Update on the Megan Meier case

[Izulde]

The mother who posed as Josh Evans was officially indicted Thursday according to CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/15/...ide/index.html

Sorry, I couldn't find the thread about it to bump it.

[fantom1979]

just for reference

Scumbaggery of the highest order - Front Office Football Central

[RainMaker]

I think the mother is a sick person who deserves whatever bad karma she has brought on herself. But I think indicting her for this is a dangerous path to head down. Does this mean that if someone kills themself, anyone who was mean to that person online can go to jail?

[RainMaker]

And why didn't they go after the Ashley Grills girl? She was 17 at the time (surely could be charged as an adult) and has admitted much more involvement in the case. She was the one that told her to kill herself. I understand the fact the mother being involved is more shocking, but it seems like selective prosecution.

If I was the father of the girl, I'd probably just kill both of them.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the mother is a sick person who deserves whatever bad karma she has brought on herself. But I think indicting her for this is a dangerous path to head down. Does this mean that if someone kills themself, anyone who was mean to that person online can go to jail?

The thing to me is that they targeted this girl, it wasn't someone they didn't know. I don't know you from Adam in the real world so if my comments online cause you to kill yourself then I think the "dangerous path" applies.

If you're my neighbor and I target you specifically, even if only to harass, and something goes wrong then maybe I am liable for my actions? I don't know enough about the law to know if prosecutors can make any charges in this case stick. I do like the fact that they are at least willing to try.

If I was the father of the girl, I'd probably just kill both of them.

As a father this thought would be on my mind especially if I was hearing from prosecutors and police "I'm sorry there's just nothing we can do". Knowing the authorities were at least trying to pursue some sort of justice might be the thing that would stop me from carrying through.

[Anthony]

i don't buy this. telling someone they should go kill themselves and they actually do it - that's not even manslaughter. free speech is covered here. i can't be held responsible if someone is not well-adjusted and is emotionally unstable. if that's the case then we can never say anything bad to anyone, online or not. what was she doing being allowed to go online then? her internet usage should've been monitored more closely. her parents mentioned how depressed she was, they should've had tighter control over her exposure to potentially harmful interaction.

if i'm at a bar and swaggs is a recovering alcholic (and i'm not aware of it) and i pressure him into having a shot with me, and then he has another, and another, and then he gets in his car and drives and kills himself in an accident - how is that my fault? you can't create an environment where any little minor thing you do/say that results in some way the death of another person is now a crime. i think clearly there was no malice or intent to physically harm the girl.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One of the most f'ed up prosecutions I can recall hearing about in a long time.
Just an absurd situation, and the person who needs to be knocked upside the head more than anyone is the mother of the suicide girl, if she does her job & doesn't let her 13 year old get cyber-involved with a (presumably) 16 y/o guy online, none of this happens.

I sincerely hope some of the analysts are correct and a judge will toss out this creative misapplication of a law that was never intended for this purpose.

[st.cronin]

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.

[Anthony]

i didn't want to say it - but i, too, believe megan's mother is the one to blame. if i'm that girl's mom, my 1st words are "first of all - what are you doing having an online romance??? how do you know that's even a boy you were talking to and not some sick pedophile?".

see, this is the fucking reason why girls get raped/killed by online predators. i mean, this is 2008 - is it not common sense that you can't trust strangers online. hasn't the "To Catch A Predator" series taught teens anything? if i ever have a teen girl, i'm going to show her clips of that show to let her know that these online romances are a recipe for disaster.

and what's a mother doing not consoling a girl who the mom herself said is not emotionally stable and is (to use the mother's own word) "depressed". sorry guys, this is all Megan's mom's fault. telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech. while it was childish for the other girl's mom to go onto myspace to pose as a boy, it could be argued that this was an extreme case of excessively monitoring one's own child.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.

But in this instance, there was really no cost of doing nothing. The prosecutors in the local jurisidiction already declined to prosecute. This was venue shopped until they found someone stupid enough to try to conjure up something they could apply. In this case it looks to be more like some low rung prosecutor halfway across the country trying to get themselves a little notoriety.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But in this instance, there was really no cost of doing nothing. The prosecutors in the local jurisidiction already declined to prosecute. This was venue shopped until they found someone stupid enough to try to conjure up something they could apply. In this case it looks to be more like some low rung prosecutor halfway across the country trying to get themselves a little notoriety.

You may be right, and I wasn't suggesting that "the cost of doing nothing" was something other than missing out on some potential political benefits, or in any way noble. I just find it impossible to believe that anybody could look at this objectively and think this indictment is appropriate.

[SteveMax58]

Yeah...I have to say I agree with some of the comments made about the girl's mom being the one to look at more closely.

