home

Woman Acquitted of Using Fake MySpace Profile to Harm Girl Who Committed Suicide

When TalkLeft last discussed the prosecution of Lori Drew (background here), it was to criticize the Justice Department for exploiting a tragedy as a test case to create a new federal power to prosecute internet users who conceal their true identities on social networking sites like MySpace. Posing as a teenage boy, Drew used a fictitious MySpace identity to say mean things to 13 year old Megan Meier, who was a neighbor and former friend of Drew's daughter. Megan committed suicide, prompting a federal prosecutor in California to indict Drew for computer fraud, despite the decision of a federal prosecutor in Missouri (where Drew and Meier lived) to decline prosecution.

The prosecutor was plainly seeking glory. The good news is: he didn't get it. On Wednesday the jury acquitted Drew of three felony charges that accused Drew of obtaining "unauthorized access" of MySpace to inflict emotional distress on Megan. The bad news (at least for now): Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors. [more ...]

The jury evidently convicted Drew of misdemeanors rather than felonies because the prosecution failed to prove its theory that Drew intended to inflict emotional distress on Megan.

Both [family friend] Ashley Grills and [Drew's 13 year old daughter] Sarah Drew had testified that the intent in creating the account was to lure Megan into conversation with "Josh Evans" to determine what she was saying about Sarah Drew.

You have to wonder whether anyone on the prosecution side of the case actually interviewed Grills, its star witness, before she testified.

Ashley Grills, a confidant and former employee of Drew, was granted immunity from prosecution to testify for the government. But several moments in 20-year-old Ashley Grill's 80-minutes of testimony seemed to undermine the government's case. Her most damaging statements: that it was her idea, not Drew's, to create a fake MySpace account to befriend Megan. And Grills herself opened the account, clicking through the MySpace terms of service that are at the core of the case.

Given that testimony, it's questionable whether even the misdemeanor verdicts will stand. The prosecution rested on Drew's "unauthorized access" to MySpace, which depended on proof that she violated the provision of the MySpace "terms of service" agreement that prohibits users from giving false information to MySpace. Apart from the fact that one user in a thousand (or maybe a million) actually reads a terms of service agreement before signing up for the service, it seems to be undisputed that Drew didn't ever agree to be bound by the agreement. That wrinkle in the prosecution might cause the judge to toss out the misdemeanor convictions. A dismissal motion is pending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney is crowing about his "victory," claiming to be pleased with the verdict. It's a strange thing to be pleased about losing. This sounds like a strained attempt at face-saving by the U.S. Attorney, who made the highly unusual decision to take a hands-on approach by personally participating in the trial. U.S. Attorneys tend to function as administrators, not as trial lawyers, leaving the actual prosecution of cases to the Assistants. When a U.S. Attorney participates in a trial, it's nearly always because the U.S. Attorney is looking for publicity. That's why H. Dean Steward, Drew's defense attorney, is probably right in this assessment:

[U.S. Attorney Thomas] O'Brien "seems to think he's smarter than" prosecutors in Missouri "who chose not to bring charges against Drew," Steward said, adding that politics likely played a role in O'Brien's decision to prosecute the case himself. "O'Brien wants to continue to be U.S. attorney into the Obama administration, and he wants a victory for that reason," Steward said. "It's to his discredit" that he brought charges.

Screwing up a high profile prosecution isn't the best ticket to a job. Sorry, prosecutor O'Brien. It's time to look for other employment.

Megan's mother had this to say:

Tina Meier, speaking at a press conference, said she had prepared herself for any verdict, but was "of course, wanting convictions on all of them." She called the misdemeanor convictions "a stepping stone" and said she wanted Drew to get prison time.

"Absolutely I think she needs to be punished," Meier said. "I would like the maximum three years."

Even if the convictions survive the pending dismissal motion, a three year sentence is both unlikely and unwarranted given the jury's implicit finding that Drew meant no harm to Megan. And while Tina Meier's grief is understandable, she needs to ask what her own role was in failing to appreciate the depths of her daughter's emotional pain, and in failing to recognize her daughter's risk of suicide. It's easier to blame Drew and to seek vengeance than it is to consider her own responsibility in this tragedy.

< Friday Open Thread | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not qualified (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by TruthOfAngels on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    To comment on the legal ramifications of this case, and it may well be that Ms. Drew should not face legal sanction in this case.

    However, I can't take any pleasure in the fact that an adult can bully a child online.  Because, notwithstanding the fact that Grills set up the account, Drew used it.  And she wasn't using it to say 'Merry Christmas', was she?

    Plausibly, though, a civil case might be more appropriate than a criminal one in this particular situation.

    Couple this with the FL suicide (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST
    of a teenage boy being watched by others via webcam.  So relieved my off spring are no longer teenagers.

    Parent
    Not Just Online (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    There was a recent teen suicide in GB, where the boy was going to jump and the kids below on the street cheered him on and taunted him until he jumped. Then some ran up to the body to take some snapshots.

    Parent
    My feelings, as well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    What a cold hearted attitude (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by rhyta on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    I am shocked how cavalier and cruel the writer is to the parent of the dead teenager and the crime itself.  Better to blame the mother than restrict someone's online rights?  I think we need some perspective here.  Someone is dead in part to the actions of another person and common decency says there should be justice for that event.  While I am willing to see how the case was flawed, saying that no one ever reads those disclosure agreements so i.e. that can't be bound by them is a load of horse pucky.  This woman engaged in bullying a young girl, then in an afterthought of the consequences of that act, she now claims she didn't mean to hurt her..give me a break.

    I'm guessing everyone who didn't read (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    the fine print on their CC applications shouldn't be held responsible when their fees skyrocketed. It's just a disclosure after all, right?

    It really seems that there should be a consequence here. Since this was a planned action, I don't see how they think it couldn't have harmed the girl. Teenagers are emotionally fragile in many instances. Lordy, I would never want to relive those years!

    Parent

    Another perspective? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    I'm sure you can find one at a different website.  This site is about the politics of crime, and it is written from the perspective of lawyers who think it is more important to shield liberty from governmental abuse than to "punish" every perceived wrongdoing.

    Why do you think you know better than the jury whether Drew intended to harm the child?  Were you there?  Did you listen to any of the evidence in the case?  Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction that is so typical in our Nancy Grace society:  something bad happened so somebody should go to prison for it.

    The question here isn't whether Drew could be bound by a service agreement she didn't read in a breach of contract suit. This is a criminal prosecution. Drew shouldn't be held criminally responsible for breaching an agreement she didn't read.  More importantly, if she didn't create the account (and the government's star witness says she didn't), I fail to understand how she can be held responsible under the government's bizarre theory of "computer fraud" at all.

    Whether the law actually applies here may seem like an unimportant technicality to you, but I assure you that your attitude will change if you find yourself or your children unfairly charged with a crime so that vengeance seekers can feel good.

    If you read the earlier posts linked in this post, you will see that I don't think well of Drew's behavior.  That doesn't mean she committed a crime, as was apparent to the state and federal prosecutors in the state where this occurred.

    As for the mother, why do you hold her blameless?  Doesn't she bear a measure of responsibility for not being sufficiently involved in her child's life to know she was seriously troubled?  For what it's worth, I don't think the mother should be criminally prosecuted either, but that is consistent with my larger theme:  the criminal justice system isn't here to make people feel good whenever a tragedy occurs, and it isn't capable of solving every societal problem, including teenage suicide.

    Parent

    Until you reached your last paragraph, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    I probably agree with you; from what we know of the evidence presented to the jury (and we weren't present either)the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Drew violated the felony criminal statute she was charged w/violating.  Of course, the prosecutor who filed the charges is only required to have a reasonable belief he or she will be able to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, the jury did not agree.  

    But, please give more thought to your last paragraph.  Despite the best efforts of parents and their thinking they are tuned in to what their children are thinking, sometimes kids to terrible things to themselves or others.  This is why parents usually are not criminally liable for the actions of their children.  

    Parent

    Boy howdy can I attest (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    that parents do not have a clue what is going on in a teens mind if the teen makes up their own mind that the parents will know or understand nothing.  You should see the family counseling bill, and that was all I myself learned :)  I remember a county social worker attempting to soothe me by saying that some teenagers are simply nuts.  Their brains are swimming in a soup of growth hormone and every other hormone and some parents get to go through a period of time when we embrace our zero control over the situation and resign to prayers that they live through it.  I always understood all this too when it was someone else's kid, just not mine.

    Parent
    I hear you. Turbulent, worrisome (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    time.

    Parent
    Nancy Grace and Vengeance Seeking (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:13:40 PM EST
    Apparently some very sophisticated pharmaceutical companies think that many of the people who watch the Nancy Grace Show suffer from erectile dysfunction.  

    It is an open question as to whether that means Nancy's fans are a self-selecting group -- people who have a hard time getting it up like to watch lurid crime shows -- or whether there's something about watching Nancy Grace and her particular brand of poison that causes impotence.

    Parent

    I'm voting (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    for cause-and-effect, myself.

    Parent
    your last paragraph is (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    ridiculous.  The only mother here who knew what was going on was lori drew and she acted in a disgusting and irresponsible manner.

    Parent
    Being able to be Online is really cool (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    and sometimes NOT.  What sort of grown woman has the goal of tormenting a teenager who almost surely is already tormented?  Why would an adult want to spend their day doing that?  The woman needs some psych help, maybe a lot of it.

    You would be (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:29:05 PM EST
    sadly surprised at how many adults that "bully" children.  At the school from which I retired, we literally had to have "restraining orders" against three adults (two parents and one grandparent).  

    They went after teachers, after other children and we all suspect that they also went after their own kids when at home.

    I am not sure how one stops it.  I think it is tragic that this woman would do this to a child, instead of trying to help her own child learn ways to deal with conflict.

    But then let's look back.....at the stage moms, the cheerleading moms.......the little league parents...it is sadly more prevalent than I hoped.

    Parent

    Blaming the victim (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST
    "And while Tina Meier's grief is understandable, she needs to ask what her own role was in failing to appreciate the depths of her daughter's emotional pain, and in failing to recognize her daughter's risk of suicide. It's easier to blame Drew and to seek vengeance than it is to consider her own responsibility in this tragedy."

    I'm absolutely speechless.

    Yeah, I didn't much like that TChris (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    Reality will set in (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    when he has children and they are grown...

    Parent
    it is bad enough (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    when your children are bullied by other children.  Often you can not get the school to help stop it and you hope and pray that they parents of the bullies will stop them if they are found out.  But I can not even imagine knowing that they thing that drove my daughter over the edge was the abuse and bullying of another adult, a mother no less.

    Parent
    Reality will set in... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    When your child is arrested for harassment and tried as an adult even if not an adult.

    Parent
    Why shouldn't the woman this posting is about (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    be tried as the harassing adult that she is?

