Judge Tosses Out Lori Drew Ruling

from the wow dept

Thu, Jul 2nd 2009 12:41pm — Mike Masnick

The Lori Drew verdict finding her guilty of computer hacking because she may have broken MySpace's terms of service (without even having read them) was a classic example of prosecutors trying to stretch the law to punish someone who did something they didn't like, but which wasn't against the law. The implications of the ruling were quite troubling, in that they could turn almost anyone into a criminal if prosecutors wanted to charge them as such. For months, though, the judge in the case has been weighing whether or not to overturn the ruling. It's not clear why it took so long, but the judge has in fact acquitted Drew on the three charges she was found guilty of by the jury. This is good news all around. No matter what you think of Drew and what she did, prosecutors twisted the law in a way that would have set an amazingly dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if there's an appeal, but for now, this is undeniably good news.

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: cyberbullying, hacking, lori drew, megan meier, sentencing, symbolic
Companies: myspace

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 12:45pm

Nah
"It will be interesting to see if there's an appeal"

Doubtful. The DA's already got their names in the papers, increasing name recognition for their next round elections. Unless you mistakenly think that these assclowns actually CARE about the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon, 2 Jul 2009 @ 12:47pm

Jeebus
That took a long time... It's definitely the right decision, though - better no crime than a perversion of law that leaves every internet citizen vulnerable to criminal prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 12:53pm

at last, the law prevails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Formerly anonymous cowar, 2 Jul 2009 @ 12:56pm

why it took so long.
This was a very emotionally charged case, I am betting the judge wanted to overturn the ruling immediatly, but waited until the public outcry was no longer likely to get him lynched by doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: why it took so long.
  Actually, I am betting the judge was researching (or having someone perform research on) relevant case law and law to support his or her decision. Then it takes more time to write the decision and verify it was correctly written.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:17pm

It's about time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edward Bear, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:19pm

And cops in cyberspace everywhere breath a sigh of relief.
Because if the conviction had stood, every predator who got entrapped by a cop masquerading as a potential victim would be demanding similar charges against the cop, or demanding dismissal of the case on the grounds that what the masquerade was a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another mike (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:20pm

IANAL, but i play one online
Just like ex post facto protected her against the flurry of "arrest lori" laws, double jeopardy is lori's safe haven now. Unless the prosecutors have new evidence that significantly impacts the facts of the case. and if they had any real evidence against her, they should've used it at the first trial.
This is a major win for rule of law. Hopefully this case will establish a precedent; just because the loud ones are morally outraged by a tragic set of circumstances, doesn't make it illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:20pm

It's about time...
Lori Drew is the scum of the Earth, but it is very disheartening to see the legal system make up laws to prosecute her. It is not up to the courts to decide what is and is not moral behavior, it is up to them to determine whether or not certain behavior is within the scope of the law. Unfortunately in this case (I would love to see Lori Drew pay for what she did just as much as anyone), there is no way to charge Lori Drew with anything without setting a dangerous precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: It's about time...
  she did a bad thing. Scum though? Honestly, there are less trolls online than there are offline - see scientology, fundies, christianity, Basji, world bank, kim jong il, etc. I'd hardly call an internet troll someone who's scum. May as well call them griefers as that may be more befitting for those who understand the term.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tdr, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re: It's about time...
    Oh, way to generalize different groups, there. Guess you're of the "meet one, met them all" mentality that judges first and asks no questions later. At least that's how your comment portrays yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 2 Jul 2009 @ 6:43pm
    
    Re: Re: It's about time...
    Yeah, those horrible Christians that started 90% of our hospitals and universities. And that give money out of sheer kindness to total strangers for needs such as food and water and medicine in remote places.
    
    Yeah, the world would be so much better off without them...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael Whitetail, 2 Jul 2009 @ 10:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
      Yes, yes it would be.
      
