This is quite possibly the most depressing story of the year, because it says so much about the amoral nature of some people: A 48 year old woman named Lori Drew poses as a cute 16 year old boy on myspace, leads Megan Meier, a 13 year old neighbor, on, then turns on her and drives her to suicide. Then afterwards she pretends to be a good friend to the family for several weeks, until the charade is exposed. The LA Times has an editorial, and The Smoking Gun has the police documents.
What kind of psychopath would elect to hound children into suicide? And show no remorse at all afterwards?
I'm not cynical enough to be able to cope with this kind of evil.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Every week, the New York Times Magazine features some sort of profile article about a person or group of people who are supposed to represent some sort of trend. Every week, the people they choose to write up come off as vaguely horrible, usually in some sort of entitled-suburbanite fashion.
I'm…
And you're really a lawyer?
The verdict came back in the Los Angeles trial of Lori Drew, the Missouri mother who facilitated cyberbullying of a former friend of her daughter, who subsequently committed suicide. Since cyberbulling isn't an easy crime to prosecute, the trial focused on whether, in…
Sometimes, a person shows up at a gun range, checks out a gun ostensibly to use in target practice on the range, but instead uses the gun to commit suicide. In one case not long ago, a woman brought her teenage son to the range, and checked out two pistols. They took turn shooting for a while, then…
A tragedy in Massachusetts is highlighting the terrible strain the housing crisis is taking on millions of former homeowners who are losing their homes:
The housing crunch has caused anguish and anxiety for millions of Americans. For Carlene Balderrama, a 53-year-old wife and mother, the pressure…
Doubtless we'll get some asshat like D'Souza blaming it all on atheism in 3...2...1...
O...here he comes:
http://www.utsa.edu/today/images/lectures/dsouza.jpg
That's one of the weird things about studying humans. Sometimes I find myself being able to analyze repugnant behavior, but at the same time I don't get it. I don't know if that makes any sense. But I share your sense of flabbergasted outrage.
The story is sickening, but the followup is almost equally disturbing. Many are participating in vigilantism targeting the family of the mother who lured the unfortunate girl. It seems that when there is an obvious crime, but no statute, people are tempted even more to take the law into their own hands. Many of the acts taken against the Drews are also in cyberspace, which might fall under the heading of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'
I seem to recall, PZ, that many skeptics and non-believers are often victims of similar harassment, for a 'crime' (non-belief) which, again, there is (thankfully) no 'statute.' I presume you would reject the vigilantism, but I have to wonder if you feel a twinge of sympathy for either the vigilantes, or their victims? What a can of worms.
The story just looked like another horrible story about teen bullying until it turned out that an adult was involved, which made it worse. Then when she seemed to be untroubled by her actions it got even more horrible.
Quoth his Dan-ness: People Suck.
I have too little vocabulary and empathy to elaborate on that.
Reminded me of a similar story I read last month. That one didn't end in suicide, but it involved a woman posing as a man and getting very emotionally involved with another woman. It "goes for almost two years, results in a woman leaving her husband and deciding to move to another state to be with this imaginary man who is a firefighter/cowboy/poet/9-11 survivor."
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/12/using-the-internet-t.html
I remember reading about this story a few weeks ago. I was disgusted. Apparently the woman who did it was the mother of a former friend of Megan's. The bitch's excuse for doing was that she wanted to find out what Megan was saying about her daughter. What the fuck? Why didn't she just call her up and ask her? Why the hell did she feel the need to pose as a boy and intentionally break the poor girl's heart?
This bitch needs to go to jail, but apparently they're not filing charges.
Vigilantism is not the answer, and I deplore any such action taken against Lori Drew or her family. On the other hand, if they were living in my neighborhood, I'd want to know what kind of contemptible character she was, so that I could avoid her. Public outing is a fair response here, but no coercive action beyond that should be tolerated.
And just why are you comparing atheism with a cruel and remorseless act of psychological torture on a teenager?