    Parent
    Apparently the county prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    in Missouri did not issue a criminal case under Missouri state law.  Next step w/i the state, at least in California, is to request the state Attorney General's office review the matter and file criminal charges if the AG's office, in exercise of its discretion, deems it appropriate to do so.

    Here, the state chose not to prosecute, possibly due to the broad ramifications of prosecuting a person using a computer to contribute to another's MySpace page. What next, prosecute rude bloggers who hurt the feelings of other bloggers or commenters?  Whew!!!!

    The federal government did, but may only prosecute under federal criminal statutes. The particular statute at issue, which I included in a link in earlier comments to this post, does not seem to "fit" the actions of Ms. Drew.    

    Parent

    There is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    What next, prosecute rude bloggers who hurt the feelings of other bloggers or commenters?  Whew!!!!

    In the case of bloggers both parties are presummably anonymous and fully informed.  In this case that condition did not hold.  This is a clear case of cyberstalking.  It is only a matter of time before we get some consistency among the states.

    Do you think blogers should have to worry about liability for libel?

    Parent

    Like it or not I do understand (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    that just because I don't have good laws for a given situation, it isn't a time to bend any or off the cuff start making some.  I think the woman that did this to a minor though is heinous.  Difference between heinous and convicted though.  I guess she'll just have to learn to live with what she contributed to.  I wish her a long life.

    Parent
    It's o.k. to pass new laws. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    Not o.k. to apply the new criminal laws to Ms. Drew's conduct.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    people love the "blaming the victim" argument, because somehow in our society its has become gospel that victims never deserve any blame.  And my carefully worded post doesn't blame the girl's mother; it asks whether she considered whether she has any responsibility of her own before pointing the finger of blame elsewhere.  Most kids are exposed to meanness and most don't respond by committing suicide, which makes me think there was a lot more going on in this child's life than getting some mean messages from a fictitious boy.  Shouldn't we know that, and know what the child's mother knew about her daughter's mental turmoil, before we decide that all the blame should be focused on the person who sent the messages?

    Parent
    How many children do you have? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:31:17 PM EST
    Not relevant. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    Sure it is. You are making questionable (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST
    judgments about the mother which don't seem to have any legal relevance.


    Parent
    i am (none / 0) (#43)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    making no judgments about the mother.  I'm asking whether she considered her own failure to understand her daughter's emotional problems before she decided someone else should do time for her daughter's decision to commit suicide.

    Parent
    you're assuming she didn't (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by kempis on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    According to what I read, this girl had been in therapy in the past and had improved. Obviously, her mother and father were aware of her emotional state.

    Furthermore, on the day of the girl's suicide, her mother had attempted to get her to disengage from the MySpace site--which the mother and father monitored. The dead girl's mother seems to have been a very involved, very aware parent.

    Your assumptions about her parenting seem to be way off the mark.

    I'm also flabbergasted to hear that contracts aren't binding if we haven't really read them--and nobody really reads them, so why have contracts? This is a sound legal argument? Really?

    All these years I assumed that if I signed a contract, I was bound by its provisions and saying "gee, I didn't read that part" was no defense.

    Parent

    Do YOU read clickthrough agreements on websites? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:54:17 AM EST
    I do, but I'm wierd.

    Saw a study 8 years ago reporting 1/4 of 1 percent did so. I suspect it's lower now.

    Parent

    No, but that's not my point (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 07:27:51 AM EST
    My point is that I assume that when I click on the agreement, I'm agreeing to the terms and my abuse of the site's rules can result in consequences spelled out in the agreement. That I didn't read the consequences doesn't mean that they shouldn't apply.

    If I run a red light and cause an accident, is "I didn't see the red light" a defense?

    Parent

    is jail time (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 08:09:59 AM EST
    one of the consequences spelled out in the MySpace terms of service? No. All they specify is termination of the account.

    Parent
    to criminal charges? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    Typically, yes.  You are missing the point.  MySpace may be able to hold you to the contract created by the terms of service, but you cannot be convicted of intentionally violating them, as the criminal law requires, if you don't know what they are.  That's the definition of intentionally.

    If MySpace or the girl's family wanted to sue her civilly, that is another issue.  We are focused here on the use of criminal laws.  

    Parent

    and that finally makes some sense (none / 0) (#107)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:23:16 AM EST
    What doesn't make sense is the REPEATED argument by Drew's defenders that people don't read contracts before they sign them and therefore one is not responsible for all provisions of a signed contract if one can claim "Gee, I didn't read all that."

    That makes NO sense.

    Parent

    Breach of contract is not a crime, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    but a civil tort, and only parties to the Contract, ie MySpace, have standing to sue.

    Parent
    since you aren't reading what I write (none / 0) (#118)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    why bother to respond?

    You seem to think I'm making an argument that I'm not.

    Parent

    You didn't ask (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by standingup on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    This is not a question:

    she needs to ask what her own role was in failing to appreciate the depths of her daughter's emotional pain, and in failing to recognize her daughter's risk of suicide.
     

    You made a statement that assumes and come about as close to judgment as anyone should go near without having any more information than you have.  

    So tell us, are you familiar enough with the case to know what Megan's parents did or did not do?  Or are you simply relying on Lori Drew's defense attorney's tactic of raising the questions that push responsibility back onto Megan's parents.  

    At the least, and I hope this is the case, you seem to be lacking in knowledge about mental illness, the pressures felt by teenage girls and teenage suicide.  

    And I have one more point before I stop.  Don't make the assumption that parents going through the loss of a child and seeking to see someone they see as responsible for their child's death have not looked at their own role.  One does not preclude the other.  You have no way of knowing how much her mother has questioned her own role or even blamed herself for not doing something that would have prevented the suicide.  

    Clearly, I should stick to reading BTD's posts and avoid those that represent the opinions of defense attorneys.  

    Parent

    We do know she didn't blame herself enough (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    to turn herself in for neglect and demand she be prosecuted for it. She therefore did not think she was nearly as responsible as Drew. Did neglect of Megan contribute to Megan's suicide? We don't know and all TChris is saying is that is something her mother could ask herself. He is not saying she should be arrested and convicted of neglect if guilty, nor is he saying she should sue herself for neglect. But it is a valid question that only Megan's mother can answer. More important, that would be a far more effective means of prevention than prosecution after the fact when it is too late. Criminal laws can't fix and prevent everything and the damage is already done by then anyway. Thinking into the future, a parent could be charged for neglect when, as here, the parent did not verify the age and identity of the person a minor child is chatting with online and the minor is harmed. Bet it happens before too long.

    Parent
    yes it really is relevant (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    "Carefully worded" but (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    definitely asking for an assessment of comparative fault, including fault of the mother of the deceased teenager.  

    P.S.  The real crux of the matter:  what is the text of the criminal felony statute Ms. Drew was charged with?

    Parent

    Answering my own question, (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    here is the statute at issue.  Near the end of the link there is a provision for a civil penalty:

    42 USC section 1030

    Alao, Ms. Drew's competent defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the indictment.  The Court denied the motion.  

    Parent

    As I understand it, (none / 0) (#121)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    the motion made for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the prosecution's case and/or at the end of the trial was taken under advisement and hasn't yet been decided.

    Parent
    Not according to other on-line (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    sources, motion was posted and the blog sd. the Court denied the pre-trial motion.  Probalby similar to a 998 motion in California state court.

    Parent
    two different motionsq (none / 0) (#142)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    You guys are talking about two different motions.  The pre-trial motion to dismiss was denied.  The motion for judgment of acquittal made at the end of the prosecution's case was taken under advisement and not ruled on.

    Parent
    Figures. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    Different motion. (none / 0) (#151)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    The motion I'm talking about wasn't pretrial, it was a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence after all the evidence was in.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    The reason adults have no business bullying children isn't just because it's grossly immoral on its face but precisely because you can never know what else is going on in the child's life and family and therefore how vulnerable they might be.

    And it has absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with whether this woman violated the law, and you know it.

    You can defend this woman on the basis of the law, but you cannot defend her morally, and especially not by pointing fingers at the victim's own mother.

    Crap, TChris.

    Parent

    I am not (none / 0) (#47)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    defending the morality of Drew's actions.  Nor am I pointing a finger at the girl's mother. I'm asking whether she considered pointing one at herself before she decided that Drew should do time for her daughter's decision to end her life. Do you suppose this was a happy and undisturbed child who suddenly became suicidal after receiving some mean communications from a boy she'd never met? I doubt it.

    Parent
    I don't know where to start (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    Do you know anything at all about teen suicide?  Do you know anything at all, for that matter, about mental illness or depression?  Have you ever spent any time around teenagers?  Were you actually ever a teenager yourself?

    Adults have no business meddling with the lives of other peoples' kids, period.

    When somebody's beloved child commits suicide as a direct result of bullying by a gang organized and egged on by a neighboring adult, that parent is 100 percent entitled to crave vengeance.  In some societies, they'd be entitled to get it, too, but in ours, we decide these things on the basis of the law.

    That's why a prosecutor is the one who "decides" whether the bullying adult should be put to trial and juries "decide" whether the offense warrants jail time.

    Mothers of dead children don't get to "decide" that.  All they can do is hope.

    Oh, and by the way, Googling bullying + suicide brings close to 2 million hits.  Please go read up on it.

    Parent

    Bullying AND suicide (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:58:12 AM EST
    only gives me 237,000. But facts don't matter.

    Parent
    Reading accurately (none / 0) (#85)
    by standingup on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:05:08 AM EST
    to replicate the search does matter if you are looking to verify the results.    

    "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,930,000 for bullying + suicide. (0.16 seconds)"  

    Parent

    Odd, in theory (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:18:15 AM EST
    the operators AND and + should be equivalent.

    Parent
    Did you read the mother's account? (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:38:48 AM EST
    The mother's account is posted here.

    The mother closely monitored the MySpace account.  Her daughter was improving and doing much better.  The mother credited the online relationship with the phony Josh as being one of the main reasons for the improvement.

    The mother was involved with her daughter and the MySpace account the very night Megan killed herself:

    Before Tina could get out the door it was clear Megan was upset. Josh still was sending troubling messages. And he apparently had shared some of Megan's messages with others.

    Tina recalled telling Megan to sign off.

    "I will Mom," Megan said. "Let me finish up."

    Tina was pressed for time. She had to go. But once at the orthodontist's office she called Megan: Did you sign off?

    "No, Mom. They are all being so mean to me."

    "You are not listening to me, Megan! Sign off, now!"

    Fifteen minutes later, Megan called her mother. By now Megan was in tears.

    "They are posting bulletins about me." A bulletin is like a survey. "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat."

    Megan was sobbing hysterically. Tina was furious that she had not signed off.

    As soon as the mother came home she made her daughter get off line.  A few minutes later Megan had hanged herself.