      Without Christianity, hunderds of millions of poeple:
      
      Wouldn't have been burned to death as witches and warlocks Wouldn't have been raped in pilaged in the various holy wars over the centuries.
      Nieghbors wouldn't have murdered each other over religious differences.
      Socieities like the Jesuits wouldn't have become sanctioned assassins of the church, murdering for political profit in the name of 'the one true god'
      
      But, yeah, your right. We would never have had things like medicine and education without the Chruch who forced western socieity into the Dark Ages buy killing as many scientists and philosophers as they could *rolleyes*
      
      Our scientific, educational, and democratic foundation of our current society came from the polytheistic Greeks circa 3000 BC.
      
      So bow down, Christian, and thank your so-called god that mere pagans forged the basis of what allows you now to practice your faith without fear of being murdered for it.
      
      [My appologies for the hideous spelling errors]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tdr, 4 Jul 2009 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
        Oh, and you're not generalizing, too? Sorry, but you are. Human nature is what it is, regardless of where you think our society came from. Why do you automatically equate the acts of "believers" with the faith itself, when the faith itself prohibits those very things? It was a twisting of that faith by those who were supposed to uphold it that allowed those things to happen, if at all. But then I suppose you believe the DVC is real despite the wide assortment of evidence to the contrary.
        
        Basically, don't look to the "followers" to measure the faith, but look to the faith to measure the followers. And you'll find that many of the faith would not condone the aforementioned practices in any way, if you bothered to stop generalizing long enough to open your eyes.
        
        Hate seems to blind you, why I don't know, but it clearly does. Perhaps you should take time to learn what the faith actually says before you bash it? There is no more misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misunderstood faith in the world than true Biblical Christianity. And it makes perfect sense that it is so, given the nature of this world and of our own selves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lettuce (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re: It's about time...
    She wasn't just a troll - she spent weeks "befriending" this girl and printing off all the private secrets that Megan gave her to her daughter, who shared them behind Megan's back with all the other kids at school. Megan was teased, bulled, and beat up for weeks without knowing how all her peers knew her most private secrets and fears. Ms. Drew was on very friendly terms with Megan's family and KNEW before-hand that she was suicidal and had been in therapy and on medicine for chronic depression since third grade.
    
    She didn't just *troll* - she used the MySpace account to befriend, betray, and attack a thirteen year-old girl. Including several conversations deeply sexual in nature - how they didn't charge a forty year-old woman with something along those lines, I don't know!
    
    The night that the girl committed suicide was the night that Lori, her daughter Sarah, and a woman they hired on named Ashley "betrayed" Megan, flipping from "friend" to enemy mode and attacking her for anything they could think of, ending with the statement that the world would be better off without her and that Megan's entire life would be shit forever - and "he" would know, being her "boyfriend."
    
    An hour later when the ambulance pulled up to Megan's house, Lori had the account deleted immediately. Later she attended the funeral, offered support to Megan's grieving parents, and then, in a police interview, said she didn't feel guilty at all about the suicide since the girl was already depressed.
    
    This was no simple troll - I agree that something has to be done, but I would have taken it from the POV of the emotional/mental damage this woman did to a venerable child - and if NOTHING else that she KNOWINGLY contacted a 13 year-old and engaged in lengthy sexual conversations / mild cybering for months.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
      Maybe you should learn more about the case. Lori Drew didn't do most of what you just said happened. She just condoned it, knowing that it was going on. Her teenage employee did just about everything you just mentioned. The problem was the teenage/adult employee was given immunity for testifying against Lori Drew, even though it was that same teenage/adult that was leading the girl on, and wrote the final statement that caused the girl to finally commit suicide.
      
      Trolls like lettuce drive me fricking crazy!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RobII, 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:14pm
  
  Re: It's about time...
  "It is not up to the courts to decide what is and is not moral behavior, it is up to them to determine whether or not certain behavior is within the scope of the law."
  
  Goodness, what selective ethics we have here... I doubt Masnick or the rest of the lemmings would dare say the same thing about copyright theft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re: It's about time...
    Copyright theft? Sorry, but that seems to be absent from the law, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
    
    If you mean copyright infringement...well, then guys like Masnick argue the exact same thing: it's up to the courts to decide what is and isn't infringement. And hopefully change the laws so that less and less becomes infringement.
    
