But a St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department spokesman, Lt. Craig McGuire, said that what [Lori] Drew did “might’ve been rude, it might’ve been immature, but it wasn’t illegal.”
In response to the events, the local Board of Aldermen on Wednesday unanimously passed a measure making Internet harassment a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
"Give me a break; that’s nothing,” Mayor Pam Fogarty said of the penalties. “But it’s the most we could do. People are saying to me, ‘Let’s go burn down their house.’”
You need a statute if you want something to be a crime. Internet harassment is a crime in many states, including Wisconsin, but there are free speech limits on what can be criminalized.
Anyway, what was Drew's motivation? It looks as though she started out wanting to help her own daughter, who was rejected as a friend by the girl who killed herself:
In a report filed with the Sheriff’s Department, Lori Drew said she created the MySpace profile of “Josh Evans” to win Megan’s trust and learn how Megan felt about her daughter...
“Lori laughed about it,” {said a neighbor], adding that Ms. Drew and Ms. Drew’s daughter “said they were going to mess with Megan.”
After a month of innocent flirtation between Megan and Josh, Ms. Meier said, Megan suddenly received a message from him saying, “I don’t like the way you treat your friends, and I don’t know if I want to be friends with you.”
They argued online. The next day other youngsters who had linked to Josh’s MySpace profile joined the increasingly bitter exchange and began sending profanity-laden messages to Megan, who retreated to her bedroom. No more than 15 minutes had passed, Ms. Meier recalled, when she suddenly felt something was terribly wrong. She rushed to the bedroom and found her daughter’s body hanging in the closet.
A bizarre part of the story is that the police only heard about it because of a foosball table:
Shortly before Megan’s death, the Meiers had agreed to store a foosball table the Drews had bought as a Christmas surprise for their children. When the Meiers learned about the MySpace hoax, they attacked the table with a sledgehammer and an ax, Ms. Meier said, and threw the pieces onto the Drews’ driveway.
Drew went to the police about that. She filed a complaint that said she thought the hoax “contributed to Megan’s suicide, but she did not feel ‘as guilty’ because at the funeral she found out Megan had tried to commit suicide before.”
Incredible. It's hard to believe that a person who seems to be a functioning member of society could have such bad judgment, distorted perception, and pitilessness.
Posts
80 comments:
This is why I monitor my daughter's facebook account.
The 47-yo woman here needs to get a life and stop living her life through her daughter. Actually, she should have done that about a decade ago. If parents interfere and fight battles for their children when the kids are teenagers, how do the kids learn to negotiate their way through life?
Maybe I've watched too much Law and Order, but wouldn't an elaborate premeditated harrasement that leads the target to commit suicide indicate 'depraved indifference' to the possible results of your actions?
It sure goes beyond being rude and immature.
Everybody is so quick to say what other people need to do.
Can't it just be that it's a big country, with 150 million women, and there are certain to be vindictive ones among them down at the tails?
The media bring it to your attention not because it's a real problem (being hit by an asteriod is a real problem in the way) because you'll be engrossed and not tune away, and so you get sold to advertisers.
One transformation makes it a problem for legislators. An evil they had not foreseen! More at seven.
Advice to children : suicide is not a good idea until you are older. Does anything need to be added?
The problem with the law is its sexism. It treats crimes that men are likelier to commit harshly and crimes that women are likelier to commit lightly -- or fails to categorize them as crimes at all. What this woman did is clearly malum in se, intentional, and foreseeably caused serious bodily harm. It may not be specifically defined in a statute, but, then again, neither is poking a hole in a condom to dupe a man into consenting to impregnate you and then hitting him up for 18-years of child support for a kid he never wanted. But they are both acts of violence that are not considered criminal because they involve a female kind of violence.
Don't confuse the mental state needed for a crime with the requirement of an act. You need a statute that defines the act before you have a crime, and if the act is speech, it must be tailored not to infringe on free speech rights. The girl killed herself. The woman only said mean things. Would you want to define cruel speech as a crime? Normally, the crimes in this area are defined as true threats of violence, but the woman was not threatening the child, only tricking her and hurting her feelings. It's truly evil, of course. I'm not saying it's not.