    It all happened so fast; basically within 24 hours.  This is not some oblivious, irresponsible, uncaring parent.  The mom tried to protect her daughter, and the dad tried to comfort the girl,  but it didn't work.  There was apparently no warning that Megan would kill herself over those "mean" messages, but it seems fairly clear that she did.

    Parent

    thank you for injecting these facts (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 07:36:24 AM EST
    into the discussion.

    The mother was by all accounts a responsible parent. Furthermore, Megan's mother and father had made sure she was in counseling when her depression at the bullying became apparent. Megan's history of depression was known to Lori Drew, who, according to testimony dispensed her medications when she stayed with them--back when she and the Drew girl were friends.

    Knowing this girl's history, her mother monitored her use of the MySpace account and tried to set boundaries.

    Knowing this girl's history, Lori Drew was party to tormenting her via the MySpace account.

    Parent

    "Blame," and some more facts (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    If a person punches another person in a fight, and the punch would not generally be considered a knockout punch, but the person who was assaulted had a brain embolism and died immediately afterward, brought on by the punch, what would the charge be and how much "blame" would you assign the assaulter?

    I don't want to hang the woman or accuse her of causing the death of Megan.  I want to see a law that protects children from being stalked, harrassed, or psychologically maltreated on line by adults.  Maybe that's a difficult law to write and have it be 1) fair, and 2) enforceable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

    Teenagers ARE troubled.  It's hard to say which one will crack and which one won't under pressure.  A budding romantic relationship, whether on-line or off-line, can be of tremendous influence on teens.  This is what teens go through.  Unfortunately there is no visible weather vane that accurately tells us that a relationship is healthy or unhealthy, or that a particular child is severely "troubled" or not by particular circumstances.

    Some more from the mother's story (emphasis mine):

    Once Tina returned home she rushed into the basement where the computer was. Tina was shocked at the vulgar language her daughter was firing back at people.
    "I am so aggravated at you for doing this!" she told Megan.

    Megan ran from the computer and left, but not without first telling Tina, "You're supposed to be my mom! You're supposed to be on my side!"

    On the stairway leading to her second-story bedroom, Megan ran into her father, Ron.

    "I grabbed her as she tried to go by," Ron says. "She told me that some kids were saying horrible stuff about her and she didn't understand why. I told her it's OK. I told her that they obviously don't know her. And that it would be fine."

    Megan went to her room and Ron went downstairs to the kitchen, where he and Tina talked about what had happened, the MySpace account, and made dinner.

    They seem to be caring, involved parents.  The mom did not want her daughter firing back online with vulgar language.  You wouldn't yell if you caught your teen doing that?  (O-kay....) The dad IMO did what he thought was the best thing to try and comfort her.  Ever try to support and comfort a crying, hysterical teen?  Going up to her room and cooling off would seem to be perfectly appropriate.

    And kindly note that the two parents talked it over while making supper.  No retreating to the den for Dad.

    Parent

    My impression (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    is something quite different.  They knew they had a suicidal daughter, they knew she was upset by MySpace messages to which she responded with anger and vulgarities, yet mom's response was to chastise her daughter, a response that made her daughter accuse her of not being supportive.  Maybe leaving a mentally healthy "crying, hysterical teen" alone is a good strategy, but it's a questionable decision when you know your kid is upset and suicidal.

    Parent
    Aw (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    A veritable "leave it to beaver" family, and just about as two dimensional as the tv version.

    Seems to me that if the internet is a posing danger to a minor, than the ones paying the bills, ie responsible parties, should pull the plug.

    That would be the first step in the chain of command. Many parents want the government to ban games, site content, and art works, because they see them as a danger to their children and society at large.

    I believe that is a very slippery slope. At best it borders on parents abdicating their own responsibility to the nanny state because they are too busy or too out to lunch to notice the danger and act appropriately. At worst preemptive arrest of anyone deemed to be a cyberthreat. Can't imagine that the government would ever abuse their power, they only want to protect your children and you.

    Parent

    What's reasonable (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    This whole thing blew up within a night and a day.  If you had a child who you were carefully monitoring who seemed to be benefiting from an on-line experience would you pull the plug?

    The mother did "pull the plug" when things turned sour, but too much damage was done in too short a time.

    I agree that it is a very slippery slope.  I disagree that we should just shrug and say, there's nothing we can do except to monitor our children 24/7 to make sure nothing harmful ever happens to them.  That's just not possible, practical, or appropriate in this day and age.

    I see it as a challenge to develop appropriate laws to help protect our children and still respect our civil liberties.  Of course we can't legislate away all threats, nor should we.  But I believe it is worth trying to protect against behavior such as Ms. Drew participated in.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    Although I think that because this kid killed herself has added irrational passion to the mix. On this site commenters were mean to other commenters in not such a different way than Drew was to Lori. And this site is super mild compared to ones where there is little or no commenting policy.

    If anyone who was commenting here had committed suicide, I doubt that the reason would be because someone was mean to them, no matter what the suicide note said. Taking ones life usually, and in this case most certainly, is precluded by mental illness or a long period of suffering.  Those people are fragile, and no one can stop them without limiting them so much that it is not worth living anyway.

    The mother should know this enough to not blame others for her daughters death, as painful as that must be. Demanding that someone else be branded a criminal in this case, suggests a certain level of denial, and poor character on the mother's part, imo.

    And clearly Drew not a nice person, to say the least.

    Parent

    I did read the mother's account (none / 0) (#106)
    by Pieter B on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    In Megan's MySpace profile she wrote
    N is for Neglected

    On the night Megan hanged herself, mom was angry, not supportive, and her father's account of his attempt at comforting her sounds pro forma at best.

    Nobody smells like a rose here.

    Parent

    So glad my parenting skills (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    were not the subject of MySpace account.

    Parent
    On second thought, maybe (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    my parenting skills are such a subject, but I prefer not to know.

    Parent
    What that tells me (none / 0) (#122)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    is that the child had severe mental health problems well before the fictitious "Josh" came into her life, and that Josh was therefore only one of many factors that contributed to her suicidal ideation. Yet everyone wants to blame Drew as the "cause" of the suicide while ignoring all other potential causes.

    Parent
    I have to disagree (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by nyjets on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    Sorry, but I have read and reread that line.
    You were blaming the parent of the kid who commited sucide and absolving the mother who bullied the kid who commited sucide.

    Parent
    far beyond meanness (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Lori Drew didn't just write some nasty messages to this girl.  she coordinated on-line bullying by others - some from different states.  Posting messages about megan on bulletin boards and providing the log-in information to others so they too could enjoy taunting a troubled girl.    Megan was receiving dozens of messages targeting her in the hours and days leading up to her suicide.  This is not "meanness" it is harassment and should be illegal.  

    And you can be assured that Megan's mother is punishing herself for this every day of her life.  Lori Drew on the other hand thought it was a clever joke until the ramifications of her actions became all too real.  Too bad for her that the completely predictable outcome of her harassment came to pass.

    Parent

    From your link... (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST
    "Megan and the girl down the block, the former friend, once had created a fake MySpace account..."

    seems this "innocent victim' was guilty of the very same crime for which so many here want Lori Drew imprisoned.

    Parent

    So of course (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by slr51 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    anyone who commits a crime against another who has done something similar, but without the criminal consequences, is faultless?

    A drunken driver who kills should not be convicted if, as a teenager, the victim  drove after drinking too much; an arsonist is not at fault for causing a death if the victim played with matches as a child ...

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    Let's compare the actions of a child (who was trying to meet boys) to that of an adult (who was harassing a child).

    those are the same.

    Parent

    The charged crime (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    is not "harassing a child,' but lying to MySpace.

    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    I actually don't think Drew should have been prosecuted under this particular federal law.  But that's not the issue I'm taking issue with - rather it is some people's callous dismissal of the affirmative actions Drew took to harass a minor.  And their equally callous equating of those affirmative actions (including inciting bullying by others) with a spur of the moment comment from the child's mother.

    It is frankly bizarre to me that in the desire to prove this prosecution was politically motivated, there is a need to demonize a women who lost her child.  (or in your instance to equate what a child did to make friends with what a grown woman did to bully that child).  There is no need to do this yet these posts have gone on and on.

    You cannot protect a child all the time - even a troubled child. And even the best parent doesn't always make the best choices - although it's always easy for bystanders to point fingers in hindsight.  However, I see absolutely NO ONE actually defending Drew's actions.  Because you can't do it - there is no reason she set up a fake account, no reason she passed out the log-in information to others so they could play a part in the game and no reason she subsequently posted information about Megan on other bulletin boards so that people in other states could partake in the harassment.  Maybe there is no law she could be prosecuted under (I still don't know why harassment doesn't come into play), but it is reprehensible to equate a concerned involved parent with Drew.

    You don't need to trash Megan or her mom to make the point that this case was flawed from the start.  

    Parent

    Most kids are subject to meanness from other kids (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ericinatl on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:48:48 PM EST
    Not from a mother terrorizing you (over the internets or otherwise).  We don't generally prosecute the meanness of other kids because they are after all just kids.  When the meanness is from an adult, than it can be prosecuted if it rises to the level of a crime.

    You seem to be saying that there was no crime here.  I think most people would disagree.  And the trouble comes in figuring out what crime was actually committed.

    Look, technology gives people the ability to commit crimes more easily than before.  The laws have not caught up to technology - and they never will, as technology is extremely fast moving.  But like I believe that the constitution is a living document that must adapt to the times, I also believe that there is flexibility in statutes to redress crimes that do not easily fit into the written text.  I don't think you can have it both ways (a living, breathing constitution, but static laws in every other context).

    The woman accused obviously used an account to terrorize this child.  Whether she technically signed up for an account, to say that she is not bound by the terms of the account agreement because she stole the account of someone else or otherwise gained illicit access is simply not a common sense argument that is going to fly with any jury.  The woman assumed certain legal responsibilities when she used the account to terrorize the child, and she was fraudulent in her disregard of those responsibilities.  So, yes, she committed a crime.

    Parent

    You are SO wrong (none / 0) (#123)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    when you say:

    You seem to be saying that there was no crime here.  I think most people would disagree.  And the trouble comes in figuring out what crime was actually committed.

    We don't look at the tragic consequences of an act and say "Look what happened, that's really bad, it must be a crime," and then try to conjure up some crime to charge her with.  That's not criminal justice, that's at attempt at vengeance for conduct of which we disapprove.

    The analysis can't start with the assumption that a crime was committed. The analysis starts by asking whether her conduct matched the elements of a criminal statute. It didn't.

    I am disheartened every time I see people trying to pervert the criminal justice system to punish people they think deserve to be punished without regard to whether they actually committed a crime. If that's the system you like, China might be a good place for you to live.

    Parent

    Actually that's exactly what we do (none / 0) (#160)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    I remember the famous case in New York when a drunk driver was charged with Murder 2.  There was a statute written to address criminally negligent homicide, but the prosecutors decided this particular case evidenced the "depraved indifference" necessary for a Murder 2 conviction.  I believe the salient fact was that the man hit a girl and carried her on his hood for 2 or 3 blocks before she slid off and then he ran over her again.