Scott,
How can you possibly compare the harassment of someone for their passive belief to the harassment of someone who drove a kid to suicide.
How completely revolting. I've said it before, but I just don't get people. Things like this make me not want to either.
Sarah: "Why didn't she just call her up and ask her?"
Probably because a 13 year old girl isn't going to tell her ex-friends mother if she was talking shit about her.
When I first heard about the story, I thought it probably went like this:
Mom wants to find out what's up with her daughter, gets a Myspace account under an assumed name. Pretends to be a teenaged boy so as to get better information. Gets more and more into the role, finally realizes that she's gone too far, decides to cut it off. Instead of backing away gracefully, or just disappearing, tells the girl that he heard that she's a bad person.
I, too, cannot deal with the idea that some adult intentionally set this kid up for despair. It's gotta be a series of serious lapses in judgement.
I think 12xuser got it right. the only "people" which could do such things intentionally are sociopaths, but this chunk of goo does not seem to be one.
This story has been percolating on the net for a while now - it was bloggers who first identified the Drews after the police kept their names confidential. Supposedly Lori Drew has said the Meier's should "get over it," but a lot of the info that's out there comes from said bloggers so who knows how much can be trusted.
The plot thickens and they're getting into this deeper and deeper. See for yourself. It's happening live as I'm typing this.
It's claim is, "I want to set things straight."
Megan had it coming. It's a blog on blogspot.com
The media and law is aware of it. I understand that they're looking into who officiated the blog. Lori Drew even created a video. She thinks because she's still in her pajamas that she's really done something good. She's blaming the victims. It's on YouTube.
"...says so much about the amoral nature of some people"
You mean immoral, right? The real immorality, the wrongness, of this tragedy surely cannot be denied.
Martin #1 typed:
If you look at the comments on the fist link, you can see someone is accusing the stalker of being a liberal.
As I get older (I'm 24 in two weeks) I've had a difficult time coming to terms with the fact that with age doesn't necessarily come maturity. It's hard knowing that wisdom doesn't come with age, it only comes with a certain type of person. There are a lot of adults out there that behave like teenagers, and this article only seems to reinforce this fact.
How depressing.
Internet harassment using a false identity is (and was already) a federal felony under 47 USC 223.
Excerpt: "Whoever... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person... who receives the communications... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Why on Earth was this not prosecuted a year ago?
From the LA Times article:
Cyber-bullying has become an increasingly creepy reality, where the anonymity of video games, message boards and other online forums offers an outlet for cruel taunts. But it can be difficult to draw the line between constitutionally protected free speech and conduct that is illegal.
I guess all one can do is document the behavior and try to laugh about it online; however, a teen-ager, especially one that has battled depression, can hardly be expected to shrug off the machinations of an obviously disturbed and vindictive adult who gets her own daughter (Megan's former friend) involved. If anything, that young girl should probably be removed from the Drew household. Sick.
Megan had it coming. It's a blog on blogspot.com
^ That's just about as sickening as what Lori did. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if "Kristen" was really Lori in disguise.
Criminal provisions are read strictly, not expansively, and I doubt that this behaviour falls into the strict wording of the federal statute. It may not be too late to attempt a prosecution, but it could easily turn into a trainwreck.
Bear in mind that behaviour like this, involving fake identities and emotional manipulation, is quite common on the internet, though it's usually not engaged in by middle-aged women, and it usually does not have such a tragic outcome.
This Lori Drew woman sounds just plain evil, but I agree that the rule of law has to apply ... so no vigilantism.
Of course, I feel some sympathy for the vigilantes, and I'm not at all ashamed to admit it. In situations like this, most people with ordinary human feelings want the perpetrator to suffer, and we look to the criminal law to provide the relevant suffering. Part of the purpose of the criminal law is to provide a systematic, measured, non-dispruptive outlet for our reactive attitudes to malicious acts.
If the law doesn't cover a particular kind of malicious act, I'm not at all surprised if some take the law into their own hands. I quite understand that impulse.