Incredible. It's hard to believe that a person who seems to be a functioning member of society could have such bad judgment, distorted perception, and pitilessness.
Add, "and is also a professor at a major law school", and this describes exactly why I keep coming back to this site.
It's like watching a car wreck. I know I should look away, but I just can't.
Psychological terminology is inadequate to describe the kind of evil this woman has done, the kind of evil she is.
She'a a narcissist, a sociopath. An adult woman, the mother of highschool girl, uses her adult knowledge about the fragile hold on reality common to teenagers and manipulates her daughter's girlfriend into the belief that she has made a new boyfriend.
And she tells her suddenly, "The world would be a better place without you."
Meaning: I wish you were dead. You should kill yourself.
And she did.
But the mom doesn't feel ‘as guilty’ because the girl was so easy to manipulate (i.e. she was too weak to survive anyway; why is that my fault?)
The death of a young child is devastating to every family so affected. Death by suicide can be ruinous for decades to come. It can also spark copycat attempts, both within the family and at school.
I ran across this story several days ago, and can still hardly read it without getting choked up and at the same time full of rage. The evil in that woman is disgusting. Shunning her and her family (yes, her family) is all that can be done by any good society. Sometimes horrible behavior can only be addressed by making someone into an unperson, spitting on the ground where they walk.
Were I the dead girl's father, I would now be in jail.
Timely topic... consequences in the Real world of stimulus in the Virtual "world" ...last Friday as I rode with my fortysomething brother to get he pre-chemo-blood test, we spoke of his 14 year old son and "Internet Hygeine"..in the first instance, how to talk to your teenager about the porn sites they think you don't know they visited (they are shocked to discover you are not as clueless as they suspect) and second, educating adolescents to deal with the intersection of the Real and Virtual worlds: parents of youngsters who let them post personal info on, say, Facebook, where the youngsters post pictures and proceed to chat about specifics, i.e. school data:and how hard is it to find these young girls and boys in the Real world after cruising the Virtual world- duh! A bit beyond hand-washing and teeth brushing, but essential health data for offspring.
Echo what Pogo said
I'm with both rhhardin and Pogo, I think. With rhhardin because I don't think that stories like this are necessarily a call to action. With Pogo because, were this my daughter, I'd almost certainly have committed violence in response.
The part of the story that always gets me is that they tried to file a complaint over the dang foosball table. Talk about a warped view of who was wronged. And I have t ask where was this women's husband when she wanted to seek redress for the foosball table, which occured after the internet harassment was know. Was he such a weak person that he could not stop at least that last bit of insanity?
Personally, I am surprised that the sledge hammer and the axe were only used on a table.
"But the mom doesn't feel ‘as guilty’ because the girl was so easy to manipulate"
She should feel guilty for screwing with a 13 year old kid, even without the suicide. Who does stuff like this?
Well, if you think you'd have committed murder out of outrage for what was done to your child, aren't you thinking like her? She believed she was getting back at someone who'd hurt her child. And murder is obviously a crime, whereas she may have imagined it was justified mischieve to give the girl a taste of the same medicine (a friend's rejection).
oh, and if it's not obvious, I agree with those who are *not* called to legislative action...sad tale, yes; shocking, no...when these thorny issues come up, I ask myself: what would Miss Marple do?!
Well, if you think you'd have committed murder out of outrage for what was done to your child, aren't you thinking like her?
No. She was an adult who interposed herself into a quarrel between children...
She believed she was getting back at someone who'd hurt her child.
Another child hurting my child's feelings doesn't justify me pushing the kid into suicide.
Drew didn't try to file a complaint. She did. It has been reported that she also called the police and filed a complaint when the Meiers refused to answer their door when she pounded on it demanding that they talk to her (after other neighbors had indicated their displeasure with Drew).
For the record, in case anyone believes what Drew says, the Meiers have reported that Drew's statement about the girl previously attempting suicide is false.
