As I should have stated more clearly, the information here is really just meant to be supplementary to what you posted in the "Bullying" thread. Thanks for posting.
Yes, Anonymous allege to know who the predator was: a man named - from BC. (They also tracked down someone who was leaking naked autopsy photos of her[!], one -, who was indeed a kid.) There are further links in the article.
One reason this is of interest to me is that -- while of course the paedophile's blackmail strategies would have been ineffectual without social ignorance to work with, and you're right that there is a very real sense in which these events should make us all reflect on bullying in general and the private hells our society often consigns people to -- I'm not comfortable with - being allowed to recede to a footnote. He's not a footnote. Whatever guilt is shared by other parties in her life, he is* the single person without whose sickness and malice Amanda Todd would almost inarguably still be alive; and he's a representative of a very specific kind of online threat to teens that goes far beyond just the diffuse nature of the Internet and anonymity and how these combine with "society." This should not be lost sight of, and (I think the folks at Vice are right about this) it has been allowed to recede into the background or to be ignored entirely in much reportage.
* This is provided, of course, that Anonymous is right. And that's the other interesting thing this story brings up for me. It's easy to condemn bullying when practised against the defenseless and innocent: but would I object to someone using the Internet to make life a nightmare for a paedophile who had himself used it to effectively hound a girl into her grave? If - really was posting nudes of a suicide victim, do I feel sympathy for him that Anonymous hacktivists -- who after all are governed by much the same anarchic and tasteless standards of geek culture that have produced and nourished slimy individuals like Hunter Todd (mentioned in the article) -- changed the bio on his Twitter account to identify his specific brand of misbehaviour and call him a "Raging faggot" into the bargain? If Anonymous have it wrong, and this is the problem with vigilantes, then they're nothing more complicated than a bunch of thugs themselves; however, one has to concede that they've demonstrated enough technical skill over the years to at least have plausibly gotten it right. And if so, what then?