However, that doesn't mean that unlawful acts should be carried out against Ms Drew.
There's always good old social ostracism. That will probably have to be enough in a case like this.
Hmmm, "non-dispruptive" ... nice typo I made there.
RE: posts #9 and #10
Owch. I regret if I gave the impression that I was personally equating non-belief, which is an entirely human response, to the inhumane act of emotionally torturing another human being, especially a minor.
I'm afraid I was trying to make a point (rather clumsily, it seems) about the pathology of those who use another's non-belief as a pretext for similarly inhumane behavior toward the non-believer. This, too, seems to have something of a vigilante spirit, 'taking the law into your own hands', to right a wrong that the system seems incapable of handling.
Part of the pathology, as I see it, is that the vigilante feels justified in acting out, as if they were acting in the interests of the community by correcting a crime for which there is no statute. What sparked me to make that observation was this post by my friend Mark regarding a widely-circulated urban legend in which a vocal atheist is 'cold-cocked' by a self-righteous Marine. I have a high regard for Mark both as a person and as someone who has something distinctive to say, and I commend the above post to anyone.
I really suspect that the "had it coming" site is a troll fiction site not be anyone really involved in the case at all.
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
She should have been prosecuted under the previously posted 47 USC 223. But, local prosecutors are often reluctant to refer cases to the US Attorney's office, often for political reasons. While not advocating any specific action by any specific person, it would be poetic justice (and completely illegal vigilantism) to crack into her PC and dump some lethal code on it.
Communities have a right to, in a non-physical way, punish people they think have done something wrong. it's called shunning among the Amish. One does nothing unlawful, BUT you don't greet them on the street when they pass,you look the other way. You don't treat them like you do people who you either know and respect or do not know anything about, because you know how despicable these peope have acted.
The local prosecutors are stupid for not referring the case to the US Attorney's office. The woman is a bitch and deserves to have her kids removed by social services, because she's sure not setting a good example.
I have no sympathy for adults who abuse children, none. And mental abuse is as bad as outright physical abuse.
I haven't read the story, but speaking as a former teenager who has had a number of emotionally involved relationships (mainly, but not exclusively, platonic) over the internet, I can't help but wonder why very few people here seem surprised that this girl committed suicide in response to rejection by an online quasi-boyfriend. While Lori Drew's behavior is inexcusable, I can't help wondering what else was wrong in Megan's life, and whether people might be focusing on this particular incident to the exclusion of other problems...and to the detriment of possible children in similar life situations.
(Cue some shallow, black-and-white-minded idiot accusing me of defending the woman in 3, 2, 1... *sigh*)
I haven't had such relationships myself, but I know a few who have...and they're as real as relationships in meatspace. It's got the same emotional intensity, the same potential for dedication and passion. It's like asking why a teenager would kill themselves over a purely physical and hormonal relationship -- until you've been there, you don't know.
Azkyroth, you're using poor reasoning. Just because you personally don't see how this can happen probably means you haven't had enough experience in life rather than knowing more than us. People used to attempt suicide over relationships transacted solely by post back in the day. Especially younger, romantic types. It's even a staple in a certain older type of fiction, and if you read newspapers from the turn of the prior century, you can see people committing suicide for all sorts of reasons you may not understand or sympathize with.
The girl suffered from depression, and a bad body image due to weight, and had attempted suicide before, Azkyroth - a fact that the Drew woman seized upon to mitigate her own guilt (despite the fact that she was aware of Megan's troubles). This was the last straw, it seems. No, I don't think you're defending the woman at all.
Whether or not any criminal statues apply, the family of the girl in question has an open-and-shut civil case against the depraved bitch who did this. Let's see how she enjoys life with a multi-million dollar judgement hanging over her head.
-jcr
Now that I've spent most of the evening literally at a loss for words over this unspeakable, horrific crime (the woman should be glad I'm not on her jury), I'm angry and I want to do something. Is there some sort of fund for the legal costs of the victim's parents that I can contribute to, or something?