The other girl's mom(the antagonizer) is a horrible person. She probably deserves some sort of punishment(stalking, fraud, corruption of a minor, reckless endangerment, IDK...I'll leave it to those more legal savvy than I).

I hope this lady pays a serious price, whether that be karma, afterlife, whatever...but I dont think you can go down the manslaughter path(or more serious) and start putting people behind bars for the after effects of being a completely heartless ass to somebody...even if it is a minor.

[chesapeake]

The content of these chats is not clear from the article. If all Drew did was call the girl a stinkyhead, then, sure that would be a silly prosecution. But if the content of these chats, and testimony about whatever discussions she had with her accomplices to manipulate the other child, shows that there was malicious intent to manipulate her, I can see how prosecution would be completely justified.

"I just meant to scare her a little with the knife, your honor. How was I to know she would run right at me an impale herself on it?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

But if the content of these chats, and testimony about whatever discussions she had with her accomplices to manipulate the other child, shows that there was malicious intent to manipulate her, I can see how prosecution would be completely justified.

It seems logical to believe that there was intent to manipulate her emotions in some fashion but I've seen nothing that points to an intent to cause physical harm.

From a different article, here's a blip from un-charged 19 year old participant (an employee of the indicted woman)

Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to Megan.

Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

[chesapeake]

It wouldn't need to be just physical harm to be actionable. If physical harm were the legal benchmark, than there would be no justification for arresting someone for making a child watch a sexual act. So causing psychological trauma to a minor is a legitimate cause for action.

But to win a conviction, I think the prosecutor will have to prove either malicious intent or that a reasonable person should have known that the actions taken or directed by Drew would cause serious psychological harm in a child. And if the prosecutor can prove that, I think jail time would be well deserved.

Based on what little information I have, I couldn't say whether it will be proven in this case. But I don't dismiss the possibility that it could be.

[chesapeake]

I should add for clarity, we are probably looking at reaching the legal benchmarks where a charge of psychological child abuse would kick in.

[Shkspr]

Just keep in mind that the specific charges filed against Drew have nothing to do with the level of maliciousness contained in her messages. They'll play into sentencing, but it is the specific act of creating the page with fake information that is being charged. If Drew merely called the girl a stinkyhead, that has no legal bearing on exactly what the indictment would look like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I should add for clarity, we are probably looking at reaching the legal benchmarks where a charge of psychological child abuse would kick in.

Except that prosecutors with jurisdiction over those level of charges have already examined the case & found no grounds for criminal charges. That aspect appears to have already been settled.

What's left now is California prosecutor (acting on the basis that servers involved are based in Cali instead of Missouri) trying to find something to trump up.

[RainMaker]

The only thing I thought they might have gotten the mother for was some kind of online solicitation. If the conversations were sexual in any nature, I figured they could hit her with that. Isn't it illegal for an adult to have conversations with anything sexual in nature with a minor online? Either way, the indictment is bullshit. That lady is the lowest scum on this planet, but doesn't break any real laws. If being mean and coniving is against the law online, then half the internet will be arrested tomorrow.

[chesapeake]

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i didn't want to say it - but i, too, believe megan's mother is the one to blame. if i'm that girl's mom, my 1st words are "first of all - what are you doing having an online romance??? how do you know that's even a boy you were talking to and not some sick pedophile?".

see, this is the fucking reason why girls get raped/killed by online predators. i mean, this is 2008 - is it not common sense that you can't trust strangers online. hasn't the "To Catch A Predator" series taught teens anything? if i ever have a teen girl, i'm going to show her clips of that show to let her know that these online romances are a recipe for disaster.

and what's a mother doing not consoling a girl who the mom herself said is not emotionally stable and is (to use the mother's own word) "depressed". sorry guys, this is all Megan's mom's fault. telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech. while it was childish for the other girl's mom to go onto myspace to pose as a boy, it could be argued that this was an extreme case of excessively monitoring one's own child.

I agreed with your thoughts on the mother, but have changed it recently. The girl had serious self-esteem issues from what we've gathered, and it seems like the Mother felt this was something making her happy. She seemed to have been monitoring their online relationship better than most parents do. Yes she probably should have done better, but she was the mother of a fragile teenager. We just don't know what anyone would do in that situation. Hindisight is 20/20.

I don't know if anyone is to blame for this. I think it was just an unfortunate event. The mother may have made mistakes, but how could she know a failed internet relationship would end in her daughter killing herself? Was she supposed to shelter her child from every potential life issue? I'm sure she beats herself up daily for this, but I don't know if I would have handled the situation any better. There is no handbook to raising teenagers.

