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.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Well, no progress from the prosecutor's office. But at least one bit of info that did come out of the St. Louis today article, was the name of "Ashley Grills."
I say, be civil, be humane, but cyber sous-veillance experts, do your thing.
I say, be civil, be humane, but cyber sous-veillance experts, do your thing.
What is so shocking about this case is how often our culture will trap, prosecute and then cast out many people who are indeed guilty of trying to manipulate a minor ( on line chatting, FBI posing as a sex starved middleschooler )yet this woman who created a fake online account to manipulate a minor presses charges against the very family she targeted to inflict harm...how she is not just as guilty as sex-sting cyberstalkers is beyond me
I think it's all a very sad story of what our society has turned into. Adults are now being just as vengeful and evil as the children that probably tortured them when they were younger.....just like the cycle of many other things in this world, domestice, violence, drug abuse and racism. The list could go on forever. The problem is that no one is really ever truly punished for the wrongs that they do. Those who commit misdemeanor offenses seem to end up with more time than those who contribute to or commit much worse crimes. The message that so many people get from the justice system these days is that you can lie, cheat, steal and murder as long as you can afford to pay your way out of it. What ever happened to basic human compassion and goodness? Oh yeah, that must be with Elvis wherever he is.....All I know is that it's a shame that this beautiful girl took her own life over someone who was never even real.
We have a county prosecutor and a defense attorney who have gone on the record with statements that flat out rewrite history and previous statements.
If we were to believe that the statements Lori Drew is now making are truthful, and the police report she filed in Nov. 2006, was incorrect, then Lori Drew should be prosecuted for filing a false police, making a false statement or obstruction of justice.
Lori Drew, through her attorney Jim Briscoe has made the following statement:
"Everything, as far as Mrs. Drew knew, was that all the communication was nice and polite and there was no harassing going on. She did not create the MySpace account. She did not instruct anybody to create the MySpace account. She never made any communications through the MySpace account."
Well alright Lori, now that you've completely absolved yourself from the case in any way, shape or form, please explain how this squares with your previous statements.
When it all comes down to it, we simply don't believe you. We'll take the officer's account of what you said above what your attorney says. He was not being paid to defend you.
Jack Banas, we are calling for charges in this case one way or another.
Either the women did stalk this child, or she made knowingly false statements to the police prior to the surfacing of this report.
You cannot absolve this woman of complete wrong doing on both sides of the fence. Pick a side or step down and let someone take over who can. Too many admissions have been publicly made for you to continue to hide under your desk.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
If we were to believe that the statements Lori Drew is now making are truthful, and the police report she filed in Nov. 2006, was incorrect, then Lori Drew should be prosecuted for filing a false police, making a false statement or obstruction of justice.
Lori Drew, through her attorney Jim Briscoe has made the following statement:
"Everything, as far as Mrs. Drew knew, was that all the communication was nice and polite and there was no harassing going on. She did not create the MySpace account. She did not instruct anybody to create the MySpace account. She never made any communications through the MySpace account."
Well alright Lori, now that you've completely absolved yourself from the case in any way, shape or form, please explain how this squares with your previous statements.
When it all comes down to it, we simply don't believe you. We'll take the officer's account of what you said above what your attorney says. He was not being paid to defend you.
Jack Banas, we are calling for charges in this case one way or another.
Either the women did stalk this child, or she made knowingly false statements to the police prior to the surfacing of this report.
You cannot absolve this woman of complete wrong doing on both sides of the fence. Pick a side or step down and let someone take over who can. Too many admissions have been publicly made for you to continue to hide under your desk.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
We'd like to know who the Drews know that is getting this purposefully ignored and soft-pedalled.
Poor Tina Meier. With the Drews who contributed to her losing her daughter just a few doors away.
The whole thing is criminal.
Post a Comment
Poor Tina Meier. With the Drews who contributed to her losing her daughter just a few doors away.
The whole thing is criminal.
Links to this post:
<< Home
