Monday, November 19, 2007
Hot Potato, Hot donuts
It's 4 in the morning, I don't know why I'm up.
A couple of words for the random curiosity seeker. This blog has been in hiatus for some time.
Although this blog got more than its shot, back in its day, I figured out I really enjoy reading blogs more than keeping one, and it sputtered and fizzled straightaway, and that's how I like it. But I keep a grabby wrist at the ready to emerge from its grave - when it's least expected, Carrie-style.
As the motto in the heading of Bluemerle suggests, I prefer to be obscure but discoverable. I let it lurk, little monster in the deep, like a seabeast dangling unlit bait, until such time it flashes on the hot-donut sign and draws the little fishes into it's fangtooth maw. For a purpose. Or a service, Now and then.
No one comes here, the commenters here cannot be mine, they are no audience, a very few are here to talk to me. All it was, was a hot donut sign, for the donut seekers.
Why I or anyone would go looking for Drew's identity is no mystery. Why the O'Fallon journal chose to conceal it, and yet provide so much identifying detail, is. It was curiosity and disbelief that led me to search, at first. at first... I read it and WTF'd about it at Ace of Spades blog last week. The story seemed like an urban legend. I wanted to make sure it was for real myself, quickly locating Megan's obituary, checking records, contacting someone who could know something. What does one do with certainty? It's one thing to suspect, its another to know. It boiled down to this: I knew Ronald Meier was due in court in scant days on the "you drove on my lawn" charge. I wanted her to crawl on her knees and beg the prosecutor to nolle pros the case, and bring maximum pressure on her to mitigate further harm to the MEIERS.
Anyway, I've learned even a tiny blink and wink in the right code in the deep dark tube will be picked up by the searchers - that was my aim, the post title crafted with terms I would have used myself to search. You're Welcome.
Now, back to slumber
Update: 11/20/07 correction to " Ronald Meier was due in court".
A couple of words for the random curiosity seeker. This blog has been in hiatus for some time.
Although this blog got more than its shot, back in its day, I figured out I really enjoy reading blogs more than keeping one, and it sputtered and fizzled straightaway, and that's how I like it. But I keep a grabby wrist at the ready to emerge from its grave - when it's least expected, Carrie-style.
As the motto in the heading of Bluemerle suggests, I prefer to be obscure but discoverable. I let it lurk, little monster in the deep, like a seabeast dangling unlit bait, until such time it flashes on the hot-donut sign and draws the little fishes into it's fangtooth maw. For a purpose. Or a service, Now and then.
No one comes here, the commenters here cannot be mine, they are no audience, a very few are here to talk to me. All it was, was a hot donut sign, for the donut seekers.
Why I or anyone would go looking for Drew's identity is no mystery. Why the O'Fallon journal chose to conceal it, and yet provide so much identifying detail, is. It was curiosity and disbelief that led me to search, at first. at first... I read it and WTF'd about it at Ace of Spades blog last week. The story seemed like an urban legend. I wanted to make sure it was for real myself, quickly locating Megan's obituary, checking records, contacting someone who could know something. What does one do with certainty? It's one thing to suspect, its another to know. It boiled down to this: I knew Ronald Meier was due in court in scant days on the "you drove on my lawn" charge. I wanted her to crawl on her knees and beg the prosecutor to nolle pros the case, and bring maximum pressure on her to mitigate further harm to the MEIERS.
Anyway, I've learned even a tiny blink and wink in the right code in the deep dark tube will be picked up by the searchers - that was my aim, the post title crafted with terms I would have used myself to search. You're Welcome.
Now, back to slumber
Update: 11/20/07 correction to " Ronald Meier was due in court".
Labels: bloggers out, Carrie's arm, Lori Drew, Megan Meier
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
There's now "official" confirmation of her name in this new article http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/77D27634D36233968625739800167159?OpenDocument
Bitch Lori is also "disputing the accuracy" of the police report according to http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14028
Bitch Lori is also "disputing the accuracy" of the police report according to http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14028
# posted by 
: 7:55 AM
: 7:55 AM
Mmmk, I see my link got cut off.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/
news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/
77D27634D36233968625739800167159?
OpenDocument
Put it all on one line in the address bar.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/
news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/
77D27634D36233968625739800167159?
OpenDocument
Put it all on one line in the address bar.
# posted by : 7:56 AM
: 7:56 AM 
Anon 7:56 - I appreciate the link.