The one thing that really bothers me about this story is the sheer cruelty in this world. Obviously the Grills girl who made the account was battling self-esteem issues herself (as seen by her being 100 pounds overweight) and is not as innocent as she tries to make herself out to be. But has society always been this motivated to hurt other people psychologically for their own benefit? Is fucking with a 13 year old's mind what we do for fun today? I just can't fathom doing this to another human being.

The best punishment would be to neuter everyone involved. Just stop these people from reproducing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.

I'm not familiar with the law, but is "intent to harm a child" strictly physical or does it include psychological?

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.

As I linked in the earlier thread, here's the blog post
from a former federal prosecutor in the Los Angeles office about the indictment that clarifies the actual statutes involved. While I don't know (and doubt he would disclose) if he has any personal connection to the people prosecuting the case, I suspect he is spot-on with his analysis.

[chesapeake]

That is an interesting post, Shkspr, and I will have to defer to his analysis of the legal particulars without any personal knowledge of the case other than the CNN story. I'd probably agree with this point he makes:

"Let me be clear — if Drew did what she’s accused of, she’s a vile human being and deserves punishment. But I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with a scheme of federal law flexible enough to address any wrong we might want to punish."

Admittedly making the assumption that Drew had malicious intent or acted with severe negligence, I would turn it around a little bit and say that it would be a shame if an adult conspired with two minors to inflict psychological abuse on a 13-year-old (which contributed directly to her death) and avoided all punishment because she found a way to do it that was outside of existing law.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

"Let me be clear — if Drew did what she’s accused of, she’s a vile human being and deserves punishment. But I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with a scheme of federal law flexible enough to address any wrong we might want to punish."

I don't agree with this. I think ideally the law should be able to address any wrong committed by anybody. What makes this case untenable, in my view, is the fact that the actions and the outcome seem disconnected. Its hard to imagine any sort of texting or online communications, or really any kind of communication, that would put the recipient at risk of suicide. Nobody forced the girl to log on and read the messages.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Its hard to imagine any sort of texting or online communications, or really any kind of communication, that would put the recipient at risk of suicide. Nobody forced the girl to log on and read the messages.

I disagree entirely. With respect, of course

Online communications were used last week to convince a professor at Seattle University to fly to Denver to have sex with a teenage boy. Fortunately, the particular teenage boy was a state policemen.

Different case and motivations, of course. Perhaps a better one would be the stack of cases of online predators convincing children to have sex with them solely through internet conversations. Maybe the kid was predisposed to do this act before ever logging onto the internet; but the adult that lured him/her into having sex is a criminal, and we'd all agree that every book in the library should be thrown at him.

I guess I have no difficulty in seeing how internet chats and emails could be used to hurt a girl enough to lead her to kill herself, seeing how they are used to convince kids to have sex with some very undesireable lowlifes.

[stevew]

I think they won't be able to make this case stick.

And if the father were to take her out, I think it would be pretty hard to convict him as well. But at least he'd have commited an actionable(and justifiable) crime.

This is mainly the mother's fault, IMO. It's not that hard to block myspace.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Online communications were used last week to convince a professor at Seattle University to fly to Denver to have sex with a teenage boy. Fortunately, the particular teenage boy was a state policemen.

Actually, the man thought he was flying to Denver to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by stevew

This is mainly the mother's fault, IMO. It's not that hard to block myspace.

The mother was monitoring and approving friend additions. The mother wasn't trying to keep her kid off of Myspace, she just wanted to make sure the friend additions were reasonable. That doesn't seem to bad to me.

[st.cronin]

I'm actually not sure why it has to be anybody's fault. A troubled teenager committed suicide - I'm sure every time that happens, you could, if you wanted, find somebody to blame. But I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The mother wasn't trying to keep her kid off of Myspace, she just wanted to make sure the friend additions were reasonable.

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.

(If you go back to the original thread, there was a quote to the effect that the "hotness" of the guy had something to do with the 13 y/o's interest in him)

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Actually, the man thought he was flying to Denver to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Thanks for the correction. Awful story.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm actually not sure why it has to be anybody's fault. A troubled teenager committed suicide - I'm sure every time that happens, you could, if you wanted, find somebody to blame. But I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it.

correct. however, my point is out of all the people to be indicted - the mother of Megan is the most responsible. not that she should, but if someone must be found responsible then it shouldn't be the person who is currently being indicted.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.

(If you go back to the original thread, there was a quote to the effect that the "hotness" of the guy had something to do with the 13 y/o's interest in him)

And there was also a quote to the effect that the mother was uncomfortable with that, but the daughter wasn't connecting to people locally and the mother was relaxing her standards to try to let her daughter make a personal connection. If I remember properly, the mother was also monitoring the conversations. It may have worked out to be a bad decision, but it wasn't like the mother just didn't care and let her daughter do anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I would turn it around a little bit and say that it would be a shame if an adult conspired with two minors to inflict psychological abuse on a 13-year-old (which contributed directly to her death) and avoided all punishment because she found a way to do it that was outside of existing law.

