Lori Drew's Lawyers Worried About Finding Jury That Hasn't Prejudged Drew
from the tough-case dept
With the judge agreeing that the information about Megan Meier's suicide can be included in the computer fraud lawsuit against Lori Drew, Drew's lawyers are discovering that the emotional aspects of the case may be difficult to get past. In fact, in reviewing questionnaires that potential jurors were asked to fill out, many expressed outright disgust and "viciousness" for Drew. Once again, it's becoming increasingly clear, that it will be impossible for Drew to get a fair hearing on what the case is actually about: whether or not it's a violation of computer fraud and hacking laws to break the terms of service for an online service. Instead, people are focusing on Meier's suicide, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual charges. This is a witch hunt appealing to emotional responses, rather than reasoned ones. It's been rather depressing to see how many folks have no problem abusing the law in this manner. If the lynch mob aspect of this case is allowed to go on, it will eventually be looked back on as a mockery of the law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computer fraud, evidence, jury, lori drew, megan meier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, that's people for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, you should just go kill yourself now for being such a detriment to society. Whoops... there I go, setting myself up for legal repercussions. I didn't identify myself on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse of government
til then, we have to look at things like this and depress...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fortunately for you, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BE A JERK. This means you can get back at her as much as you want! Unfortunately, it also means you can't abuse the law just to fuck with her, no matter how much you think she deserves it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lori Drew did setup the account, for the purpose of finding out what Megan Meier was saying about Drew's daughter. 90% of the exchanges were carried out by Drew's young adult (18 years old) employee, including all the harassing behavior.
The officers that investigated the case for a year never found any evidence - not word one - of the infamous "the would would be better without you in it" message that the Meier family and Drew witch hunters claim pushed Megan over the edge.
Ultimately, it was found that Drew broke no existing laws.
The fact is that Megan was pushed over the edge by an argument with her mother. Not that her family or the witch hunters have the guts to admit it.
That prosecutors have granted Drew's former employee immunity is very telling of their true motivations on this case. I'm betting that one of all of them are pursuing this high profile case to increase their likelyhood of a promotion or better job placement.
Being a "hero" tends to get you noticed for opportunities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, that seems to be the way of 'justice' these days. Hopefully the litigators in question will decide to "be an hero" themselves, and save the rest of us a whole lot of trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would be worried too. People tend to judge you when they find out you manipulated a young girl and help her along to suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cyberbullying is poison for anyone it touches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cyberbullying is poison for anyone it touches
Oh, and the charges are for computer fraud. That's a whole lot more importsnt than what this case is 'about.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if it were true?
Would the boyfriend then be responsible for her suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the world just get lighter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Too Dissimilar
Both certified instructors provided nominal supervision to comply with their interpretation of the law (their presence) when in fact, a strict interpretation of the law implied they would have warned the child about recoil, and taught him how to compensate for the physics involved, taking into consideration his smaller size and weight and body mass and emotional maturity.
When adults have interactions with children, they are held to HIGHER STANDARDS of behavior (law, ethics, appropriateness, morality) which lawyers call a "reasonableness" standard. A minor cannot be assumed by the adult to possess the maturity to interact with the same emotional detachment that an adult can employ.
Thus, adults are prohibited from "luring" children with candy, cannot "entice" children with the promise of a ride or fun, cannot entrust children with dangerous objects (cars, machine guns) under the guise of its being safe because I'm here with you, etc.
Violations of these reasonableness standards are often prosecuted as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "contributory negligence" in supervision of the minor, or "conspiracy" by one or more adults to criminally harass a minor for retaliatory purposes.
Rinky dink? Abuse of power? No harm done? The kid was stupid anyway? Maybe. Maybe the 8 year old boy was responsible for his OWN ignorance about recoil. Maybe the teenybopper girl should have been more emotionally mature, because MOST girls don't get depressed, do they?
None of us know the girl who is DEAD, none of us are related to her, none of us know the "keyboard operators" who deceived her. None of us want to make lying via the internet a felony. Or even a misdemeanor. But that is not the issue here in this case. The issue here has apparently been taken seriously enough that a Grand Jury and a Magistrate someplace found probable cause to believe that a crime MIGHT have occurred and a criminal INDICTMENT and WARRANT was signed Now that the case is going to the jury, isn't it best for our system of justice, that we wait until they render a verdict, and then make out comments about the stupidity of the dead girl, or the RIGHTS of the rest of us to harass, or lie on the internet to MINORS with IMPUNITY.