    A prosecutor's job is to come up with novel theories of criminal law to prosecute and a defense attorney's job is to come up with novel theories of criminal defense law.

    Parent

    Who said (none / 0) (#162)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    it is a prosecutor's job to come up with "novel theories"?  I thought a prosecutor's job was to apply the law honestly.

    Parent
    A prosecutor would say that (none / 0) (#166)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    Just as you would say it's your job to diligently defend your clients.

    Obviously most crimes fit very neatly into the criminal statutes.  That's why most crimes are pled out.  

    The interesting cases are those that do not fit neatly into the statutory framework.  There is no statutory easy fit for this crime.  But that does not mean a crime was not committed.  Sometimes one must step back from the clear text of a statute and determine what exactly were the legislators were trying to prevent.  What were they really worrried about?  What principles of law are at stake?  I do not think that is an illegitimate approach to criminal law, whether practiced by a prosecutor or a defense attorney.

    Parent

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#172)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    A prosecutor's role is to enforce the law as written, not to stretch the law to apply to circumstances the legislature didn't envision. Any prosecutor who says "I'm going to find a way to prosecute this even though no statute seems to apply" should lose her job.

    Of course judges and lawyers need to understand a statute's purpose to understand the statute.  So lets do that.  This statute criminalizes hacking into computers that contain national security information, governmental records, or financial records; theft of information from certain computers by hacking into them; hacking into a computer and damaging it (by installing a virus or deleting data, for instance); obtaining unauthorized access to a computer with intent to defraud for the purpose of obtaining anything of value; selling passwords; and extortion by means of threats to damage a computer.

    I see no evidence in this statute that Congress had any intent to criminalize Drew's behavior.  The intent is to protect computers from hacking and damage, and to protect against financial fraud.  It doesn't say anything about harassment.  It doesn't contain any of the language one would expect it to contain if Congress wanted to criminalize the creation of fake MySpace identities in order to say mean things about other MySpace users.

    No principled prosecutor would have brought this case.  That's probably why the local prosecutors all declined it.  Only a glory hound 2,000 miles away had so little integrity as to bring this prosecution under a law that just doesn't apply.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#181)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    Because the whole point of a lawyer is to make arguments as to "why" a particular statute applies.  Sometimes it's not so clear.  

    Somehow I doubt as a defense attorney, you would not make arguments as to the applicability of a particular statutory defense even if it's not crystal clear it applies.  You seem to be arguing that that is okay for a defense attorney, but not for a prosecutor.  I disagree -- and it is the role of a judge/jury to determine the validity of the arguments on both sides.

    Parent

    Another way in which you are SO wrong (none / 0) (#124)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    is this:

    I don't think you can have it both ways (a living, breathing constitution, but static laws in every other context).

    Absolutely untrue.  The Constitution was written as a set of guiding principles that were meant to endure and to be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing times.  The Constitution is not easily amended, for good reason.

    Criminal statutes are written to constrain specific behavior.  Legislators have an obligation to write statutes clearly so that people have reasonable notice whether their conduct is or is not criminal.  The meaning of a statute does not evolve over time:  it remains settled so that people can act in reliance on the statute's clear meaning.  We're not supposed to have to guess whether our conduct is criminal before we engage in that conduct. Statutes are easily amended, so legislators who see a need to broaden the statute to cover conduct that wasn't originally within a statute's scope can change the law if they see fit.

    These are fundamental principles of law.  Trying to force disagreeable conduct into a criminal statute that wasn't written to cover that conduct is a serious misuse of the criminal law.

    Parent

    Conduct (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    TChris,

    What this woman did goes beyond "disagreeable."  It would go beyond "disagreeable" if Megan were still alive.

    What if this were a real-life situation?

    What if the woman disguised herself as a boy who met with Megan and wooed her, called her on the phone and began developing a relationship with her, then suddenly turned against her and had other friends of Megan turning against her and saying and/or writing nasty things about her.  Then Megan killed herself.

    Would there be any charges against the woman then?


    Parent

    I completely disagree (none / 0) (#159)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    What you are describing is a statutory system based on the Napoleonic Code -- such as is in France or Louisianna.  Our legal system (including criminal law) is based on common law.  Every eventuality is attempted to be addressed in a Napoleonic Code, but not under a common law system.

    While it is true that we have adopted more and more statutes that tend to look Napoleonic, the tradition of common law remains strong in the United States.  And frankly I hope it continues.  If you've ever drafted a contract (or a law), you soon realize that one cannot possibly think of all the ways something can go wrong.  That's why judges are necessary -- to answer the hard questions at the edges.

    As far as "guessing" at what's a crime -- c'mon.  I agree in some technical questionable cases, that can be a problem.  But there are certain things that we know are a crime, even if the technical elements change -- e.g., murder, assault, battery.

    Here, I don't think we're at the edge of criminal behavior.  If the woman had used the internet to defraud the girl of money, it would be an open and shut case.  Instead the woman used the internet to defraud the girl of her life.  So, you're saying fraud with respect to money is a crime but fraud with respect to life is not?

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    I can assure you I'm not discussing the Napoleonic Code.  The three sources of law in the American system are approached differently.  Principles of constitutional law are deliberately broad and often a bit vague, to allow room for those principles to adapt to changing conditions.  Statutes do not change unless they are amended legislatively.  Criminal statutes are supposed to be written in precise language so that they give adequate notice of the conduct they prohibit (a constitutional requirement).  Common law governs when statutes do not, but common law has little relevance to criminal law, which is based on statutes.  Yes, judges have to interpret statutes, but they can't (or shouldn't, if they're playing by the rules) interpret statutes in a way that changes their meaning or intent just to achieve a desired result in a particular case.

    Finally, to defraud someone of money requires an intent to take the money under false pretenses.  Nobody thinks Drew acted with the intent to cause Megan to commit suicide. Your analogy breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    "Yes, judges have to interpret statutes, but they can't (or shouldn't, if they're playing by the rules) interpret statutes in a way that changes their meaning or intent just to achieve a desired result in a particular case."

    But that is the whole crux of the issue, isn't it?  You seem to be saying, without support, that the interpretation changes the meaning or intent of the statute.  I'm saying the exact opposite.

    Reasonable people can come to different conclusions on this issue.  And I think it's a bit offensive for you to dismiss anyone out of hand who disagrees with you.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#168)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    I wasn't arguing that the criminal statute was common law -- I was arguing that we have a tradition of common law.  And that carries over into the interpretation of statutes -- every eventuality is not contemplated in any statute.  It is the judge's responsibility to flesh out the gray areas.

    Parent
    I only dismiss (none / 0) (#169)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    ideas that are clearly wrong, and you are clearly wrong when you suggest that statutes should have the same interpretational flexibility as constitutions. And you're also wrong to think that congressional intent in enacting a statute that criminalizes computer hacking and computer fraud was even remotely intended to apply to someone who gives false information to MySpace without any intent to cheat someone out of money or other property.  If Congress wanted to create that kind of statute, Congress would presumably have done so by using language that more clearly covered this situation.

    Parent
    I guess my law degree from Harvard (none / 0) (#178)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:42:30 PM EST
    was a waste of money then.  I guess I should demand my money back from Alan Dershowitz -- he obviously lead me astray in criminal law.

    Parent
    Take it up with Dershowitz. (none / 0) (#183)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:54:19 PM EST
    This wouldn't be the first time he was wrong about something.

    Parent
    It's easy to claim someone is wrong (none / 0) (#188)
    by ericinatl on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    When you keep setting up straw men.  I never contended that constitutions and statutes have the same flexibility of interpretation.  I also never contended that Congress intended the statute you cite to apply to this situation.

    I contend that there is some degree of flexibility in the interpretation of statutes.  I also contend that one can make arguments that the statute should apply to this case.  

    Parent

    "we don't know the whole story" (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    We NEVER know the whole story, especially when the justice system is involved.

    So that's just a lame excuse.  A key symptom of depression is withdrawal from people around you.  Depression is a disease that causes you to pull away from even the people who love you the most.

    So no, we will never, ever understand the whole story.  Even her very own mother probably doesn't know "the whole story".

    Parent

    None of my (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    posts on this case have suggested that Drew lacks moral fault for her actions.  It is obvious to all that she engaged in reprehensible behavior.  My larger point is that not every reprehensible act, no matter its consequences, is a crime, and we need to get over the attitude that the criminal justice system is the correct vehicle for righting all of society's wrongs.  This is a prosecution that should never have been brought.  If Drew's neighbors want to shun her, that's a different matter.

    What's the definition of manslaughter? (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    Or what about spousal abuse? "I didn't mean to kill her, your Honor." His actions may have been reprehensible, but hey, he didn't mean to kill her (physical abuse) or drive her to suicide (mental abuse). Or we can go down that road with child abuse . . . Where do you draw the line? These two women knew what they were doing. They may not have meant for the girl to die . . .

    Parent
    The line is easy to draw. (none / 0) (#22)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    Drew did not kill the girl.  The girl killed herself.  Suicide is not manslaughter or spousal abuse or child abuse.  And the fact is that people are mean to 13 year old girls every day, and since most don't respond by killing themselves, it doesn't seem to me to have been reasonably foreseeable that this one would.

    Parent
    Suicide was the result whether intended or not (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    Drunk drivers kill people whether intended or not. Spouses kill themselves due to abuse, whether intended or not. Teenagers kill themselves as the result of bullies, whether intended or not. When an adult is doing it, I consider that child abuse.

    Parent
    and your point would be, TChris? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    Apart from the fact that one user in a thousand (or maybe a million) actually reads a terms of service agreement before signing up for the service,

    failure to read all the terms of a contract is no defense. you should know better than to even have typed such nonsense.

    in actuality, the woman should have been charged with negligent homocide: she committed acts which she knew, or reasonably should have known, would result in the injury or death of another.

    that it wasn't her intent is irrelevant. most robbers don't intend to kill their victims.

    this was not some anonymous person, this was a girl known to ms. drew, who also knew the girl had serious emotional issues. in spite of that knowledge, she participated in the affirmative acts which eventually led to the girl killing herself.

    to now claim innocence beggers the imagination. it's my hope that a civil suit against ms. drew destroys her and her family. she deserves it.

    Well said. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    to now claim innocence beggers the imagination. it's my hope that a civil suit against ms. drew destroys her and her family. she deserves it.

    So should ms. drew kill her family and off herself after reading your comment, you should be held criminally liable?

    Parent

    Squeaky (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    gets the point.

