message was from Mr XYZ’ does she? And Amanda never said ‘I am being blackmailed by Mr ABC’ when she had every opportunity to do so when she contacted the Daily Capper. Why is this? Especially as we find out later that this same ‘stalker’ keeps coming back like a yo-yo.

So it’s midnight. Carol has been sent the ‘photo’ and she’s just about to call the police when – miracle of miracles – they magically appear on her doorstep. And it’s not to say there is a ‘stalker’ – it’s to check up on Amanda and see that she is safe. Safe from what? A concerned parent would have reported the occurrence because they were worried about how on earth a young girl would be allowed to do such things, and that’s what has happened.

But of course, Amanda’s not there. Why? Because she’s living with dad. Carol Todd always conveniently overlooks the fact that super-mom was never around for most of the time.

Note: at 5:36 Carol Todd mistakenly says ‘video’ then corrects it to ‘photo’. Really, she should have this script memorised by now.

So what do we learn now? The police open a case, and Amanda is spoken to to get her to stop. Well, we all know how far that sunk in. But Carol isn’t sure that she stayed off or what she got up to. What she means is that Amanda continued doing what she did, regardless of all the police activity.

The story continues in much the same old Carol Todd way. If only it could have been laid to rest then (e.g. if only my daughter had stopped stripping). But we have a new slant on all of it. The ‘stalker’ now returns – regular as clockwork – every three months. But we still don’t know who he is. But what is odd is that we seem to know that this one individual bothers to make a special fake profile with which to befriend all of Amanda’s new school mates.

But ask yourself a couple of questions:

Question One: we are led to believe that this ‘stalker’ is a mysterious older guy. OK. And we are led to believe that Amanda would have been strictly warned not to give him any information nor speak to him ever again. OK. So he knows what school she is about to move to? Preposterous. There are only two possible ways he could have approached it. Either he would have had to contact every possible school in the district and befriend virtually every teen in the Vancouver area on the off-chance that he would cover every possibility (a hefty task by any standards) or he somehow knew what school she was about to attend. How would he know that?

Question Two: let’s assume that he somehow knows what school Amanda is going to attend. How the Hell does he then track down all the pupils in this school to say ‘hey, I’m about to attend your school, can we be friends’? It’s just too much to believe. In fact, it’s impossible.

The ONLY explanation that makes sense is that – if it ever existed – this profile actually belonged to a genuine kid who was about to enter the new school, and this kid knew who Amanda was. What better way to make an impact than to pass around her picture? But – if this kid did know that Amanda was to attend this school, then it had to be someone who knew Amanda well. Not a mysterious and very hard-working imaginary stalker.

So that’s that sorted.

And now for the next destruction of part of the legend. In the famous video, Amanda states that she moved because of the bullying and harassment. Of course, in my blog I have said that this is wrong, and she moved simply to be with the parent who happened to be in favour at the time. As usual, you can guess who was telling the truth. Luckily, Carol confirms that I was right.

At 9:38 Carol is asked how many times Amanda moved. She hesitates and says it’s three or four times (don’t you just love her precision?). But wait – that’s nothing to do with bullying and harassment – it’s due to parental moves. We now have it confirmed. She moves away from mom (Move One). She starts another school, living with dad. Dad buys a new house so she has to move school (Move Two).  Then it would have been Move Three back to mom in March 2012. Three moves – four schools. Due to parental disruption.

So that’s that sorted too.

So the first ten minutes sets the scene. But if you can, listen to the whole thing. Like I said before, there are some points worth listening to.

Just in case that, like me, you want to know more about the real vileness of Carol Todd, make an effort to listen to the bit at 21:40. Carol talks of Amanda’s heart-rending ‘I need someone. I feel alone’ plea at the end of her video. Carol, in her usual ‘meh’ fashion, dismisses it as ‘teenage stuff’. I believe her pleasant and caring parental virtues are astounding.

One last thing. Carol always talks of various websites. But why does she never warn people about them? She talks of Facebook and YouTube, yet never mentions Omegle, BlogTV, TinyChat, WickedCamChat, UStream, Dialogoo nor any other of the many channels on which Amanda appeared. If she had ever once tried to do what she should be doing – stopping young girls from going to these sites and stripping – then I would not be doing this. And why does she never campaign against these child pornography sites? Why does she never mention the cameracaptures site or any others? I can tell you genuinely – hundreds and hundreds of people have complained about that site and Amanda’s video through my blog (I estimate 10% of my view numbers) and regular readers will know that Amanda’s video disappeared within two or three days of me steering complaints in that direction. That’s more than the whole Todd Squad managed.

Oh and by the way. Look at the world map that appears in the radio interview video. Just where the Hell has Great Britain got to? It’s a disgrace!

Have a good weekend everyone! Tomorrow, I promise some humour. Cross my heart. Something nice for the weekend. Not Carol Todd.

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.

Nothing to say today – so a couple of simple questions

amanda + friend

The Amanda Todd story is grinding slowly but surely to a halt. There are still a few late-comers to the story, and inevitably they make the same mistakes – acknowledging her exhibitionism while still going on about a 32-year-old stalker, or more often than not putting it down to just one photo, when we know by now that it was many online appearances.

If they just took a look at just one of the videos – a still photo is featured here – people would realise that the story of coercion or seduction to go online is laughable. About 3 seconds after this still, Amanda Todd flashes not just once, but twice, her and her friend just laughing and smiling.

And of course, it’s not just the one video appearance. You will see that this video is from BlogTV, and I’m guessing that it is quite early in the history. Amanda started getting banned from BlogTV in December 2010 for her many nude appearances and, of course, she didn’t stop at just baring the chest. The pictures show more, and it has been alleged that she indulged in masturbation online. All of this was, of course, known about and discussed by her mother, Carol Todd. Who let it all happen. Good old Carol – never one to be too strict.

I strongly suspect that the stalker story was hastily concocted between mother/daughter when the police arrived, in a desperate attempt to put the blame on someone else and avoid all claims of child negligence and delinquency. The photos went locally viral simply because there were so many of them – not because of some stalker. Amanda just used her knowledge of the Daily Capper world to escape any disapproval – she knew there were blackmailers mentioned, and it was highly convenient. And it became a story that became more and more difficult to maintain – probably contributing to her mental anguish. If she and her parents had just faced the truth in the first place and dealt with it, none of this would have happened. Just note: her getting beaten up and the consequential hatred had nothing to do with the photos. They had been forgotten. She simply was not liked.

So one question: did the police simply go and ask her friend about whether Amanda was tricked into flashing? And did her friend answer ‘No way’?

It now looks like the other girl in the picture has been identified as Bianca Maria Nitoi:

http://ask.fm/biancanitoi

https://www.facebook.com/bmarianitoi