Hey, who wants to join me in luring some 12 year old to run away because we are promising a trip to the zoo and some ice cream? Or let's tell a pregnant 14 year old girl that we "understand" what her parents do not, and we will support her and her baby for the rest of their lives if she will move in with us and have sex once a year with us. Or I'm with the non-profit group Nigerians Helping Homeless Kids, so please send me your allowance each week.
Lies are innocent and innocuous to us sophisticated adults who can spot the difference. But when we deceive, defraud, and lure innocent minors by virtue of our conscious and knowing and willful actions, SOME liability MIGHT accrue. That question will be put to the jury. Not to those of us who are members of the Liars, Loafers, and Losers Klub.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Too Dissimilar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Too Dissimilar
FOR FUCKS SAKE BRING THE CORRECT FUCKING CHARGES.
She deserves to be punished for what she DID, not punished for what she did NOT DO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Too Dissimilar
Nearly all the arguments in these comments do not relate to the actual case that has been brought. This should be NOTHING to do with Megan Meier or suicide. It is a much simpler question - Did Lori Drew commit computer fraud by creating a fake MySPace page. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Too Dissimilar
As plenty of adults here and all over are proving with a trial over computer fraud and including information about a girl's suicide, they do not possess the maturity to employ emotional detachment either ...
Violations of these reasonableness standards are often prosecuted as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "contributory negligence" in supervision of the minor, or "conspiracy" by one or more adults to criminally harass a minor for retaliatory purposes.
Perhaps, except the trial is over computer fraud. They should have just charged her with harassment if that was the case. Except there was a lack of evidence to do so.
None of us know the girl who is DEAD, ...
And apparently neither did her own parents. Parents should be at least a bit involved their kids lives, no? I think they should. And any good parent would probably agree. I would put just as much blame on this girl's parents (if not more). They could have very easily taught her that guys aren't worth that much stress, just as mine taught me that girls are not worth that much stress. I don't even think they put much effort into it.
... SOME liability MIGHT accrue.
Some liability sure, and that is why everybody hates her. Public shame. The damage is already done to her for life.
And jeez, a lot of your scenarios seem a little extreme. I would put them in a realm a lot worse than harassment. Talking about abducting kids and stuff. Evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Too Dissimilar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Too Dissimilar
Violations of these reasonableness standards are often prosecuted as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "contributory negligence" in supervision of the minor, or "conspiracy" by one or more adults to criminally harass a minor for retaliatory purposes.
She is charged with computer fraud. If you want to string her up for harassment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor or some form of conspiracy or some form of manslaughter/murder even, then she should be charged with one of those crimes.
None of us want to make lying via the internet a felony. Or even a misdemeanor. But that is not the issue here in this case.
That is exactly the issue in this case. Making a fake MySpace profile, and breaking the terms of service, resulting in felony computer fraud charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for Your Insightful Commentary, Mark Reagan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Already Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Blank*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
If you think that's to heavy-handed then you're the selfish one. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing all these "safeguards" that need to be in place to protect unsupervised children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori Drew
What?
What would you call this? Lying? Playing with the kids in the neighborhood? Using your computer to reach out and touch someone.
You can call it anything you want, but when an ADULT goes after a CHILD (and I hope I'm talking to others that may be over 13), then you need an equalizer.
If I were Megan's parents I would have called that equalizer by a totally other name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lori Drew
IANAL, but even if there's some sort of statute somewhere that states that laws can't be applied retroactively, treat this as an exceptional ground breaking case and just do it! Then at least you'll have your justice, but within the proper legal framework and not by twisting the law any damn way you please. Otherwise, why not simply just go across and lynch her, eh?
Frankly, this whole story right from the beginning reminded me of "Curtain: Poirot's Last Case". There's a reason that Poirot, the consummate detective, had to finally resort to murder. There wasn't a law then to indict Norrton, and there isn't one now to indict Drew. So, as I said, either break the law yourself and lynch her, or change the law and get her, but if you are unwilling to actually do any of the above to slake your blood-thirst, just stop talking trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lori Drew
Right there you already proved you don't really know the facts about this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lori Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]