    Parent
    no, she doesn't, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    Squeaky gets the point.

    and neither, apparently, do you.

    ms. drew is not a child. i sent nothing to ms. drew personally, i merely made a comment on this blog. to equate the two is either the result of:

    a. willfull ignorance., or b. studied stupidity.

    you make the call.

    i'm shocked TChris, truly i am. whatever ms. meir's actions, or inactions, with regards to her child, she isn't the one who effected the intentional infliction of mental harm on her daughter, that was ms. drew's doing.

    again, how you can possibly conflate the two boggles the rational mind.

    Parent

    Tell It To The Judge (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:41:25 PM EST
    a. willfull ignorance., or b. studied stupidity.

    you make the call.



    Parent
    When you say (none / 0) (#125)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    "that was Ms. Drew's doing" I have to remind you that the jury (which, unlike you, heard the relevant evidence) disagreed.  The jury did not believe she acted with the intent to inflict mental distress on Megan.

    Parent
    Granted (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by daring grace on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    I was not on the jury and didn't hear the relevant evidence. But it's hard to swallow the argument that an adult engaging in this kind of hateful behavior toward a child had NO intent to inflict 'mental distress' in that child.

    Easier to be persuaded that Ms. Drew didn't expect (or intend) Megan's suicide, but from what I've read of Drew's explanations of her behavior inflicting emotional pain was part of the reason for doing this thing in the first place.

    Parent

    Please explain to me (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    How can deliberately writing messages that are distressing be construed to mean that Drew didn't intend to cause mental distress?

    Just asking.

    Parent

    don't be silly (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    lori drew is not a vulnerable child.

    Parent
    Nonsense? (none / 0) (#23)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    This is a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit for breaching a terms of service agreement.  Huge difference.

    Parent
    Maybe They'll Hire O'Brien as a Law Professor (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    At Regent U.

    Just a layman (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Todd on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    I'm just an average schmo. I love reading this blog. It has informed me for years on things that are not in my realm of life. But let me get this straight, and tell me if I am wrong, but am I reading that this woman was morally wrong but has no responsibility? So she has the same argument that the Bush administration is using for their torture programs? She didn't think she was doing anything wrong, they didn't think they were doing anything wrong, oh, and someone died. Meh. Happens. But it wasn't our intention.

    Tchris limits his post to (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:34:23 PM EST
    alleged criminal liability.  He does not address whether Ms. Drew or anyone else may be liable in a civil case.  I doubt she would be.  No duty.

    Parent
    The problem (none / 0) (#31)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    with your analogy is that there are laws against torture.  There are no laws against sending mean messages to teenagers.

    When you say "has no responsibility," I assume you mean criminal responsibility. Lots of behavior is morally wrong but not criminal (cheating on a spouse comes to mind).  Drew has moral responsibility for her actions, but not criminal responsibility (which the possible exception of the misdemeanors and I'm doubtful about those since the law is intended to punish financial fraud, not nasty messages).

    Parent

    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    except that your post goes on to strongly suggest that Drew isn't even morally responsible since the teenager's mother is actually somehow responsible.

    Parent
    That is not (none / 0) (#126)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    at all what the post says. Moral responsibility is a completely different question. The post addresses Drew's legal responsibility. There may be a number of people who share moral responsibility (including Drew's adult friend who was given immunity by the prosecution despite setting up the account). Her family members may or may not be among them.

    Parent
    So what is the recourse? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Todd on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    I'm still left feeling very cold from this post. And I do stand by my analogy as that is how I see it, A death is a death whether it is from governmental malpractice or just plain meanness.

     

    Parent

    Sometimes there isn't any (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:48:41 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Todd on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:51:26 PM EST
    That is unacceptable.

    Parent
    No, that's life. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mike H on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    This is the real world, not some movie or sitcom.  Mean people suck, but they don't all go to jail, nor should they.

    I was horrified by this story when it came out, and then equally horrified by the witch hunt that was trying to make this case into something it wasn't.

    What we want to be true and what is legally appropriate aren't always the same thing, and that, in the end, is a GOOD thing.

    Because outlawing mean people, or trying to punish things we think should be immoral, can lead to a very different society -- one I don't want to be a part of, even as much as I loathe what this horrid woman did.

    If we start making it okay to connect the dots from a suicide to what we think pushed the suicide over the edge, it could be incredibly dangerous.  It would be a bad precedent in so many ways.

    Parent

    What about causing mental anguish that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    leads to suicide? If we don't connect those dots, do we then undermine mental anguish?

    How many suicides lead directly back to someones actions as it looks in this case? Are we really better off not connecting the dots of an adult who purposely tormented a young person to the point of suicide? Couldn't that be more dangerous as far as setting an example and wouldn't it undermine other situations? I can see some domestic situations, which are sometimes difficult enough to get legal protection in, hitting shaky ground if bullying/tormenting is not grounds. Why would it be ok to get restraining orders against someone for similar behaviors, but not to connect those same actions to a suicide? And it's not like people who bully and torment ever escalate.

    Could this effect cyber stalking?

    Parent

    Malpratice (none / 0) (#50)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    is actually another good example. Doctors and nurses quite regularly kill people by their negligent actions.  They have moral fault and civil responsibility in those situations, but rarely are they guilty of a crime.

    I don't know if there is any recourse. Possibly a civil suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but to hold Drew responsible, the girl's mother would have to prove that Drew was the proximate cause (or whatever the Missouri version of that standard might be) of the girl's death.  That kind of suit would open up inquiry into everything else that was going on in the girl's life that might have contributed to her decision to commit suicide. Whether the suit would ultimately succeed would depend on many facts that we just don't know.  The criminal jury obviously didn't believe the evidence proved Drew's intent to inflict emotional distress, but a civil jury that doesn't need to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt might come to a different conclusion.

    Parent

    Ya know, (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM EST
    Lori Drew could have walked down 4 doors, spoke with the girls mother and put a stop to this, a long time ago but she chose to go about it this way and it ends up someone is dead.  I will be willing to bet she sees herself as a victim in this, not the girl.

    Parent
    And juries never makes mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nyjets on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    "The criminal jury obviously didn't believe the evidence proved Drew's intent to inflict emotional distress,..."
    It is also posible that the jury made a mistake.

    Parent
    Juries never make mistakes: (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ambiorix on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:36:23 PM EST
    It's to the procecution to make her case, and to the jury to decide if the procecution proofed her case beyond reasonable doubt; it is not to the jury to fit the glove.

    Parent
    TChris (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    If I need a defense lawyer, I'll call you STAT!

    Since I haven't committed a crime recently..or ever... I will simply acknowledge your professionalism and then permit myself to respond to the case from a lay person's point of view.

    Technically, legally, you have all the points in your favor.

    Nevertheless, the woman who did this is a heinous, reprehensible, disgusting, bag of sh*t.   I wouldn't be unhappy to see her sent to jail for some serious time out.

    But then I'm not a defense lawyer.  Good thing, too.

    Parent

    Just because you haven't committed a crime (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:26:55 AM EST
    doesn't mean you'll never need a defense attorney.

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    Result of malpractice (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lora on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 11:48:03 PM EST
    If a doctor's malpractice resulted in a patient's suicide, then what?  Say the doctor botched the treatment so that the patient became despairing and killed herself.  Would there then be a criminal charge?  Or would "malpractice" be it?

    When you send someone a nasty message, what other reason could you have than to inflict emotional distress?  "Just kidding" doesn't fly here; neither does wanting to inflict any non-distressing emotion. Thinking that there would be no emotional outcome doesn't work either.

    Parent

    Equivilent = doctor intentionally harming (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by slr51 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:06:45 AM EST
    the doctor would have had to intentionally botched the treatment with the intent that the patient would suffer, but it would be OK because he/she didn't mean to KILL the patient.

    Somehow I think that would indeed trigger prosecution.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    And please do not blame the girl's mother for not seeing that her daughter was suicidal.  It happens all the time and parents are not responsible unless they have been abusive.

    bullying is a terrible problem and Lori Drew took part in very childish and destructive behavior that we would not tolerate in a middle school classroom much less in the adult world.  She was the adult and she should have been the one to say NO to what they all did.
    I think she should have been found guilty and spent time in prison if for no other reason than to set an example to other adults that they are responsible to  set a good example for their children and not to torture and mentally abuse other people's children for their own amusement.

    With all due respect, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TChris on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    I cannot agree that parents should never be viewed as having responsibility for a child's suicide.  I know it happens all the time, but it more often happens when parents are detached from a child's life. Parents who cannot see their child's pain might be blameless, but sometimes they're just not paying attention.

    The notion that someone should be found guilty even if they committed no crime just to "set an example" is itself an example of how people like Nancy Grace have polluted our nation's view of the criminal justice system. Guilt has somehow become irrelevant; it's all about punishment.  The issue here is whether Drew committed a crime, not whether "an example" needs to be set. And if you think sending Drew to prison will have any impact whatsoever on the serious nationwide problem of bullying, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

    Parent

    key point (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nyjets on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 08:26:15 PM EST
    "even if they committed no crime "

    It is a very debatable point whether the woman
    who bullied a kid is not guilty of a crime.
    Personally, I think she is.

    Also, to make a blanket statement that when a child commited suicide, the parents should always know something is insulting.

    Parent

    What crime? (none / 0) (#129)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    It's not good enough to make a bald assertion that she committed a crime. State and federal prosecutors in Missouri disagreed. If you have more knowledge than they did, please specify the particular Missouri criminal statute, or federal criminal statute, you think Drew violated.

    Sorry, but I really get burned by people who insist that a crime was committed simply because they don't like something that another person did. We have an ex post facto clause in the Constitution to protect us from people who decide that legal conduct should suddenly be defined as illegal so that the person who engaged in that conduct when it was legal can be prosecuted.

    Parent

    A bit broad, unless the commenters (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    here have enough influence to persuade legislators in Missouri and/or the U.S. Congress to pass a new criminal statute applicable retroactively to Ms. Drew's conduct.

    Parent
    Wow TChris (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    You are obviously currently not the parent of teenager growing up in this culture, and abusing minors IS a crime.  Perhaps they have charged this woman with the "wrong" crime but in my book she did something criminal.

    Parent
    Bullying (5.00 / 9) (#51)
    by Todd on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    This is really a personal thing for me, as you can see since I'm commenting, being a lurker and all. I was bullied in school. Mean things, horrible things. At least to me. My parents never knew. For them I was a great kid. Top of the class. I tried to commit suicide a couple of times. Couldn't. Big thing that. And I ended up doing pretty well with myself, very well. But it's still there. That bullying. It still hurts when I read these stories. And I can't believe that an adult, a parent! is a part of it. I have to know that there will be some reckoning for this horrible woman. I'm 47 now, and spend my money and time on projects for kids so they won't have to go through what I did. This story just eats me to the bone.

    If Mrs Drew still had a minor child (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:52:37 PM EST
    I'd be pushing to have any child removed from her care because I would consider an unfit parent.

    Parent
    How About Pets? (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    That may be something you can push for.

    Parent
    Urgh. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:57:33 PM EST
    I can't imagine her with a pet.  