    Either way, you don't have much of a point, despite your snide attempts at discrediting people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re: It's about time...
    This site endorses changing/improving laws and policies - not breaking them.
    
    Although there is a time for civil disobedience, I would suggest that be reserved for more weighty issues.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:25pm

It may work slow, but justice does prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  Whose idea/version of justice?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:25pm

The conviction was flawed from the beginning. That conviction made nearly every internet user a potential criminal for not following a content provider's TOS. According to Google's TOS you must be 18 to use its products thus making my children prosecutable for computer hacking for simply looking up sports scores or doing research for homework. The judge did the right thing and was smart to wait for public furor to die down before overturning the convictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kirillian (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:33pm

Agreed
One of the most important things that we deal with concerning law and the like is remaining responsible to those who come after us, including our children, etc. Abusing the law one time just opens it up for abuse against us later. Why people are stupid enough to do that, I don't know, but at least it was thwarted this one time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:36pm

Probably took so long to overturn to give the public long enough to forget about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:11pm

I hope she lives a long time and suffers a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:13pm

More ammo of the Nancy Grace types to whipped up about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:14pm

Even the media wants her dead. One article called the acquittal a "stunning move". No doubt the full court press will be on to re-reverse this before it's made final with the media lambasting the judge all the way. It's amazing how much of a disconnect there is between those in the tech world and those outside it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheese McBeese, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:26pm

Bittersweet
A few points:

1. I agree passionately and wholeheartedly with the outcome. I don't see that this judge had any other choice. The crime of bending the law to compensate for an incompetent prosecution would push us all down a dark and slippery slope.

2. IMHO, Lori Drew is a sick and twisted stalker b*tch. Yes, I know that her accomplice said "it was mostly me" once she was offered immunity, but I don't buy it and in any case, I don't think it matters. Lori Drew is a 50-year-old hag who had no business even just allowing this tragedy with a 13-year-old girl to occur. If Lori Drew had simply acted like a real person and said "No, this is wrong, let's not do it", an obviously troubled 13-year old might have lived long enough to get her scrambled brain back in order. It makes me feel sick knowing that Lori Drew is getting off without any penalty other than everyone knows her true character now. I hope that causes her a lot of grief. Ok, I've said my piece and I'm done with Lori Drew.

3. I believe the prosecution's failure in this case is yet another example of the problems created when empowered government organizations can't keep up with technology. It seems like they didn't know how to try this case and as a result they totally botched it. Our government is FULL of people in positions of power who don't have a clue how to deal with the Internet. So how do they govern? They fly by the seat of their pants or they listen to lobbyists! Yikes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re: Bittersweet
  LOL - I like the gratuitous use of "Lori Drew" in its entirety. Hopefully will help feed the Search Engine trolls and get some attention to your bang-on comments. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Whitetail (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re: Bittersweet
  Regardless of what you feel about her, she has a right to free speech as long as it isn't some sort of hate speech. Vilify her all you want, but she is nothing more than an average internet troll. If you want to witness real trolling, visit the random board at 4chan for a day or two and then consider who is more fitting of being scum for simple internet speech.
  
  The law is the law, and cannot be biased, even in such an emotional case. Is it sad and tragic that a 13 yr old took her own life? Yes it is. Is it criminal what Lori did? Not by any strech of the imagination. Freedom of speech boils down to a simple dictum: To protect the ability to say what I want, I have to protect your ability to say what you want, whether I like it or not.
  
  No matter how much you want Lori to suffer and die, no matter how hard you wish for her to be locked away forever, the law cannot allow it because she did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law! And as an aside, it shows how right we are to have laws, because if we left it up to the hate bandwagoner's, she'd be lynched and hung without a thought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cheese McBeese, 3 Jul 2009 @ 5:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Bittersweet
    @47 - You cannot say that Lori Drew did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. All you can say is that so far she hasn't been convicted of anything. The prosecutors simply suffer from the same kind of Internet incompetence as the RIAA and MPAA, otherwise Lori Drew would be in jail, IMHO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Grae (profile), 7 Jul 2009 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bittersweet
      Do you even know the history of this case?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ms. Escape, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:26pm

What about manslaughter charges? The woman knowingly verbally abused the girl with the knowledge that she was emotionally disturbed. Who cares that it took place online. Now, instead of having to come up with witnesses, everything she said is in print! It should be easy to prove that this woman had an agenda, why else would she create a fake account?