I'm off to read it. I have always assumed there may be quibbles with wording or tenses or emphasis.
If she says she had no part setting up the "trojan boy" account, however, she's a liar. And that's all that is needed to make her one of the most despicable fools that ever lived.
I'm off to read it. I have always assumed there may be quibbles with wording or tenses or emphasis.
If she says she had no part setting up the "trojan boy" account, however, she's a liar. And that's all that is needed to make her one of the most despicable fools that ever lived.
Send Lori Drew a text message. Her cell is on, but she doesn't pick it up (no surprise).
1) Go to http://www.txt2day.com (free internet text message service)
2) Enter Lori's cell number: 314-520-7916 (exclude the hyphens so it looks like 3145207916). Her husband's # is 314-520-8688
3) Provider is Cingular
4) Type a loving message to Lori
5) Send
1) Go to http://www.txt2day.com (free internet text message service)
2) Enter Lori's cell number: 314-520-7916 (exclude the hyphens so it looks like 3145207916). Her husband's # is 314-520-8688
3) Provider is Cingular
4) Type a loving message to Lori
5) Send
# posted by : 11:15 AM
: 11:15 AM
Another good article for you Sarah
http://pysih.com/2007/11/19/lori-drew/
I don't know how much of that is conjecture but it does say that the Drews laughed at the humilation re: the private PMs Megan sent to "Josh" that were being shared with everyone
-- The same anon who posted the first two comments
http://pysih.com/2007/11/19/lori-drew/
I don't know how much of that is conjecture but it does say that the Drews laughed at the humilation re: the private PMs Megan sent to "Josh" that were being shared with everyone
-- The same anon who posted the first two comments
# posted by : 2:11 PM
: 2:11 PM
If you're closing up shop here, then that'll be fodder for my other blog. There's no majestic whale that can expire and sink to the abyss, but scavenging li'l crustaceans won't make a living from it.
On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials enacted 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 or actually weaken the current law?
I reject the premise of this new law and believe it completely misses the mark. The reasoning behind this opinion is that city officials have consistently treated this case as an Internet harassment case instead of a child welfare/exploitation case.
Classifying this case 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. It was not harassment at all. It was invited attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators can use to reclassify their cases to harassment issues. 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.
We can go on and on here, but the parallels between this case and many other child predator cases that are successfully prosecuted bear striking similarities.
Child Predator laws do not require much more than simply proving that an adult has engaged a minor in sexually explicit conversation. Lori Drew has already stipulated that her conversations with Megan were sometimes sexual for a child Megan's age.
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?
On June 5th, 2006, Governor Matt Blunt signed into law stiff penalties for convicted sex offenders. The Vice believes that officials continually reject a child predator classification of this case in order to keep the penalty of this offense out of this harsher realm.
Opponents of this law are active in defeating this law not by changing it, but by disqualifying cases like Megan's from ever being heard.
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. I'm outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Those satisfied with this response out of Missouri officials need to think through the effect this law will truly have. It quite honestly has the potential to directly undermine Jessica's law. It quiet easily gives prosecutors a way out of prosecuting child endangerment and child predator cases in the future.
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing here.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim or actually weaken the current law?
I reject the premise of this new law and believe it completely misses the mark. The reasoning behind this opinion is that city officials have consistently treated this case as an Internet harassment case instead of a child welfare/exploitation case.
Classifying this case 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. It was not harassment at all. It was invited attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators can use to reclassify their cases to harassment issues. 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.
We can go on and on here, but the parallels between this case and many other child predator cases that are successfully prosecuted bear striking similarities.
Child Predator laws do not require much more than simply proving that an adult has engaged a minor in sexually explicit conversation. Lori Drew has already stipulated that her conversations with Megan were sometimes sexual for a child Megan's age.
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?
On June 5th, 2006, Governor Matt Blunt signed into law stiff penalties for convicted sex offenders. The Vice believes that officials continually reject a child predator classification of this case in order to keep the penalty of this offense out of this harsher realm.
Opponents of this law are active in defeating this law not by changing it, but by disqualifying cases like Megan's from ever being heard.
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. I'm outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Those satisfied with this response out of Missouri officials need to think through the effect this law will truly have. It quite honestly has the potential to directly undermine Jessica's law. It quiet easily gives prosecutors a way out of prosecuting child endangerment and child predator cases in the future.
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing here.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
I see I have drawn you in with my arts and allurements, Dorkafork, I confess the donut thing is a cruller hoax.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