    Parent
    Pets & Minor (none / 0) (#192)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    (Tina Meier had testified earlier in the week that "Josh" had asked her daughter at one point if she wanted to touch his pet snake or his pet tarantula.)

    possibly fiction, like josh

    But Sarah Drew is sixteen:

    LOS ANGELES -- The 16-year-old daughter of a woman on trial in the MySpace suicide case broke into tears Friday in a hushed courtroom as she testified that a teen girl who committed suicide in 2006 after being bullied online had told her twice that she wanted to kill herself. She said she told no one at the time about her friend's apparent cries for help.

    more

    The younger Drew who, unlike Grills, doesn't have immunity, admitted to typing a message from "Josh" to Megan Meier one time. She said she just asked Meier how she was doing, and Meier replied that she'd been given detention for chewing gum.

    On the day that Meier killed herself, Drew said she returned from school around 3 pm and spent 45 minutes doing homework, while Grills was on her mother's computer. Shortly thereafter, she said Grills, posing as "Josh," and two other girls became embroiled in a cyber war-of-words with Meier over Josh's desire to sever his friendship with Meier.

    Drew said she stood behind Grills as she typed messages to Meier on the computer, and insults flew back and forth between Meier, "Josh" and the two other girls. When Grills typed out the fateful message that prosecutors say sent Meier over the edge, Drew claims she told Grills, "No, Ashley, you cannot send it." Grills sent it anyway, she said, and then "laughed about it."

    Wired

    Parent

    Your last paragraph (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 07:46:11 PM EST
    is literally sickening.

    Contradictions (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Lora on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:34:30 PM EST
    TChris writes (emphasis mine):

    Posing as a teenage boy, Drew used a fictitious MySpace identity to say mean things to 13 year old Megan Meier, who was a neighbor and former friend of Drew's daughter.

    Saying "mean things" can do tremendous harm.  It is called psychological abuse or psychological maltreatment, and it has been shown to have more negative long-term psychological effects than physical violence.  It is a serious matter.

    Source:  Family Violence Across the Lifespan, 2nd edition, by Barnett, Miller-Perrin, and Perrin.

    It can be difficult to read signs of suicide, especially among teenagers.  Teens are impulsive and may not give any warning.  They are also secretive and can fool adults extremely well.  Even trained professionals can misread the cues.  Teens are easily humiliated and many might say they would rather die than face shame and embarrassment among their peers.  Some would literally rather die and some carry it out.  We adults and mothers and parents have a very difficult time understanding the depths of despair that a teen can feel about stuff that we, at our supposed maturity level, understand is trivial.  "This too shall pass" has little or no meaning for the teen in the throes of despair.

    It's a miserable situation.  There isn't any good news here.  There ought to be consequences for what Drew did.  That isn't vengeance.

    I have no problem with splitting hairs about the letter of the law, and I have no problem with people being found not guilty if they are innocent indeed of the charges brought against them.

    But if there are no legal consequences, that is not good news for anyone but Drew.  What she did was wrong.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by standingup on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:04:27 AM EST
    I understand there were legal issues arising with this case that created concern.  I do not understand downplaying the impact of the actions of Lori Drew and others involved in the tragic death of a thirteen year old girl.  

    People do need to consider the impact words have on others.  Suggesting it was merely a "fictitious MySpace identity to say mean things" is not a fair or accurate representation of the facts.  It went far beyond that by creating a fictitious relationship that lasted about a month and was subsequently ended in a very public and humiliating fashion.  

    Two new studies in the last two years show suicide rates are increasing in the U.S.  The first in 2007 was about the increase in teen suicides where girls had the largest increase.  The second, released last month, shows an increase in U.S. suicides for the first time in a decade with the biggest annual increase amongst white middle age women.  This should be a cause for concern, not dismissive and gratuitous swipes on a blog.        
     

    Parent

    I get the legal part of it (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by ChrisO on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:06:16 AM EST
    and I understand that the law has to be detached from emotional desires to see people punished for actions that aren't technically criminal, although I will say that I take some satisfaction in Lori Drew having to go through the trial. But the comment about Tina Meier's need to examine her own culpability is really annoying. And your dismissal of the question of whether you have children as irrelevant is doubly annoying. When you're talking about the way the law is applied, I would agree that your own background is irrelevant. But when you start making value judgments about the child's mother, you have moved beyond the realm of the law, and it is relevant to question your perspective. And I'm sure the people who asked that question had the same reaction I did, which is that you sound like one of those non-parents who's happy to pass judgment on others' parenting skills.

    As the father of two daughters, I'm acutely aware that they have whole areas of their lives that I know nothing about, and it's not from lack of "involvement." Echoing what others have said, I'm sure Tina Meier has not only questioned her own culpability in her daughter's suicide, I'll bet she has blamed herself for her daughter's depression.

    I think it's especially mealy mouthed to fall back on the whole "I'm not accusing anyone, I'm just asking the question" dodge. As an attorney, you know full well what a loaded question sounds like.

    This particularly bothered me: "Doesn't she bear a measure of responsibility for not being sufficiently involved in her child's life to know she was seriously troubled?"

    Why is it that you would presume that the mother of a child being treated for depression doesn't know she's "seriously troubled"? That was a poorly informed remark on your part, and your continued attempts to justify it seem lamer with each post. I'd be interested to know how you came by the statement "I know it (suicide) happens all the time, but it more often happens when parents are detached from a child's life." I can't say whether that's true or not, but it's a pretty sweeping statement. Do you have a cite for that?

    Hear hear (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:20:06 AM EST
    I think it's especially mealy mouthed to fall back on the whole "I'm not accusing anyone, I'm just asking the question" dodge. As an attorney, you know full well what a loaded question sounds like.

    That last paragraph was an intentional smear on the mother, while presenting no facts about the actual quality of parenting.

    Parent

    Harassment? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:28:39 AM EST
    Is there a need for a bright line to discourage  abusive behavior such as Lori Drew's?  I would agree that the current case was flawed.  However, one is left wondering why there isn't a law against Lori Drew's conduct.  Is there a flaw in the harassment laws in Missouri?  Lori Drew's conduct would have been liable under Washington's harassment and cyber stalking laws.  Am I wrong?  How is Lori Drew's case that different from this one?


    The only difference (none / 0) (#98)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    that I can see is that Drew's messages weren't "threatening," although they were cruel.  


    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#102)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    Washington's criminal harassment law requires a threat to harm.  The civil harassment laws, however, do not.

    Parent
    No it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    Under Cyberstalking 1.
    A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:

    and

    (b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or

    There is no question there was an intent to embarrass and there is n question the contact was done anonymously and repeatedly.  Note that normally this is considered a gross misdemeanor which seems about right.

    Parent

    Sounds good to me (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    Somebody ought to give the Missouri legislators a copy of the Washington law.

    Parent
    The entire discussion here is quite (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:34:44 AM EST
    interesting.  Why do I say that?  Because, usually, whenever a diary on a criminal case is posted here, there is a rush to blame everything on law enforcement.  For example, Simpson's recent felony convictions. But, in this case, sympathy appears to be with the complaining witness, i.e., the suicide victim's mother.  

    It is interesting (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    When our daughter was having some grave difficulties I ended up breaking into her email accounts.  Very interesting, very enlightening, she wasn't being bullied but other stuff was going on.  I don't know if my sympathy should lie with the suicide victims mom but I am noticing that if I hadn't broke into MY daughter's email (cuz she wasn't going to offer jack) I would have been accused of poor parenting by some if she had committed suicide.  I only ended up being accused of poor parenting though because I had violated her personal space.  Sometimes you just can't lose for losing :)

    Parent
    I was advised by an attorney (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by slr51 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    that I could not legally record phone conversations on my own phone when I feared one of my daughter's close friends was selling hard drugs.

    His advice was actually "never admit it or leave any evidence of it".

    Parent

    Hahaha....been through this too :) (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    I think we have the same attorney :) It can be great fun raising teens right now in our great American culture.  They have access to everything and no frontal lobes, and I get to be financially responsible for them and what they do while they have ALL SORTS OF RIGHTS that place my own rights in danger.  I can't complain though too much.  I did choose to be a parent.  If they take that away from me though I don't know what's left :)  I could start clinging to guns and religion or something

    Parent
    Recording Phone Conversations (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:27:00 AM EST
    Is regulated by state law. It varies from state to state.


    Here are the state by state laws: PDF

    Parent
    My attorney said that to be on the safe (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    side of everything I needed to admit to nothing, whether my recording could be considered legal or not!

    Parent
    Attorney probably also advised (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    only the client may waive attorney/client privilege.  But we are anonymous here, aren't we?

    Parent
    Hey, I was only asking questions (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    for a fee :)  You can't prove I did anything.  I was just curious.

    Parent
    I'm safe ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by slr51 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:45:45 PM EST
    cause I'm an old fart and it has been over 7 years.

    Turns out no drugs beyond a little pot and no pushing. However I learned about a party at someone's camp that sounded very risky and I was able to put a stop to it. Two years later (when my daughter was no longer hanging out with these kids) 3 of them died in a drunken crash on the way back from a party at the same camp.

    Parent

    Well, that's because (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:21:59 AM EST
    TChris saw fit to inexplicably smear the mother of that poor child - not surprising that would evoke sympathy for her. Most parents - no, most humans - would find sympathy for the mother in reaction to that.

    Parent
    I also have a real problem with this (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Amiss on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:42:58 AM EST
    Drew went on to say, the communication became "sexual for a thirteen year old." Drew stated she continued the fake male profile despite this development.

    link

    the above statements in this post and the one above were both in the police report. I am also surprised that she was not charged as being an internet predator.

    why blame Lori Drew when (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 01:20:11 AM EST
    all teen suicides are Marilyn Manson's fault?

    I'm with TChris 100%... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by kdog on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 08:14:46 AM EST
    this woman, despite apparently being total scum, should never have been charged.

    And to those who want her to suffer for her actions, believe in karma, it works for me.  Or feel free to go to her door and knock her teeth out, even that is preferable to polluting the law by getting some kind of trumped-prosecution through that will inevitably end up being misappled and abused by prosecutors in the future.

    I can't imagine being thirteen (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    and reading that, let alone thirteen, depressed and reading that.

    If I ask myself "Why would someone write that?  What is the intent?" the most obvious answer is they wanted to hurt someone.

    You came close (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    to having your comment deleted for your personal insults.  A couple of other comments have been deleted for that reason.

    I am allowing this comment to stand because it provides valuable information that contributes to the discussion.  I am particularly interested that Megan's parents knew she was suicidal since the third grade, yet failed to prevent her suicide. Whether they deserve to be faulted for that, I don't know, because we don't have enough facts. But Megan's mother wants to focus the blame solely on Drew, to the point of insisting she go to prison, despite her knowledge that her daughter had been suicidal for years. This makes me wonder whether she's pointing the finger of blame at Drew to cover her own sense of guilt for failing to prevent the suicide.