I don't see why the prosecution is stretching itself to use internet and computer law when it doesn't need it. This is not really a computer crime, it's abuse and intent to cause the death of a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cheese McBeese, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re:
  @20 - if a 13-year-old girl were standing on the ledge of a building, teetering on the edge of jumping, and a 50-year old man whom she cared for greatly leaned out the window and told her that her life was a waste and everyone would be better off if she jumped, would that be a crime if she jumped to her death?
  
  I honestly have no idea if that's a crime, but if the answer is 'yes', that's how I think the prosecutors should have framed this case. The Internet was merely a convenient communications medium.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re:
  "The woman knowingly verbally abused the girl with the knowledge that she was emotionally disturbed"
  
  She did? I wasn't aware of evidence that she knew the girl was emotionally disturbed. FYI, in case you aren't aware, to be emotionally disturbed the girl MUST have been CLINICALLY DIAGNOSED as such. So it follows that to KNOW the girl was emotionally disturbed, Lori MUST know that she'd been clinically diagnosed. I may have missed it, but I wasn't aware of any evidence Lori knew this.
  
  "Now, instead of having to come up with witnesses, everything she said is in print! It should be easy to prove that this woman had an agenda, why else would she create a fake account?"
  
  Nice in theory, but not useful in law. There were two people using that "fake" account, and there is some discrepancy over who created the account to begin with. Not calling witnesses would also remove the 2nd person using the account, who claimed responsiblity for most of the actions in question once granted immunity. A win for the prosecution but how does that serve justice?
  
  "This is not really a computer crime, it's abuse and intent to cause the death of a person."
  
  You're right it's not a computer crime, and it's the lack of intent, or "malice aforethought" as the law refers to it, that precludes the manslaughter charge. Intent to murder or cause harm != manslaughter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You didn't read about this case much then. She knew about the girls state, she didn't give a f**k.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're right, only took a marginal interest in it. Any citations you can point me to that discuss her knowing the girl had been clinically diagnosed as emotionally disturbed?
      
      The rest of my point stands. I don't think, unless I'm not reading the law correctly, that you can charge someone w/manslaughter AND state that they had malicious intent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 3:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did she? Did she, really? Citation, please, since the linked article says that they could not prove any intent to cause harm. How do you /KNOW/ that she knew and didn't care? How can you prove it? Since you can't, I suggest you shut the fuck up.
      
      Grills admits to creating the account, having the most interaction, AND sending the message that presumably caused Megan to commit suicide. This was all an emotionally-charged witch hunt by the prosecutors. Start reading.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cheese McBeese, 2 Jul 2009 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @33:
        
        1. Proving intent to cause harm is not required for manslaughter. Negligent behavior is all it takes.
        
        2. Yes, it is on record that she knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it.
        
        3. Lori Drew is a 5o year old fugly, she was a participant in what was going on, and the victim of the harassment was a minor. That should be enough to nail her ass to the wall. At a minimum, CPS should evaluate her fitness as a parent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Proving intent to cause harm is not required for manslaughter.
        > Negligent behavior is all it takes.
        
        Actually it takes more than mere negligence. It requires a reckless disregard for human life (also sometimes called "depraved indifference" in some jurisdictions).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And still no citation? Shame you couldn't find one, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yawn.
        Since you know everything...
        
        This is the internet. This isn't a term paper or thesis. Sources aren't required. Since you are being a complete asshole... I won't bother to point it out. Find it for yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is asking someone to prove their point being a complete asshole? Sorry, you lose, and you know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is the internet.
        