Another note of warning: before anyone starts ranting about the Meiers not watching out for what their daughter was doing on-line, please read some of the coverage. They were reasonably careful about what she was allowed to do and who she was allowed to talk to online. The mother monitored her conversations when possible, for example. The daughter had to ask, and did ask, permission before striking up new friendships online. The problem was that the other party was a complete fraud and unreasonable.
Drew feels no remorse for her actions and continues to play the victim when she was the victimizer from day 1. A despicable creature if ever there was one. Nothing was too base for her to engage in because she was supposedly only "protecting" her own daughter. Indeed. May not be a law for it, but she's as guilty of that child's death as someone operating a vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others is responsible when another driver attempts to evade them and accidentally dies in the process.
Amba covered this earlier, BTW.
Ann, in the reports and interviews I've read, she was not just getting back at someone who hurt her child. During this entire time, the two girls were apparently close friends one day, arguing the next, and close friends again the third. Not unusual for junior high school, really. Where Drew crossed the line was she continued this charade for months whether or not the supposed need for it vanished for periods of time. It strikes me as deliberate and predatory stalking of a minor by an irresponsible adult. I won't argue that "there ought to be a law" but I have no problem with others in the community expressing their distate and pressuring those who do business with Drew to cease doing so or lose their patronage. At least they are not being sneaky.
Ann said: if the act is speech, it must be tailored not to infringe on free speech rights. The girl killed herself. The woman only said mean things. Would you want to define cruel speech as a crime?
I say no. As despicable as this woman is, I don't think taunting and name calling should be illegal. Trying to be a 1st Amendment absolutist isn't always a happy hobby. The Meiers might have recourse in a civil suit, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that, either.
Pogo said: The evil in that woman is disgusting. Shunning her and her family (yes, her family) is all that can be done by any good society. Sometimes horrible behavior can only be addressed by making someone into an unperson, spitting on the ground where they walk.
I agree. If you were to outlaw cruel speech, then it would be impossible to haunt these people until their not-soon-enough deaths.
Hmmm..if you were to outlaw cruel speech, where would that leave some of the dustups in this blogosphere?
To state the obvious, this is an extreme and unique case - we don't need laws regulating internet "speech". If you don't like what someone is saying to you on the web, click on another website.
I’m with Pogo all the way, I just wouldn’t get caught. See John Gotti vs. John Favara et al as the revalent citation.
What the women did was vicious. But was it criminal? I don't think so. Does it become criminal to shout "Jump! Jump!" at someone who is standing on a ledge and then jumps? I don't think viciousness, even of that kind, should be criminalized. But I'm not a lawyer. Could someone help me out here?
What Drew did went beyond just saying mean things to the victim. The mother commited a kind of fraud by representing herself as a boy around the age of Megan. Drew essentially seduced the girl and thus made her care what "he" thought about her. Only once this was accomplished did Drew begin to say cruel things.
I don't think it would be very hard for an adult with evil intentions to use the technique Drew used to get a 13 year old to harm herself. I would bet that it would work a reasonable fraction of the time. I further think that this was Drew's intent.
Wow petty viciousness between females. Imagine that.
Well, if you think you'd have committed murder out of outrage for what was done to your child, aren't you thinking like her?
Only if you believe that there is no moral difference between an aggressor and a victim retaliating, a form of moral equivalence casting all actors merely as belligerents.
For example, Al Qaeda flew planes into the Twin Towers. We retaliated by killing people and blowing shit up. They are not however morally equivalent actions.
If someone punches me in the nose, it is not morally equivalent for me to punch them back. If someone stalks my daughter online and says things that cause her harm, my retaliation, whether civil or violent, is not morally equivalent.
To believe so is ultimately to argue that self defense is unjustified.
Aside:
How is her behavior different than the MSNBC pedophile stings?
Those are solely internet conversations. The man involved never in fact touches anyone (and the 'bait' is not a true youngster). Yet they are arrested.
If it had instead been the Drews husband manipulating the same girl into meeting for sex instead of fomenting suicide, would this be different? Why?
Pogo - There is no difference. Intent to harm for ones own amusement is what is going on.
This is way worse than teasing. During those preteen years when the the only thing that matters are your peers' opinions, this can be as bad as molestation.