    I am not judging Megan's parents. They may or may not have done everything they could to help their troubled daughter. I would not have mentioned Megan's mother if she hadn't demanded that Drew go to prison. Drew didn't cause the suicidal ideation that had persisted in Megan for at least four years. As reprehensible as Drew's conduct was, it clearly was not the only cause of Megan's suicide. Megan's mother should understand that better than anyone.

    As for my "different agenda," the post is about perverting the criminal justice system to try to punish behavior that isn't criminal. The "agenda" here is the politics of crime -- that's what TalkLeft is all about.  TalkLeft is not a victim's rights advocacy site.  It seems to me the people with a different agenda are those who want to talk about how awful Drew is and how splendid her parents are.

    "Failed to prrevent her suicide": (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    what do you recommend?  Permament committal to a locked mental health ward?

    Parent
    I recommend (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    that if you know your child is suicidal and you know she's upset by something she saw in her MySpace messages and you know that your child is angry at you and thinks you aren't on her side, you probably should not criticize your child for using "vulgar language" and then leave her alone.

    Parent
    Harsh. And retrospective. (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    The same (none / 0) (#184)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    could be said of Megan's mother's desire to imprison Drew for doing something that the jury said was not intended to harm Megan.

    Parent
    Is the victim's mother not entitled to (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    express her opinion to the press?  Not going to result in a conviction, of course, so meaningless in the long run.

    Parent
    1st Amendment, but (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    at that point criticism of her squishy logic is fair game.

    Parent
    Consider (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    Please consider that while people have an interest in protecting rights of those accused of crimes, people also have an interest in what is right and wrong, in general.  Although you state that you are making no judgments about Megan's mom, your post and comments imply that she is at fault, and that Drew, while disagreeable, is blameless.  This naturally will draw the ire of those who do not feel that Megan or her mom deserved what happened at the hands of Drew and her cohorts, regardless of the legal implications.

    Parent
    at the risk of driving you to suicide, (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    however infinitesimal, I question your reading comprehension.

    Good thing I didn't lie about my identity in agreeing to the TalkLeft terms of Service.

    Parent

    Delete away (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by standingup on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    It will not bother me in the least bit.  

    I am not a victim's right advocate.  I am not suggesting that Megan's parents are wonderful either.  Nor have I suggested that Lori Drew should be prosecuted.  

    My issue is with the statements made, without knowing the facts, suggesting that Megan's parents were not aware or doing anything to help their daughter.  And unfortunately Chris, there are cases where people do everything possible and still are not able to prevent another person from committing suicide.  I don't know if you have not had much experience with people who are mentally ill but I know of several people who had all of the love, care and support that a person could have but ultimately it is the disease that wins and takes a life.  Would you say the same thing about parents who lost their child to cancer?  Depression, bipolar depression, is very difficult to diagnose and only then can they begin to literally experiment with various treatments that may work and may not or might work for a while and then mysteriously the medication is no longer effective.  Treating depression is not an exact science and the societal stigma that is still too prevalent make it even more difficult.  It took us until the year 2008 to finally pass a law that prevents health insurers from discriminating against people with mental illnesses.  

    Please consider how the statements and suggestions you have made about Megan's parents might appear to those of us who don't practice law for a living.  Some of us have experienced the other side of this, losing friends and family members to an insidious disease that we are too often helpless to fight.    

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#174)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    lost more than my share of friends and family to deaths that were directly or indirectly related to mental illness. That does not change my point of view. The question isn't whether we sympathize with Megan or her mother. The question is whether Drew should have been prosecuted. Her prosecution does nothing to solve the problem of mental illness. Pardon the cliche, but two wrongs do not make a right.

    As to this:

    Please consider how the statements and suggestions you have made about Megan's parents might appear to those of us who don't practice law for a living.

    Please consider that a key function of TalkLeft is to educate readers who aren't often exposed to the criminal justice system, who learn about it from unprincipled creeps like Nancy Grace who like to stir up anger to get better ratings, who share the all-too-common view that criminal prosecutions are the answer to all of society's problems.  The knee-jerk reaction in many of the comments here today is the same as Megan's mother's:  Drew did something bad so she should go to prison, even absent a law that clearly criminalizes her behavior.

    I encourage our readership to take a more nuanced view:  the blame for Megan's suicide does not fall upon Drew alone. Drew did not cause Megan's mental illness. Drew did not cause Megan's mother to criticize Megan after Megan read the MySpace messages that upset her. Drew did not cause Megan to believe that her mother wasn't on her side. Drew did not cause Megan's mother to leave Megan alone after their confrontation, during a time that a girl with a four year history of suicidal thinking was clearly upset. Most importantly, Drew does not belong in the criminal justice system due to Megan's decision to end her life.

    Parent

    Lori Drew is partly responsible for the hasty (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    downward spiral of Megan.  She isn't criminally liable but she most certainly is morally responsible.  We don't know if Megan would or would not be here today had Lori Drew not taunted, demeaned, and wrote cruel messages on the MySpace account.  We will never know.  Maybe Lori Drew didn't understand the depth of Megan's illness but she surely should have known better than to harrass and torment a vulnerable child.  I pity everyone involved in this tragedy.  

    Parent
    I truly believe you can help (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    Talk Left fulfill its mission w/o making any comment at all about the victim or the parenting she may or may not have received.

    Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the mission to compare Ms. Drew's alleged conduct to the federal statute she was charged with violating?  And leave it at that?  

    Parent

    That is what (none / 0) (#187)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:04:46 PM EST
    I would have done if Megan's mother hadn't insisted that Drew should receive a maximum sentence for conduct that (in the jury's view) wasn't meant to harm Megan. It is consistent with the TL mission to advocate a more nuanced view than Megan's mother gave when she talked to the press. The mother blames Drew for the suicide. It isn't that simple. It's important to ask what other factors played into the suicide, including parenting, rather than laying all the blame on Drew and insisting she be punished for Megan's decision to end her life.

    Parent
    Interesting viewpoint. I read so much (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    here that I consider ill-advised statements to the press by defense counsel in criminal matters.  But they just keep on talking.  

    I think you are dug in now and reluctant to walk it back.  

    Parent

    I have no desire to walk anything back. (none / 0) (#199)
    by TChris on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:25:15 AM EST
    But the Libra in me says . . . ;) (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    Megan and her mother would not have had any of those actions if Drew had not been in the picture tormenting Megan.

    Drew did not cause Megan's illness, but the chain of events? I'd say she did. That whole time period would have played out differently if Drew had not set out to deliberately harass Megan.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#195)
    by standingup on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    I never suggested that the prosecution of Lori Drew would do anything to solve the problem of mental illness.  Once again, it is your statements regarding mental illness and how her parent's dealt with Megan's mental illness with which I have an issue.

    I fail to see how the point that Drew should not go to because there was no law criminalizing her behavior requires an examination of the Meier's conduct as parents.

    I won't even bother getting into Nancy Grace or the nuanced view you present.  If that is what is considered a nuanced view from the criminal defense side, then I clearly don't care to become any better informed than I was before reading this post.  

    Parent

    So Megan's parents need to look at their (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    fault because they knew about their daughter's condition? Wouldn't the same hold true for Drew since she actually gave medication to Megan when she stayed over at the Drew's? And Megan's mother should understand Drew's conduct was not the only cause?

    This doesn't compute for me. Both mother's knew Megan had problems. One mother did what she could to help her daughter. The other mother deliberately harassed Megan while knowing that she had depression issues and was on medication. Further, there would not have been vulgar language to fight over and all that followed at Megan's home if Drew had not set off the chain of events. The way I see it, if Drew hadn't been in the picture serving as the straw that broke the camel's back with deliberate actions, it's very possible Megan would be alive today and continuing treatment/management of her illness.  And Megan's mother is supposed to understand?!

    I find it hard to believe we need new laws to hold Drew accountable for her behavior. An adult deliberately tormenting/harassing/embarrassing a child with a known mental disorder should fall under child abuse. And don't stalking laws cover, as Drew was deliberately stalking her "prey"?

    Parent

    Stalking laws (none / 0) (#177)
    by TChris on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but carrying on a MySpace conversation with a willing participant would not commonly be a definition of stalking. Child abuse laws also vary quite a bit, but the most common child abuse laws apply to physical and sexual abuse.  My state has a separate law that covers "causing mental harm to a child" as well as failing to protect a child from mental harm, but it applies only to a child's parents or custodians.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#186)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    one thing on the stalking, in many cases, it does start out friendly or willing participation. Whether online, at school, the workplace, etc. At the point the MySpace conversation went downhill (by design), wouldn't it apply even if the victim (a child) still did "participate" to an extent? Just because it is not commonly the definition of a stalker, isn't the basic premise/action in this case applicable as Drew continued to victimize her?

    Parent
    standingup (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    If you are talking to me, I do know of that background and have researched the case. It's sad and tragic all around. But you skipped and danced over my point. How long do you think it will be before a parent is charged with neglect because of not following through on suspecions the child may be in danger?

    Let's go to Nancy Grace:

    DR. ROBI LUDWIG, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Well, the mother was obviously neglectful. Now, either she was working hard and trying to support herself, but it sounds like there was neglect and she was absent. And probably Child Protective Services should have been called by somebody if they were aware of the situation.

    Mothers are already charged sometimes. Mark my words. If this case stands, within 5 years or so a parent will be charged for allowing a child to chat with a person the parent thought was suspicious, like Drew was suspicious in this case, but the chat friend turned out to be a predator. The government is just waiting for the right case. Don't think it is all sympathy for victims and their families either. The government wants control of the Internet.

    Point me (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by standingup on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    to one statement I made suggesting that Nancy or anyone else should be prosecuted.  You won't find it because I have made none.  I didn't dance around your point; I avoided it entirely because it was not pertinent to the point I was making about statements that did not reflect what Megan's parents knew or did about her problems with depression.  

    Parent
    Information vs. distress (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:59:37 PM EST
    After reading more about it, my take on intent is that the jury had to decide if the purpose of the phony MySpace account was to inflict mental distress or to get information.  Apparently there wasn't enough evidence to conclude that her intent at the time of the creation of the account was to inflict harm.

    However, I believe that when Drew did send the messages, she did at that point in time intend to inflict mental distress.  I really don't think there is a viable alternative motive.  While recognizing that that's not what the jury had to determine, I also recognize that, at that time, Drew (and others) not only intended to be hurtful, but did cause a great deal of hurt.

    IMO, that hurt (combined with a medication cocktail, teenage angst and impulsivity, a high level suicide risk that had been underestimated by her mental health providers and her parents, along with a well-meant but unfortunate intervention by her parents) precipitated her suicide.

    Okay, the thread's full and I'm done here.