        A great place to lie, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        M, 4 Jul 2009 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        SRS2000, you sound like an emotionally charged TROLL. Maybe you should lay off on the internet for a while.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - billnaples, 21 Aug 2009 @ 7:44pm
      
      READ IT ALL
      Sorry I wasn't here earlier to pitch my coin into the debate. I did follow this story quite closely I think. Yes Lori Drew knoew of Megan's mental issues. The fake JOsh was set up by the immunized Ashley Grills. But so many stated so correctly, these charges had NOTHING ti do with bullying, stalking, manslaughter, or anything else except a violation of the ToS of MySpace. They were the "offended" party, that's why the trial was in LA. But overwhelmingly I keep asking you all where was Tina Meier? She supposedly "closely" monitored and approved of her child's use of the illegal entry to MySpace. She apparently approved of her fragile minded 13 year old girl on medication having a "relationship" with an unknown 16 year old boy. The fact that the boy turned out to be a phoney only emphasizes Tina's mistake. And remember, the suicide took place after an arguement between Tina and MEgan about the youngster not getting Mom;s support over the "breakup" with a 'boy' she never met.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cheese McBeese, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    @22 - manslaughter does not require intent. There are different shades of manslaughter (each well defined). When a death is involved, the difference between 'accident' and 'manslaughter' is usually the addition of some sort of negligence or another associated offense. For example, if I'm sober and driving within the speed limit during a rainstorm and lose control of my car and kill someone, I am not likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter. However, if it is proved that I was speeding, talking on the phone, or drinking, I am likely in deep do-do.
    
    So the question becomes, how would you tie some of Lori Drews behavior into the equation - also given that she is an adult and the victim is a minor.
    
    In any case, it is nothing to do with the Internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:42pm

Too bad. I wish there were a legit law on the books they could have charged her with.

She belongs in prison. I hope the parents of the girl find a way to get justice. Whatever that may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  "She belongs in prison. I hope the parents of the girl find a way to get justice. Whatever that may be."
  
  ...where exactly do you think the parents belong?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hmm, if my daughter killed herself, I'd probably seek counseling. I'd initially blame myself since I should be the most important person in her life at that age.
    
    Depending on the outcome of the counseling...I'd either kill myself for causing my daughter's death or seek vengeance upon the person who caused her death.
    
    While I can't say for sure, but my initial vengeance would probably be through legal means...but if that didn't work, I'd move to extra-legal means...
    
    But that's just my visceral reaction as a parent.
    
    If I were Lori Drew, I'd sleep with one eye open...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Where do the parents belong?
    
    The girl was on depression medication and I'm fairly sure had been attending counseling although I can't say that for sure.
    
    So where do they belong... More then likely in counseling.
    
    If they had murdered Lori Drew... In court. But they would likely had never served a day. A jury would be extremely sympathetic and the defense could make a great case for temporary insanity.
    
    and about a different question... Google about the case... depression medication.. best friend.. vacations.. something along those lines. The 2 daughters were best friends. The girl was depressed and fragile and on medication. She went on family vacations with lori drew and her family. You won't find video footage of her being told about her state.. But what is 100% provable? That is where "Beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But what is 100% provable? That is where "Beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in.
      
      Considering that you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up claims that LD knew, then I'd say it's a lie, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Andy, 3 Jul 2009 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: to Annonymous Coward
        U want evidence - here it is:
        
        http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/11/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.i i1.txt
        "She was heavy and for years had tried to lose weight. She had attention deficit disorder and battled depression. Back in third grade she had talked about suicide, Tina says, and ever since had seen a therapist."
        
        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_collins
        "Megan had accompanied the Drews on several vacations, and they knew that she was taking medication."
        
        - get a clue! The other poster is right, The fact that "Drews knew" is beyond reasonable doubt. (You may still continue to doubt however - because you may well be unreasonable)
        
        This should've been a case of clear harassment of a minor with malicious intent resulting in manslaughter. Anyone participating should've been charged as instigator or accomplices. Prosecutors were clearly idiots - this crime had nothing to do with computers or phones or whatever other medium of communication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 2:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to Annonymous Coward
        "She was heavy and for years had tried to lose weight. She had attention deficit disorder and battled depression. Back in third grade she had talked about suicide, Tina says, and ever since had seen a therapist."
        