If I were the parents, I would destroy these lowlife's lives. Regardless of what happened. I would not want them to reproduce.
Clearly I should have left the "online" qualifier off of my post, since it was at best tangential to my position. But, ok...are you contending that the above cases are NOT likely to be those of people who would have benefitted from psychiatric medication and/or counseling (I suppose I need to add that this is not intended to be a "judgement" or "criticism" but merely a reasonable inference from the facts)? Because otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
While, as I said, this woman's actions were inexcusable (all the more so if she was previously aware of the girl's emotional state) and arguably criminal, it sounds as though this girl needed help, and would have needed it even if this predator had not latched onto her. I've just sat down again, so I'll look over the article now, but if it turns out that she wasn't getting that help, it is, as a separate response and NOT as a substitute for condemning the predatory actions of Ms. Drew, worth asking why not and what can be done to also prevent that part of the situation from occurring again with other children. That's all.
And it appears she was seeing a therapist (unlike many children I've known or known of, whose parents were either deep in denial about their psychological difficulties or didn't believe in modern psychiatry). I have nothing to add, then.
Vikki (#18)
Oh, you've got that right. I'm about six months younger than you, and I'd say my experience is very similar/ Over the past year or two, in one of those social blog community sites, I've witnessed some very childish behavior turned in by more than a few people, some of whom are twice my age. Somehow age, education, and experience don't add up to emotional or social maturity. Or maybe it's something about cyberspace that brings out the self-centered, reactive adolescent in some people.
This thing, however, is far, far beyond anything I've witnessed first-hand.
I've heard stories, though. My dad new a guy from New York who got into a chat/IM relationship with a likeable and ostensibly lovely young woman down in Texas. Eventually he went down there to see her - at her invitation - only to find out that things weren't quite what he thought. The young lady he'd been so charmed by didn't even exist, and was the creation of a much older woman who was known to frequent the same chatroom. This woman even hired a young woman to play the part of her creation, to meet the guy when he got off the plane. (File under: WHAT WAS SHE THINKING?)
It's amazing what people believ they can get away with, and the degree to which they'll USE others for their own amusement. It boggles - no, staggers - the mind.
That's one of the weird things about studying humans. Sometimes I find myself being able to analyze repugnant behavior, but at the same time I don't get it.
Consider yourself lucky, Jeff - I *do* get it. I don't wanna, but I *do* get it.
But, Jesus, a 13 year old girl? How in the name of God can any adult hate a 13 year old girl enough to do that?
Could this be a good time for a little introspection? On occasion I've been quite hurt in the cut and thrust of Pharyngula's pages and who knows- maybe I've hurt other people with my attempts at witty put-downs.
I know that PZ and others think that ridicule is a valuable weapon against stupidity, but it can also be quite a blunt instrument, especially when used in haste.
I'm all for making fun of ill-thought out ideas and exposing hypocrites etc. However, it's all too easy for debate on teh internets to descend into an insult match.
Maybe I'm a 'concern troll' but I am concerned about some of the uglier remarks that get thrown around from time to time.
It's hard to know what the answers are. Creationist viewpoints (for example) clearly deserve ridicule, even if it's offensive to the creationists. It's also true that there are a billion blogs to choose from- and if people don't like a particular blog, then the best they can do is to leave.
I'm not singling out PZ- or anyone else in particular for criticism. I think these things affect most discussion forums. The internet can be a harsh place at times. It's hard to go on line and not get your feelings hurt from time to time.
I know that I once hurt a writer on another website by slamming her liberal-religious book in a very harsh manner. It doesn't sit easy on my conscience to know that I caused a writer some pain, but I'm also not sure that I would take back my criticisms of her fuzzy religious views.
Unfortunately, this particular news story is connected to a growing phenomenon called bullycide. One possible prevention strategy is to train children to have tougher minds to deal with such manipulation in the form of attitude innoculation.