    And One ofThe Comment (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    From your link:

    She [Drew] may not be a practicing witch, but I suspect that phrase will come back to her about threefold, at least.

    Looks like Drew is a witch. Burning at the stake is apparently having a comeback. Wonder what powers some of the commenters here may possess. Hope no one gets hurt or arrested.

    "Tina and Ron agreed to allow Megan to open (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    an account..."

    At the time, MySpace required anyone opening an account to certify that they were 14 years of age. Not only in the fineprint clickthrough agreement, but in a subsequent screen.

    If lying on a login is a crime, Megan's parents are at least civilly liable to MySpace. Damages? How about the damage their corporate reputation has suffered in this affair?

    Not going to read this thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    anymore.  Too, too sad.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 07:58:18 PM EST
    This is perhaps the most depressing thread I've read on this blog.

    Eye opening too. I've learned a lot.

    Parent

    It's more than depressing (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    As someone who works with at-risk youth -- many of whom have deep emotional scars due to the actions of abusive adults -- I cannot believe some of the comments I've read in this thread.

    The continual attempts to blame the parents of the victim are way beyond the bounds. The statements are not even supported by the published facts about the family.

    But a person might need to have some actual life experience with children to begin to understand.  

    Parent

    Blame (none / 0) (#198)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    Was there any indication that Megan was actively suicidal and needed special monitoring or treatment becasue she was a suicide risk?  I didn't see any evidence of that.

    I think it is unfortunate that the deliberate actions by an adult that were intended to cause emotional distress were minimized when compared with actions of parents who were trying to help their daughter.

    Another analogy:

    A medically frail child is allowed to play a sport.  There is a hazing which results in the child being injured.  Turns out the coach was in on the hazing and perhaps even orchestrated it.  The extent of the injury is not readily apparent.  The parents yell at the child for participating in the hazing.  Later the child dies.

    Now, who are you going to blame?  The parents, for not monitoring the child at all times?  For allowing him to play a sport?  For scolding him for participating in something stupid and dangerous?

    How about the coach?  Seems like it's more appropriate to put the blame on the person who did the harm.

    Parent

    Here's your evidence (none / 0) (#200)
    by TChris on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:37:53 AM EST
    from comment 138 above:

    In the third grade, Megan told Tina that she wanted to kill herself. The Meiers took her to see a psychiatrist. Megan was prescribed Celexa (an antidepression drug), Concerta (for A.D.D.), and Geodon (a mood stabilizer).

    She's suicidal and medicated three years before she kills herself.

    And no matter how many times I point out that the jury concluded Drew did not intend to inflict mental distress upon Megan, you and several other commenters who didn't attend the trial continue to assert she did.

    Parent

    Well, juries make mistakes. Look at the OJ trial. (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    If Drew did not intend to inflict mental distress on Megan, then why was she sending cruel messages to her?  Did she think they would make her happy?  Give me a break, TChris.  Lori Drew and the others on the MySpace account had only the intent to hurt Megan as their cause.  And to think that she meant no harm is ludicrous.  They knew she was vulnerable but kept on and kept on, all the while knowing they were hurting her.  They are despicable people.  

    Parent
    And you're (none / 0) (#205)
    by TChris on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    certain that you know better than 12 people who actually saw the witnesses, listened to their testimony, reviewed the evidence and came to a unanimous agreement? I really get bummed that people who didn't attend a trial, who know only what they read in the newspaper, think they know better than a jury.

    As for O.J., prepare to be shocked:  I watched nearly the entire trial, and I agree with the verdict.  Whether O.J. did it or not, the prosecution didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  They probably could have if they hadn't relied on the testimony of racist cops who so clearly committed perjury during the trial and who felt the need to plant evidence to make their case better.

    Parent

    Third grade (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:39:43 AM EST
    TChris,

    You don't put someone on suicide watch for 4 years.

    That means 24/7 without let-up.

    Megan would have been hospitalized if her mental health workers thought she was that much of a risk.

    I contend you have no evidence that Megan was considered actively suicidal at the time of her death.

    I also contend that, from the story given, there is no evidence that her parents were withdrawn, uninvolved, careless, or overly harsh with their daughter.

    I KNOW what the jury found.  There's a contradiction there in terms -- I have yet to have it resolved.  The contradiction is this:  When you deliberately post nasty messages to someone, if you do not intend to inflict some sort of mental distress, what exactly DO you intend?  Pray tell.

    Parent

    From Wired Article (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    Wired

    "She was, like, 'I don't know if I can live any longer'," the younger Drew said Meier told her in an e-mail and in person in late 2005. Another time, Meier told her "she was going to cut her wrists."
    Tina Meier, the mother of the dead girl, testified earlier in the week that her daughter made "small marks" on her arms in 2005, but was not aware her daughter had discussed suicide with Sarah Drew.

    [...]

    under the 25-minute cross-examination, said she knew Meier was taking medication and had even accompanied her former friend on a visit to the doctor who was treating her depression. Yet she insisted she never told her mother, Lori, that Meier was suicidal, even though she said she told her mother about everything except boys.

    The girl's testimony, if true, supports the defense's assertions that Lori Drew was unaware of Meier's previous suicide attempt until after Meier killed herself in 2006.

    And regarding intention to cause some kind of mental distress, what do you think this was about?:

    O'Brien addressed the name-calling that led Grills to create the fake MySpace account in the first place.
    Under direct examination, Drew said Megan Meier had called her a lesbian, "fat and ugly," and told people her clothes were dirty because her mom never washed them.

    Doesn't all name calling intend to cause some degree of mental distress? Should name calling be a crime now because someone, who was suicidal, took their life?

    Parent

    Alternate explanation (none / 0) (#201)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:41:25 AM EST
    Isn't it also possible that the jury believed the intentions weren't benign but that the felony sanctions weren't warranted?  If they really thought Drew bore no guilt, why did they return a guilty veredict on the misdemeanor counts?  I think the jurors made the best of a bad case and tried to deliver some justice.  

    Even if the veredict is set aside (and I hope it is) the message has been sent to kids, parents, and government about the need to protect kids online, through new legislation if necessary.  In a twist of irony, the Drews have been subjected to online harassment much as they did to Megan.  I wonder if new cases will ensue.  Missouri extended its harassment laws to cover the internet because of this case.  

    Parent

    Really unlikely (none / 0) (#204)
    by TChris on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    that the jury was trying to do "justice" since juries never learn that a particular charge is a misdemeanor or a felony, or what the consequences of conviction would be, and are told not to consider the lesser charge until they've unanimously agreed to acquit on the greater charge.

    Parent
    Why wasn't she charged with (none / 0) (#193)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    CyberStalking?   And then, if Drew was convicted, Tina Meirer could use that conviction as a basis for a civil suit of wrongful death?

    TChris, the entire world knows that OJ murdered (none / 0) (#207)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    two people.  He was not framed.  There was plenty of evidence that he committed the crimes yet he was found not guilty because of the stacked jury.  They got rid of jurors one by one who would have voted for his guilt.  I watched the entire trial so I know what happened.  So, yes, I think I know better than some juries, the OJ jury in particular.  

    As this relates to the Drew trial go back and read my comments.  I have not said that she was guilty of a crime, now did I?  No, I didn't.  In fact, if you'll read my posts I said she was guilty of being mean, cruel, viscious.

    Here's what you said:  "And no matter how many times I point out that the jury concluded Drew did not intend to inflict mental distress upon Megan, you and several other commenters who didn't attend the trial continue to assert she did."  Again, if Drew didn't intend to inflict mental distress then what was her motive?  There wasn't any other motive than to cause Megan harm.  They were messing with her mind.  They were being cruel and viscious to her.  They knew she was vulnerable.  So that jury was wrong when they said Drew didn't intend to inflict mental distress on Megan.  To inflict mental harm on Megan was Drew's sole motive for the MySpace posts.  You have dug in and will never admit that you're wrong about this.    

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#208)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:55:11 PM EST
    As far as we know, Megan's health care providers and her parents did not know that she was a high suicide risk at the time of her death.  Whether they should have known, I don't know.  Maybe there were missed cues.  The "small marks" on her arms could have been a suicide attempt that was unrecognized as such.  I still maintain that there is nowhere near enough evidence to cast her parents as removed, uninvolved, negligent, etc.  It is so very easy to overlook warning signs that indicate a loved one may want to take his or her life, not the least because it is so unthinkable that someone we know and love might do so.

    As far as intending to cause mental distress, yes of course what Megan said (according to the younger Drew) would have caused distress and of course Megan would know it.

    I have not advocated a law against causing mental distress.

    I have: 1) argued, successfully I believe, that if you send someone nasty messages, you intend to cause distress.  I have asked, and have not gotten an answer, how you could deliberately send a nasty message and not intend to cause emotional distress.

    2) advocated for a just and fair law that would protect children from the type of behavior Lori Drew used against Megan: she suckered Megan into believing that a boy liked her and was developing a romantic relationship with her and then cruelly turned against her in a public and humiliating way.

    Angel- (none / 0) (#209)
    by TChris on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    since you are the final authority on truth, perhaps we should dispense with juries and just let you decide guilt in every case.  Personally, I prefer the opinions of the twelve people who heard all the evidence and who all saw it the same way, even if it isn't your way.

    Your notion that the defense can "stack" a jury is remarkable.  Both sides get to ask for the removal of potentially unfair jurors, but the judge makes that decision, not the lawyers.  And both sides (not just the defense) get to strike a fixed number of jurors without cause.  The rules are the same for both sides -- nobody "stacks" a jury.

    OJ walked because there was reasonable doubt.  Get over it.

    The testimony at Drew's trial was that Drew intended to get information from Megan, not to inflict mental distress upon her.  The jury evidently believed that testimony and that's the end of the story.

    I have never suggested that Drew's actions were anything other than mean and cruel, but that's not the point. My post is about whether she committed a crime, not whether she's a good person. We appear to agree that she didn't commit a crime.  Again, end of story.

    TChris, you love to put words in people's mouths. (none / 0) (#211)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 07:00:16 AM EST
    I didn't say I was the final authority on truth.  But it is evident that OJ walked because of the jury.  Go back and review the history of the removal of jurors and you'll know what I'm saying.  Judge Ito was horrible and you know it.  The courtroom was a circus and the trial became about celebrity and not about who really killed two people.  When the judge is entertaining celebrities in his chambers you know there's a problem.  And I guess you'd love to ignore OJ's book "If I Did It."  Go ahead.  But he did it whether or not he was convicted for it.  And I believe the facts presented at trial proved it.

    Sometimes it is easier to see the truth when you are on the outside instead of the inside.  

    I understand the legal ins and outs of the Drew trial and in fact said in one post that she wasn't guilty of the crime she was prosecuted for.  But it is beyond comprehension to believe that Drew didn't mean to inflict emotional harm on Megan, regardless of the testimony presented in the trial. Drew intended to cause her harm, she caused her harm.