Well, if you think you'd have committed murder out of outrage for what was done to your child, aren't you thinking like her?
Who said anything about murder? I think I'd be shooting a couple of steps below that on the violence ladder, actually. She'd still be alive when I was done.
She believed she was getting back at someone who'd hurt her child.
Yes. And she killed the girl for it. I dunno, that seems a bit different. Seems to me that if she was determined to act like a child about this, then a few eggs in the mailbox, TP-ing the trees in the front yard, etc. etc. might have been in order. Besides, how do we reconcile this with the fact that apparently she was still asking the family to do favors for her?
And murder is obviously a crime, whereas she may have imagined it was justified mischieve to give the girl a taste of the same medicine (a friend's rejection).
First, I'm not entirely clear she didn't suspect it as a possibility. She knew the girl's difficult history. And second, even if we grant that, it's not uncommon that people die accidentally as a result of other's criminal acts; and the punishment is adjusted to suit. I see no reason to adjust the punishment for non-criminal misdeeds, either.
Look, I think this is pretty cut and dry: if you are an adult and you prey upon my child, then one way or another you are going to get hurt. Period. If you kill her, you should be thankful I'm not interesting in going to jail for that long. I have no qualms about saying that.
Good question, Pogo. While I detest child predators, I am extremely disturbed by the idea of convicting someone for a crime that they actually did not succeed in committing, only contemplated, because their interlocutor was actually an adult posing as a child. Sounds an awful lot like being convicted of a "thought crime" to me. As for publicizing who gets caught in such a sting, I admit to having less concern.
I see no reason not to adjust the punishment for non-criminal misdeeds, either.
Sorry, there was a "not" missing there. And to be clear, the differentiating factor here, the one that causes me to admit to myself that violence is likely, is the intent involved. I would not be tempted to violence if my child died as a result of a non-intentional act, even a negligent one.
Not a crime, but intentional infliction of emotional distress seems like a slam dunk -- the Meiers should be able to bankrupt the Drews for life.
Were I the parent of this poor girl, in grief and furor I'd want to take vengeance, physically and quickly. There's a reason we have the Furies in our mythology; there's a strong emotional need to avenge the death of a loved one. I'm fairly certain I'd never act on that need, however.
I hope this community makes use of its right to shun the Drew family, since there is no likely legal recourse. I'm sure, though, that the woman who stalked and taunted this child will see her own social exile as just more evidence of her own victimhood.
Randy: It strikes me as deliberate and predatory stalking of a minor by an irresponsible adult.
Well put. Much more concise than me [ack]
Anyone who hates another brother or sister is really a murderer at heart. And you know that murderers don’t have eternal life within them. 1 John 3:15 (NLT)
Not every wrong demands a law. Social ostracism is perfectly proper. And it can do a lot more than the law can, even if it can't (legitimately) lock people up or have them killed.
This case also reminds me somewhat of this kind of case. I know there was another one more recently too, in which there were two victims, a boy and a girl from the neighbourhood, and they were somewhat older than in the Mitsuko Yamada case. Couldn't find a link, though.
You're familiar with the command to the ancients, 'Do not murder.' I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire. The simple moral fact is that words kill.
Jesus Christ, Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:21-22 (the Message)
I'm sure, though, that the woman who stalked and taunted this child will see her own social exile as just more evidence of her own victimhood.
Very well put.
Pogo wrote: "Psychological terminology is inadequate to describe the kind of evil this woman has done, the kind of evil she is."
Agreed. There is a term, but it is moral and spiritual: The woman is wicked.
Trey
The 13 year-old broke the law by hanging herself in her bedroom closet. Suicide is a criminal offense. She has to do the time for her abominable crime. Premature death to avoid punishment should also be made illegal. That is why I oppose the death penalty, because it allows the perpetrators to avoid their just and lawful time spent behind bars. Death be not proud; death thou shalt die!
Don't confuse the mental state needed for a crime with the requirement of an act.
I'm not. The act is intentionally inflicting emotional distress so extreme that it has a high probability of leading to suicide.