        Tina was Megan's mother. If you're claiming that since Megan's mother knew that proves LD knew, then I'd say that's untrue.
        
        "Megan had accompanied the Drews on several vacations, and they knew that she was taking medication."
        
        An unverified claim that doesn't even say what kind of medication. Antibiotics? Again, a claim that this proves LD knew seems to be untrue.
        
        You may still continue to doubt however - because you may well be unreasonable
        
        I think it is reasonable to require evidence for such a claim as was made. However, the more I see of LD haters misrepresenting evidence and telling other lies, the more convinced I become that LD was railroaded and scapegoated. Thanks for providing that evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nena folsom (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:49pm

she is a deplorable human, what did she think the outcome would be??? she deliberately hurt (killed) a child and should suffer the consequences, can't believe she is allowed to raise one, unthinkable to me. shoot her in the square...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re:
  I can only assume based on that statement that you do not believe in the Rule of Law concept this country is based on. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, your sentiment just doesn't work under the current system, where people have to have broken a law to be punished for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SRS2000, 2 Jul 2009 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The system is broken.
    The poor get railroaded. The rich basically are able to buy a NG verdict. Executives can rape the country and be patted on the back. Oil companies can be behind the murder of multiple people in other countries, have it proven, and only have to pay MONEY.
    
    People don't have to break a law to be punished. Many people are falsely accused and sent to prison. You can also be punished by corporations, even if you are the victim. Try suing over the death of a family member. Going against corporations is damn near impossible. On the other hand... You can get sued by a corporation and have everything in your life basically taken away. Lose everything you have worked your life for. Try having little money and defending yourself against a team of high priced lawyers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- M, 4 Jul 2009 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  Time to lock up Nena Folsom, as the remarks of Nena Folsom are deplorable towards another human. Statements such as that are no better than what Lori Drew was guilty of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 3:17pm

WWWOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:26pm

Right before she hung herself, she was berated by her classmates who heard what an ass she was, her mother who was mad she was logged on and ignored the child being upset at her classmates and Lori Drew who barely did anything. What if "Josh" was not fabricated and he was real? She was troubled, so many teens are. Lets focus on helping teens and not locking people up for nothing, this was b.s. from the get go, congress in no way passed this law for this. The appeals court would have squashed it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 2 Jul 2009 @ 6:26pm

sad for the child but happy this got overturned.

This was an incredibly emotional case and those involved at the state level should have taken special care to assign those with cooler heads to watch over it. If I were Lori Drews parents I'd no doubt want to see the women burned alive but that's why we don't allow those directly affected by such things to preside over the decisions or sentencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no one, 2 Jul 2009 @ 10:04pm

tony soparanno should get her and twist her balls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ceejay (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 3:52am

Double Jeopardy?
In the United States do we not have laws that prohibit the courts from trying a case where a person has been Aquitted of a crime, from being tried for the same crime again unless new and unheard evidence proving the crime were to come to light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 2:47pm

Might as well prosecute her mother as well...
According to the police report Megan had an argument with her mother before committing suicide. Seems to me if Lori Drew is responsible so is her mother. Just check for yourself... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan5.html

It seems convenient that everyone seems to leave out this very relevant piece of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
glogan1222, 3 Jul 2009 @ 4:20pm

Lori dREW IS A FAT ASSED BITCH THAT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME THING HAPPEN TO HER. fUCK HER SHE"LL JUST GO BACK TO EATING AND MAKING HER ASS EVEN BIGGER AND MAYBE HER HUSBAND WILL LEAVE HER FAT ASS LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
john, 3 Jul 2009 @ 7:16pm

cyberbullying
Lori drew may have escaped legal punishment but this bitch needs to be fucked real good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:10pm

lori drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don, 6 Jul 2009 @ 2:12pm

lori drew
hell, the poor women has been punished enough, have you seen what she looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 12:32pm

Lori Drew
It's right that it was overruled but it still doesn't make what she did right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]