As far as her having "attempted suicide before," from what I've read that's not true, but Lori Drew thought it was the case and this made her feel less guilty, according to her own words.
Supposedly Megan Meiers had not previously tried suicide, but had had thoughts in 3rd grade or made alarming statements, etc.
That's a good backup measure. And as a primary approach to dealing with bullying, I suppose that's easier than forcing the school administration to do their motherfucking jobs.
Oh, one other detail has been reported in various [places... apparently after Megan's death, the Drews asked the Meiers to store thier foosball table.
When they found out what the Drews had done Megan's father in a fit destroyed the table and dumped it on the Drews' lawn. They called the cops and he was arrested and charges are still pending... none against Lori Drew however.
Some people from the area are saying that the local police culture is to let people handle these things and for the cops not to get involved, and they suppose that is why the police couldn't "find" anything to charge the Drews with.
The Drews also enlisted others into the scheme, employees, etc.
It has never been summed up in such an amazingly succinct and accurate package...
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Re: It has never been summed up in such an amazingly succinct and accurate package...
**I also recall some expression that goes something like, one's true character is what one does when they believe no one is looking.
That girl is a classic "an hero" example.If someone commits suicide because of a Myspace deception she deserves her Darwin Award
"That girl is a classic "an hero" example.If someone commits suicide because of a Myspace deception she deserves her Darwin Award"
This is exactly why I hate that stupid "Darwin Award" bullshit. It just gives assholes with a sociopathic lack of empathy an excuse to be cruel and feel superior, and in the process tarnishes evolutionary theory and Darwin's legacy by making it easy for people to associate those things with said assholes' lack of humanity.
balom, I don't think 13 year olds with a history of mental health issues are eligible for Darwin awards, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
On the other hand, I would say that, if a certain gonadless, sniveling troll were to be, in whatever fashion, removed from the gene pool in retaliation for that kind of psychopathic comment, that there would be a pretty strong case for a Darwin award.
The absoloute cure for this type of shit is to make certain that little humans are instructed in the manners of comunicating with other little humans.
There is nothing wrong with a parent taking away a child's computer. It is simply a tool. It is not needed in a child's (or an adult's) life. Take the fucking computer out of the kid's room.
When I was a boy (spittle is now running down my chin), my parents were very aware of what I was watching.
I was not allowed to watch programs my parents did not approve of.
Adults need to grow up, and children need to chill the fuck out.
Autumn:
1) your comment makes it fairly obvious that you shouldn't be talking about "when I was a boy" since you clearly don't remember being a child and
2) how exactly do you figure that this is going to be the ONE area where never being exposed to it at all is going to HELP a child in dealing with it?
Autumn, what you said has some sense to it, but in this particular case:
1. Megan Meier's parents reportedly DID monitor her net usage, had taken MySpace away at one point, and approved "Josh" as a friend because he seemed decent, etc.
2. The offender here was a 48 year old woman. How exactly do her parents take her computer away?
http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/
So nobody in the news talks about what Megan the bitch was like so now you know. Oh and don't bother trying to figure out who I am. Unlike Megan, I DO have a boyfriend and he knows computers and he totally covered my tracks.
Yea, I'll bet her boyfriend has "totally" got her covered. On the internet. Uh huh. Not to mention she's given away so much information the police could find her in minutes.
Whoever posted this is incredibly stupid, which is forgivable, and entirely heartless, which is not.
Heartless is arguably a complication of stupid, so I'm not sure it's forgivable.
"Could this be a good time for a little introspection?"
Are you a 13 year-old girl, or a grown woman who preys on them?
Sorry, but your hand-wringing over the verbal sparring that takes place here is way out of line. We're talking about a child who killed herself after being deliberately and viciously manipulated by an adult, not some snivelling whiner who can't hold their own in a debate.
-jcr
I used to work with a guy who drove his son to suicide. The man was very pleased with himself, his efforts having neatly solved the problems of having a son continually disappoint him and continuing to live with his parents after graduation.