You need a statute that defines the act before you have a crime,
Some crimes are common law crimes, like murder. (Whether murder has been codified later in a statute is really beside the point.) The point is that this act is not considered a crime at common law because it doesn't involve physical violence. It is emotional violence -- the kind of thing women do -- so we ignore it. That's the problem. It isn't that there is no actus reus; it's that we refuse to acknowledge it because we give women a pass.
Does it become criminal to shout "Jump! Jump!" at someone who is standing on a ledge and then jumps?
Is persuading them to jump any different from pushing them once they ask you to?
Wow. The heartlessness.
Parenthood can really mess people up.
I suppose if one has an entirely positivist outlook on the law, then one could argue that there is no way to legally punish this woman. I don't think, however, that anyone has a truly positivist outlook on the law, and I am sure that there is a way this woman can be criminally punished without running over free speech. One is not free to shout fire in a theater, for instance, thereby causing people to be trampled, and then say that free speech ought to protect that utterance.
AL: "Wow. The heartlessness.
Parenthood can really mess people up."
What the deuce are you talking about?
Yes, I'm sure becoming a parent is what twisted this woman, AL.
There's another issue, of course, and that's the likelihood that said 47yo woman has done things like this before and will again. Maybe never before with such "success", but virtual reality will give her all kinds of opportunities to try again.
It reminds me a bit of the various discussions we've had about gun control. I think a lot of people think if you scare someone off with your gun, that's enough, you shouldn't shoot them unless you absolutely have to.
In other words, self-defense as a right and responsibility stops with you and your own. But maybe the next person attacked isn't going to be so lucky.
Guaranteed this woman has done horrible things to people for decades. One doesn't suddenly up and decide to emotionally destroy a teeny-bopper. It's probably not the first time she's been caught, either.
And the whole society is damaged....
Pogo:
This is what I was referring to:
"It looks as though she started out wanting to help her own daughter,"
And the bit about the foosball table.
And the otherwise rational adults I've encountered who lose all sense of decency and proportion when it comes to their own kids.
Didn't think it was a controversial statement, actually.
"Wow petty viciousness between females. Imagine that."
I think it's great. Women are scheming Viragos, conniving Sirens, and Drew has it down to a 'T'.
Remember how the scheming Villainesses in the old soaps always got down-n-dirty, and they always looked their best while performing their machinations and manipulations.
It's Mildred Pierce, and shades of W.C. Fields...remember the legendary sparring W.C Fields would do with children ....
There's a big market for watching Adult/child rivalries.
That being said Drew would be no match for me at 13. At 13, I kept everyone in the neighborhood under surveillance, and could easily beat her at her own game, and have a great time doing it!
Fun fights !!!
Love, Maxine
"Didn't think it was a controversial statement, actually."
Losing all sense of decency and proportion has nothing whatsoever to do with being a parent per se, but is contingent on being an asshole or the like.
Such people tend to lose all sense of decency and proportion over lots of things, not just their kids. It's who they are to begin with, applied to the facts at hand, resulting in situational pathology.
There is a risk that, if something like what Drew did goes unpunished, people may react very badly.
Torches-and-pitchforks badly.
One thing that really strikes me: the Drews haven't moved! (Further evidence, I'll add, that shaming them will be fruitless: they are beyond shame). Imagine having to live 4 doors down from this monster, knowing what she did. The temptation to do petty annoying little criminal acts -- or one big one -- would be absolutely enormous. The parents of the dead child have amazing self-control.
Welcome back Maxine!
Why does everyone assume this story is true as its been reported? I've done checking and found that all the information comes from a single story that has all the hallmarks of an urban legend.
There are also serious problems with the "father's" version of events; his version can't be verified (assuming the story has any accuracy at all, it's obvious he deleted messages from his daughter's MySpace account. Why?)
The lack of critical thinking about this story astonishes me. I simply don't believe a 14 year-old would spontaneously commit suicide over hurt feelings without something else serious going on in her life. Someone is doing some serious lying, and I'm looking at straight at this girls parents, assuming they aren't a complete work of fiction.
