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.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Lori Drew's Lawyers Worried About Finding Jury That Hasn't Prejudged Drew”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
Pitabred says:

Re: Re:

And you’re part of the problem. Misusing laws is not justice. It simply serves to pervert the system further. The facts of this are sad, but the way it’s going down is even worse. This case is about a little girl who had so little family support, involvement and intervention that she got so distraught as to kill herself, brought about partially by a woman who was being a jackass online. The only thing she’s been charged with is computer trespass, which is even stupider. She should be charged with harassment, even felony harassment, or nothing.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

kirillian (profile) says:

Abuse of government

Ahh…to dream of the days when I was young and learning how the United States government was founded on ideals of liberty and justice where checks and balances wiped out the abuses of government and the common man actually had a say in government…too bad that reality is otherwise…The truth is that we are victims of our own complacency and laziness, while those who would abuse power don’t mind spending the time and effort required to do so, we just sit back and cry for ourselves and complain…maybe one of these days…

til then, we have to look at things like this and depress…

Lyrael (user link) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, she deserves grief. Feel free to go give her some. She’s a bitch and she deserves it. Go be a jerk to her.

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.

Grae says:

Re: Re:

Do not speak unless you have the facts.

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.

Mark Regan (user link) says:

Not Too Dissimilar

This case is not too dissimilar from the case of the young child who was killed by the machine gun his dad, a physician and firearms instructor, was letting him try out at someone else’s range, and that person was also a firearms instructor.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not Too Dissimilar

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

I once heard a district attorney brag that he could get a local grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted them to.

Si says:

Re: Re: Not Too Dissimilar

And that is exactly Mike’s point. She is being tried for computer fraud (making a fake MySpace account). What has the “driven to suicide” story go to do with that?

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.

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Re: Not Too Dissimilar

A minor cannot be assumed by the adult to possess the maturity to interact with the same emotional detachment that an adult can employ.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not Too Dissimilar

They she should be charged with the correct crime, not some ridiculous stretch of an existing law and then convicted not on the evidence at hand but only by the hate and anger of the jury. An emotionally charged verdict from a jury? isn’t that what is not supposed to happen? Who wants to join me in pissing on the constitution later since it’s already in tatters.

JMG says:

Re: Not Too Dissimilar

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.

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.

Zoeymae says:

Lori Drew

I’m not against this at all. Lori Drew is an adult who thought it would be “Funny” to pry on a 13 year old. She needs a good slap up-side the head : ) And I mean that seriously. It’s easy to sit back and discuss our rights, until it’s a member of your family that got….
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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Lori Drew

Which is precisely why you’re so blind that you cannot recognise a travesty of justice in the making… If you want revenge, why not make a damn law that says what she did was illegal, and then charge her with it?

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...