Monday, December 03, 2007
No charges against Drew in Megan Meier case
Read the whole thing. Color me unsurprised.
A quick note or two now, this is immediate reaction. I'll update later with more detailed reaction to this statement by the prosecutor.
Here is one place where I part company with Jack Banas, the St. Charles prosecuting attorney, who justified his decision not to charge Drew with a criminal offense related to the internet harrassment of Megan Meier:
He stated
That is rather an understatement of Drew's participation, and Drews self-serving description is contradicted by other persons whom the police have interviewed, still unnamed, who report Drew boasted of "messing" with Megan.
She was aware enough of what occurred to contact at least one participant minor before the ambulance had left the Meier home, with Megan's body in it, to tell this child her to keep her mouth shut, and she certainly confessed to knowlege of "arguments" breaking out over the period of the afternoon, and to immediately begin covering her tracks by deleting the fraudulent "josh Evans" myspace account. I have more to say on that, but I'll address it later this evening.
Bottom line for the moment - A civil remedy should still be attempted, in my view, because at bottom, Drew used an employee of hers and granted her persmisson and access to the account to set up a specific situation, a fraud that must inevitably result in loss, pain and/or disapointment on Megan's part, and Drew did so deliberately, with reckless disreguard for Megan's mental health issues, including at minimum an awareness of her reactive personality.
She has admitted being aware of the nature of discussions between the "Josh" persona and Megan, but perhaps she was not as involved as she told police. Either way, the account existed at her instigation, with her persmission and using her own employee to carry out the scheme, with her permission and approbation; and probably at her direction.
And in the light most favorable to Drew, it was a malicious trick designed to fool Megan into believing she had a friend, when she did not, in order to use the information self-serving reasons. And if Drew only learned of Megan being jerked around after the fact, she was heavily complicit in covering up Ashley Grills acts.
Drew also actively encouraged other minors to participate in the fraud, according to at least one minor child, and her mother, and in addition attempted to persuade the minor to keep silent about the account.
If I have anything else to add at this time, regarding my own opinon of Drew, its that for me, it was always enough that Drew instigated this account and allowed and/or actively encouraged minors to participate in it. In the light most favorable to her, her actions were not merely selfish and reckless but vile enough to deserve all the scorn and ingnominy a half-dormant invisible fluff blog can heap on her head. Anonymity should not protect a person who would do such a thing, for such a petty, ridiculous reason as the ordinary upheaval of a middle-school teenaged friendship. That's what 13 year-olds do. 13. year. olds.
A 48 year old woman who sets up a fake boyfriend and lets teens and tweens play around with it for the specific purpose of punking a 13 year old? That's just evil.
A quick note or two now, this is immediate reaction. I'll update later with more detailed reaction to this statement by the prosecutor.
Here is one place where I part company with Jack Banas, the St. Charles prosecuting attorney, who justified his decision not to charge Drew with a criminal offense related to the internet harrassment of Megan Meier:
He stated
"The actions of the Drews and Grills are not criminal under existing state law, Banas said, because their intent was never to harm, stalk, endanger or harass.
"They did it so they could find out what Megan was saying about Mrs. Drew’s daughter," Banas said. "That is undisputed.
"The only purpose was to find out what one little girl was saying about another little girl" .
That is rather an understatement of Drew's participation, and Drews self-serving description is contradicted by other persons whom the police have interviewed, still unnamed, who report Drew boasted of "messing" with Megan.
She was aware enough of what occurred to contact at least one participant minor before the ambulance had left the Meier home, with Megan's body in it, to tell this child her to keep her mouth shut, and she certainly confessed to knowlege of "arguments" breaking out over the period of the afternoon, and to immediately begin covering her tracks by deleting the fraudulent "josh Evans" myspace account. I have more to say on that, but I'll address it later this evening.
Bottom line for the moment - A civil remedy should still be attempted, in my view, because at bottom, Drew used an employee of hers and granted her persmisson and access to the account to set up a specific situation, a fraud that must inevitably result in loss, pain and/or disapointment on Megan's part, and Drew did so deliberately, with reckless disreguard for Megan's mental health issues, including at minimum an awareness of her reactive personality.
She has admitted being aware of the nature of discussions between the "Josh" persona and Megan, but perhaps she was not as involved as she told police. Either way, the account existed at her instigation, with her persmission and using her own employee to carry out the scheme, with her permission and approbation; and probably at her direction.
And in the light most favorable to Drew, it was a malicious trick designed to fool Megan into believing she had a friend, when she did not, in order to use the information self-serving reasons. And if Drew only learned of Megan being jerked around after the fact, she was heavily complicit in covering up Ashley Grills acts.
Drew also actively encouraged other minors to participate in the fraud, according to at least one minor child, and her mother, and in addition attempted to persuade the minor to keep silent about the account.
If I have anything else to add at this time, regarding my own opinon of Drew, its that for me, it was always enough that Drew instigated this account and allowed and/or actively encouraged minors to participate in it. In the light most favorable to her, her actions were not merely selfish and reckless but vile enough to deserve all the scorn and ingnominy a half-dormant invisible fluff blog can heap on her head. Anonymity should not protect a person who would do such a thing, for such a petty, ridiculous reason as the ordinary upheaval of a middle-school teenaged friendship. That's what 13 year-olds do. 13. year. olds.
A 48 year old woman who sets up a fake boyfriend and lets teens and tweens play around with it for the specific purpose of punking a 13 year old? That's just evil.