(Some people will be shocked by my comments, but why? Given the number of even award winning fabrications being printed in major newspapers, why assume a small town reporter wouldn't do the same, or at least seriously embellish and existing story for dramatic effect.)
Given the number of even award winning fabrications being printed in major newspapers, why assume a small town reporter wouldn't do the same
Because it is a small town, where enough of the readers know who the players are that they can check the accuracy of the story immediately. Further, some of the girl's myspace friends are real people, as were some of the fake guy's myspace friends. Now, the dead girl's parents could be lying, but I don't think the reporter is making stuff up.
Megan Meier Police Reports
at The Smoking Gun
As Pogo links to, Joe, there's a lot more information available than one story and has been for quite some time. Why assume there's only one story, Joe? Try googling sometime.
Oh, and Joe, in your checking, you might have noticed that the family itself did not seek out the reporter. The family itself never publicly identified Mrs. Drew. The family itself asked the other neighbors not to make Drew's identity public and to not comment on the incident. (And remarkably, the entire neighborhood cooperated for months.) Others publicly exposed Mrs. Drew, Joe, by locating the police files.
"I simply don't believe a 14 year-old would spontaneously commit suicide over hurt feelings"
Would a 16-year-old stab her mother's lover out of jealousy?
(Lana Turner/Cheryl Crane)
There is a vicarious thrill, and rush of adrenaline, in pushing people to see how far they will go. What difference does it make the age ?
Don't you remember the scene in 'Network' where they begged that man to commit suicide on the 5:00 News so as to at least get some ratings out of it....
Let's all try to goad Althouse into doing something drastic.
Althouse: The World would be a better place if only.....
I did Google it and found that claims all come down to a single story. The other stories all quote that story extensively.
Another point; as reported the police learned about this ONLY after the parents trashed the accused foosball table.
Doesn't this set alarms off in anyone else's head? If your child was seriously harmed by someone else, wouldn't you go to the police immediately?
Is is quite possible that the suicide and the impersonation were unrelated and that the connection was made only ex post facto, perhaps to alleviate the natural, and expected, grief of the parents? (Guilt and wanting to fix blame is a very common, and very understandable, reaction for those close to suicide victims.)
Joe, have you considered that perhaps people believe there is a connection because Lori Drew admitted there was a connection, in a police report dated 11/25/2006? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan2.html
Joe:
1. Read the police reports I already linked to.
2. Read the separate St Charles MO news report. **)
3. This AP report seems to be separate.
4. Then read the Wiki references.
5. Hone your Googling skills, dude.
Nobody has a problem when children impersonate adults.
I've seen many a preteen girl hike up her skirt, pile on the rouge and false eyelashes, to seduce an older man....
I've seen many a preteen girl hike up her skirt, pile on the rouge and false eyelashes, to seduce an older man
Reminiscing? or watching old Jodie Foster movies?
Another point; as reported the police learned about this ONLY after the parents trashed the accused foosball table.
That sounds a bit like selective memory, Joe. If you know about the table, then you ought to know it was destroyed by the Meiers upon returning home after being informed for the first time who it was that was posing as "boyfriend." Sounds to me like you aren't so interested in the truth as you are casting aspersions on the motives of a grieving family and friends. Interesting.
"I’m with Pogo all the way, I just wouldn’t get caught. See John Gotti vs. John Favara et al as the revalent citation."
So you would head to Florida to establish an alibi while the hired help abduct, torture (not waterboarding, by the way) and murder an innocent man? That was an accident, this was intentional. By all means burn this bitch's house to ground.
Tropper, if you are ever citing a Gotti as a role model it should be Irv, not that ignorant murderous thug.
#56, I would think that Lawrence Taylor would have a better grasp of the situation. I was talking technique, not the specifics of that case. That was legitimately an accident. This is something completely different. By all means find out if this piece of shit was responsible as outlined. If so you should take your revenge in your own hands. If you think the cops and the criminal justice system will do the right thing, think again. I know LT would agree, you got it bring it strong if you want to right the wrong. See the following case citations: OJ Simpson Vs Nicole Brown Simpson, Robert Blake vs. Bonnie Lee Bakley, Philip Spector vs. Lana Clarkson et al and many, many other more obscure case of regular people way too numerous to mention. If something like this happened to my daughter, I know what I would do. I think LT would be right next to me with the shovel and the lime. But hey to each his own. (P.S. I bet Irv Gotti would be riding shotgun if it was his family).