It's creepy, knowing someone like that.
I've also known two different people who attempted murder and failed. And went scot free.
They're among us always. Think of Andrea Yates or Susan Smith --murderers of their own children.
jcr is unable to debate the issue of cyber debate without resorting to a viciousness bordering on the sociopathic, perfecting and ironically making Christianjb's point.
RoseColoredGlasses, Andrea Yates had had severe bouts of post-partum depression; her husband was warned she should not have more children, but he insisted they have more on religious grounds. She killed her children in a state of post partum psychosis-- exactly the risk her psychiatrist had been afraid of. The children were victim of their mother, yes, but she was a victim of patriarchal religion that ignored her mental health.
WTF?
Are they afraid of something?
Or why else aren't they doing their fucking job?
Phoenecian, #39 wrote
What's so astounding to me about this is that Drew could have just called Megan's parents and told them her concerns, and that would have been the end of Megan's MySpace account.
Voila, end of problem. Instead, she chose the completely insane option of lying to her neighbors and harassing her their daughter.
They're closet Libertarians.
There's a difference between "forgivable" and "excusable". None of this is excusable. Forgiveness is the prerogative of the victim.
One has to laugh at the stupidity of a child who thinks they can create an untraceable website, while cringing at the utter lack of humanity and compassion in a child who believes another child deserved to die for whatever trivial mistakes she may have made or flaws she may have exhibited. That this discompassion also attempts to relieve a grown woman with children of her own from any responsibility for having maniputated this girl and driven her to suicide is beyond reckoning.
Oops, lost context:
Wow. Just, wow.
I'm certainly not defending Lori Drew, but I can understand how someone can have a really stupid idea that seems like a good one at the time, and once they start to carry it out, it totally gets away from them, with consequences they never intended. I can see how the online deception played out, even if it's clearly wrong, and you'd expect an adult to know better. Lots of people have gotten away with doing stupid wrong things that--luckily--didn't play out in the worst way possible. Had it stopped there, I'm not sure that would have been evil so much as just mega-stupid.
But the way she behaved afterward--it's as if she doesn't have the least clue what it means to be a human, much less an adult. I'm just speechless at the way she is dealing with what she did. No character at all there.
I feel sorry for Drew's daughter--in addition to the vigilante harassment her mother brought down on all of them, to learn at that age that your mother's capable of doing such a thing to your previous friend, without--at least publicly--any remorse, has got to have a profound detrimental effect on her in the years to come.
The concept of a "time out" needs to be applicable to adults. Not jail or prison, but something along the lines of what is called "shaming" or "shunning," sometimes found in more communal cultures. Drew needs to be made to understand that she violated the rules by which people can live together productively, but in a way that is not vigilantism. No, don't make her lose her job or house or whatever, but publicly make it known that for a period of time she is not allowed to "stand near the fire." I guess I mean things like: social events are not to include her, she is not to be a member of any community group (PTA, church, team, etc.), and the people of her community will not interact with her more than is absolutely necessary. Once she expresses remorse, AND actively seeks to atone for her actions, then the community will welcome her back.
Maybe such an approach is impossible in our culture, or counterproductive, but there must be consequences for what she did, consequences that seek to right the wrong in a positive way.
"Megan had it coming. It's a blog on blogspot.com"
I obviously have no idea if that blog post was written by someone involved in the situation. But I have no doubt that it was written by an adult attempting to sound like a teenager, and not, as it asserts, by a teenage classmate.
"What kind of psychopath would elect to hound children into suicide? And show no remorse at all afterwards?
I'm not cynical enough to be able to cope with this kind of evil."
There are 6,602,224,175 people on the planet. This pretty much guarantees some extreme wierdenss at the outer reaches, both good and evil. Now in a less technological world where you just knew those around you it would be very rare. But the press makes sure you take a good look at the wierdness, giving everyone a totally distorted idea of what is normal.
What I'm disappointed about is the lack of "Juror No. 8's" here.
