July 2, 2009

"It basically leaves it up to a website owner to determine what is a crime," said Judge Wu, overturning the guilty verdicts against Lori Drew.

In the case that grew out of the suicide of Megan Meier, who was tricked on MySpace into believing that a nonexistent boy loved her and left her.

13 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Lori Drew deserves to burn in everlasting hell for being a contemptable disgusting scab of a person...

but it would be a mistake to make what she did a crime.

Chris said...

Everlasting Hell? Wow.

Fred4Pres said...

I shall curse you Lori Drew: May you end up in protracted civil litigation.

Synova said...

They tried her on some really odd charges. It's hard to believe that there wasn't anything applicable to stalking or harassment of a minor either in person or through the mail that would have applied over a computer as well.

Chase said...

A civil suit finding of cause of wrongful death should be punishment that will follow her to her grave.

Her family should be expected to support her.

But when a relative says that people don't know the facts - here is what is not in dispute - Lori Drew did what she was accused of. It is despicable for a relative to defend her wrongful, murderous intent actions.

Christy said...

I hope the civil suit is successful. Driven out of town by the hate. Good for the community. Geographical changes rarely work when one's problems are caused by one's character.

Duscany said...

After the judge overturned the misdemeanor convictions, the prosecutor in the case, Los Angeles US Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien announced that he had no regrets. “I’m proud of this case …. and this team [of prosecutors], even though using the CFAA to prosecute Drew “was a risk.” He added that his office “will always take risks on behalf of children.”

As a fellow citizen of Los Angeles I'd feel a lot more confident if O'Brien was also willing to take risks on behalf of protecting a defendant's right not to be prosecuted for a non-existent law. O'Brian admitted as much when he said the government needed a cyberbullying law. Well, if this country needs a cyberybulling law it must not have one now. And if it doesn't have one now, what is O'Brian doing prosecuting Lori Drew under a law that doesn't apply.What really happened here is that O'Brian figured out a way to prosecute a case in California even though federal prosecutors in Nissouri had already decided there no fedeal laws to charge her with. And since O'Brian didn't have one to charge her with he totally misconstrued another law with another purpose.

traditionalguy said...

The damage done by Drew's False Website posting is why the Ten Commandments include "thou salt not bear false witness". To teenagers today all that appears on this public website has the power of false Testimony in a court being made against them. Like all of the 10, there is always a Great Damage done by their proscribed conduct. It's not a nice place to live anymore when we live among a group of violators.

Pogo said...

Not all sins are crimes, although this was a sin most egregious.


"...Drew and her family have since moved out of Missouri, due to the harassment they received, noting that she’s been “an internet punching bag for almost three years...

Remarkably, shunning is still at times quite an effective social regulator.

Joe said...

I still think it's largely a hoax. I did very extensive reading on this case just before it went national. There are a whole lot of things that don't add up. I believe Megan's parents latched onto Drew as the cause because it was so dramatic. (One revealing thing is that Megan's parents weren't much better than Drew on the white trash scum scale.)

Synova said...

I don't get it, Joe. Does this mean that some people, because of their spot on the white scum trash scale deserve what they get?

What possible relevance can the behavior of Meagan's parents have on whether or not an adult person decided that it was a good idea to spy on and emotionally manipulate a 13 year old girl?

Drew's behavior, even if she did not intend what ultimately happened is equivalent in many ways to that woman (years ago) who contracted the murder of her daughter's cheerleading rival. Do we say then that because the parents of the girl that woman fixated on, because they were weird cheerleading parents *too*, that somehow it wasn't wrong to attack or plan to attack the daughter?

Joe said...

No, it means that if you are to fix blame, Megan's parents deserver an examination. What is lost in all the claims is that Megan had a major, screaming fight earlier the day she committed suicide and another just prior.

Then there is the problem that an autopsy was rushed as was the subsequent cremation.

My own gut feeling is that Drew had absolutely nothing to do with the death and it wasn't suicide, but death by auto-asphyxiation (ala David Carradine.)

Joe said...

To be absolutely clear; I don't think Drew had anything to do with Megan's suicide. I believe she was a convenient scapegoat.

For those who blurt out the cliche "but what if it were your daughter." My daughter went through a FAR, FAR worse experience with her first long-term boyfriend. She moved on.

I got "burned" extremely badly by more than one girl. I didn't kill myself or even consider it.

(On the other hand, the wife of a guy I work with cheated on him and he tried to kill her with a knife.)