Flesh eating Dermestid beetles, Trooper.
Let nature do the work fast.
"A strong colony will clean a deer skull in about 3 days."
This looks like an excellent example of cognitive dissonance at work.
Two competing ideas:
(1): I am a good person
(2): Good people do not taunt children into killing themselves.
I taunt a girl; she kills herself. Cognitive dissonance between ideas 1 and 2 sets in. Solution to the problem: my taunting must not have been the cause of her suicide! So the girl's parents had no business smashing my football table -- none whatsoever. I'm the victim here, really. I'm misunderstood and unfairly vilified.
Thank you, Trooper. You have provided me yet another moment of clarity.
The sausage machine in Satriale's
salumeria is the way to go. Trust me, it works. Remember it's not good to watch how they make the sausage, just add a lot of fennel and garlic.
The one thing that differs between the police report and the news article is that Drew claims that the suicide occured after Megan learned that the MySpace relationship was a hoax. The NYT article seems to suggest that Megan never learned it was a hoax. That doesn't mean Ms. Drew's account is correct, but it is a discrepancy nonetheless.
"That doesn't mean Ms. Drew's account is correct"
It's probably wise to assume that Ms. Drew is lying whenever she opens her mouth.
I think the 13 year-old had it coming to her . . .
It's probably wise to assume that Ms. Drew is lying whenever she opens her mouth.
Reminds me of Mary McCarthy's description of Liilian Hellman: "Everything she writes is a lie including 'and and 'the.'"
Then there's this:
[She] runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.
Ok...so obviously Drew can't be punished under the internet stalking law that was passed after her alleged offense. But if something this awful were to occur again, would the DA be able to invoke misdemeanor manslaughter?
Question.
So if a man, a pedophile, adopts the identity of a 16-year old boy with the express purpose of having an emotional, romantic relationship with a 13-year old girl, this is perfectly legal until he tries to meet her, or tries and succeeds? Is it legal for him to meet her, if he doesn't do anything to her? Is is the email exchange still legal if there is explicit sexual content?
Mary Beth,
I'm pretty sure propositioning underage people for sex is illegal even if you don't follow through on it. Talking dirty with kids over the internet is also illegal, although that part of the law might have been thrown out (I don't recall).
"The part of the story that always gets me is that they tried to file a complaint over the dang foosball table."
Me too. And after perusing the range of news reports, the "Smoking Gun" site's police reports & the various statements by the principals (including the various attorneys), I'll state right up front that my gut tells me that Lori Drew is NOT being framed or set-up. Seems quite clear that she had/has so little remorse, so little humanity that she was more concerned about property-damage than the death of a human being she herself admitted to having at least some culpability for.
But as an old (long-retired) news-guy, I still have a little something nagging at me--
I can't find a police report or any other source material that explicitly documents the Drews filing a complaint against the Meiers for damage to the foosball table.
In fact, INCIDENT REPORT 06-8024
taken by Officer Edwin Lutz, dated 11-25-2006 1418 {timestamp of 2:18pm perhaps?} would seem by timeline and matching quotes to be the one everyone is referring to. Yet there is nary a mention of a foosball table. The TYPE OF INCIDENT is labeled INFORMATIONAL REPORT, and the only complaint Drew
seems to be making is that the Meiers wouldn't talk with them even after "banging on the door" by the Drews. In fact, the report even say the Drews wanted to document the tension "IN CASE" {my caps} "any of her property is damaged".
So is there another very similiarly worded complaint of damage to the foosball table shortly thereafter that I haven't found posted yet?
Or was that part of the story inaccurately reported?
Thanks in advance to anyone who can point me to source material tha can lay that nit to rest for me.
Any thoughts on the federal indictment? Seems like this is a pretty thin case for conspiracy...
Post a Comment