I know why Mrs. Drew did what she did. She got off on it. The ability to manipulate another human being, no matter how damaged or young, is an incredibly powerful turn on.
She did it because she could and she enjoyed the hell out of it. Lori Drew is sick and needs to be institutionalized. She is a danger to her family, her community and the world at large.
There are two issues here.
The 13 year old victim obviously had issues, probably some psychological problems and almost certainly was immature. There is a feeling among adults that teen agers are going to think like adults but I've never seen any evidence for that viewpoint.
Which makes what the adult woman did even worse. Taking advantage of a mentally challenged child to bully her to suicide. At some point, like Andrea Yates or Seung Cho, one can't make much sense out of it. There are monsters among us, that is all one needs to know.
The police and DA should have charged her with involuntary manslaughter or stalking or some such. Even if they didn't get a conviction, it would have a deterrent effect on others who think getting involved in the squabbles of 7th graders is a worthwhile activity for middle aged adults. Here on the WC, it is now common to charge DUIs with manslaughter if there is a fatal accident and they do get juried convictions.
It sounds like the MySpace-using Mom never developed much past the age of 13 herself; she probably saw her actions as both justified and just.
Chickens in a battery cage are not as cruel as girls at that age; adult women are supposed to develop beyond it.
You've restated my question instead of answering it. :-)
"What I'm disappointed about is the lack of "Juror No. 8's" here."
OK, I'll bite.
"Hey, she could be innocent!"
Thing is, we're not on a jury, we are getting all information 15th-hand, and so taking the "juror number 8" role on a message board only serves one purpose - to make that self-appointed juror number 8 feel superior.
We have no real information about this. We are reacting essentially to a hypothetical... gossip, etc. We are essentially saying "if this is true, then..."
If it's NOT true, then there's little to say. We have no way of knowing, we have no way of finding exculpatory evidence like juror number 8 did. So the only comment we can make about the possibility of it NOT being true is essentially "then never mind."
Juror No. 8
"Juror No. 8"
yes, I know. in my top 5 films.
I'm thinking the blogspot site is a griefer, although I suppose it could be the mom.
The bit that pushes it over the edge for me is that these freaks stored their damn foosball table with the family of the child they hounded to death, and they actually expect the Meiers to pay for it now that it's been destroyed.
Apparently the Meiers are supposed to get over it, but the Drews have to see justice done for their Stuff.
I don't see how the Drews' daughter isn't doomed.
The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.
The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to 'out' individuals who's actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.
Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they're true.
In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.
I'm wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event
Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.
I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I've never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.
Don Henley's 'Dirty Laundry' certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.
Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.
I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.
News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori's name and Lori's own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.
Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized - the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.
Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?
The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan's death.
Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn't tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.
Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.
Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan's death.
City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?
There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
I'm sorry but anyone who refers to themselves in the 3rd person or as THE VICE...
is a douche bag.
While the Megan Meier case seems outrageous and unique, it isn't unique. Hundreds of cases of egregious and heinous acts go on every day with the same excuses out of our lawmakers.
One such other case....The case of Nikki Catsouras, is a classic example of disgusting, hateful activity against innocent victims, while our lawmakers excuse themselves from enacting laws to prevent this.
The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it's changing. This is a sham.
Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage?
I've posted the Nikki Catsouras story along with many details about the Megan Meier case so the inactivity out of our lawmakers towards these types of cases can be clearly seen.
Those who are interested in learning about cases like Megan's and Nikki's case are encouraged to drop by and comment on them if you like. I have a couple of polls set up as well. Danny Vice would like to hear your point of view.
Public awareness of the problem and discussions about possible solutions are the best way to pressure elected officials into action instead of excuse making.
I invite you to come by and share your opinion.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Steve C...
How many names do you have? So far I see you've gone by about 6 different names, attempting to stir up trouble on any blog you can.
And your name is NOT Steve...
WTF?
Are they afraid of something?
Or why else aren't they doing their fucking job?
You've restated my question instead of answering it. :-)