If, as you seem to contend here, that inflicting "psychological abuse" on a teenager should be considered criminal conduct and that what is ultimately nothing more than an updated take on the fake-secret- admirer-note-in-the-locker prank that's been around for decades clears the threshold for "psychological abuse" (and if the legal system ultimately agrees with you) then I'd have to say that anyone who communicates with a teenager online would have to be a complete moron to take such a risk.
And any site that would allow teens to participate in any interactive communication would have to be pretty damned stupid as well.

If, God forbid, any civil or criminal legal consequences do ultimately come from this case it seems foolish to think that lawsuits against every website owner involved in anything remotely similar will follow in rapid succession.

Let's put it in another light for a second, what if jbmagic had been a teenager? I can't imagine there wasn't something that could be considered "psychological abuse" typed in his direction at some point. And I'd be surprised if there weren't at least one or two times where one FOFC'er said to another in a PM "watch this, I'm gonna really take a poke at jbmagic", so there's your conspiracy. Are there really people who believe that anything posted here toward him should have been considered criminal?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.

What possible conversation could two teenagers of the opposite sex have that wasn't "quasi-romantic"?

And do you feel the same way about phone conversations?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It seems logical to believe that there was intent to manipulate her emotions in some fashion but I've seen nothing that points to an intent to cause physical harm.

From a different article, here's a blip from un-charged 19 year old participant (an employee of the indicted woman)

Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to Megan.

Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

No, I don't believe the woman intentionally wanted to kill the girl but she sure as hell knew the girl was messed up and in fact had been in charge of the girls medications in the past during vacations. She had to know the potential was there and she didn't care.

I saw the interview with Grills and it really looks to me like that kid is paying the price for what she did. I believe she sincerely knows she screwed up but Ms Drew is trying to exonerate herself by blaming it all on Grills and trying to screw up someone else's life.

She's never once expressed any remorse and in fact continued to pretend to be a family friend after the fact. She's a heartless and evil woman who unfortunately has already spawned a little satan jr.

I don't think there's any way in hell this case plays all the way through and I agree that it shouldn't but this evil will have to face up to what she did for a while longer and spend more money on lawyers and not be able to forget what a worthless human being she is.

Since she has shown no remorse at all I'm all for doing this to her and forcing her to lose something. Now, if by some miracle she loses the case then people can hate her even more for being the stupid cow who messed it up for all assholes who want the right to be assholes. Again, not that bad a thing.

I mean, I feel for all the socially challenged individuals who can communicate no other ways but being an asshole but frankly, most of them aren't ever going to rise to this level of assholishness so I think they'll be just fine.

This isn't about just being an asshole. It's about taking information you took from a child and attempt to ruin the life of said child. Lets be clear here. If Megan was an adult that lived in another state, we'd never be talking about this case like this.

As for Megan's mom, the only criticism I have of her, and trust me, it's a biggie, is letting her 13 year old lie to get an account. That's irresponsible, dishonest and a slew of things a parent shouldn't be with any kids, much less a depressed one.

Aside from that though, she seemed to be fairly observant about her daughters activities and who she was talking to and no cybersex occurred. She thought she was helping her daughter relate to other people.

As for the last night and not being sure she had logged off myspace then all I can say is hindsight is 20/20 vision. Between someone doing her best and making a bad judgment call and someone who has spent months systematically creating an alter ego to push every button you can on a disturbed child, I'm going to lay blame on the latter hands down. I take it we disagree on this.

Also, no idea if it's true but I read that Grills was given immunity to testify against Drew and that's why she can talk and she's not getting prosecuted. I'm not sure I agree with that choice if it's true either but the only reason I am even on the fence is because it really looks like she's paying for her sins already.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It may have worked out to be a bad decision, but it wasn't like the mother just didn't care and let her daughter do anything.

But there's the problem ... she let her daughter do it anyway, in spite of the fact that I can't imagine how anyone but a complete idiot would have approved of the situation. If anyone should be facing charges it's her, for parental neglect or something along the lines depraved indifference leading to the death of a minor (or a more correct way of phrasing negligent homicide when you negligently contribute to a suicide)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

what if jbmagic had been a teenager?

must... resist... easy... joke...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

What possible conversation could two teenagers of the opposite sex have that wasn't "quasi-romantic"?

Fair point.

And do you feel the same way about phone conversations?

In the most general sense, yeah, I can't imagine I'd approve of my (hypothetical) 13 y/o daughter being on the phone with a 16 y/o guy, for the precise reason you so eloquently stated above. I have to say "generally" because it seems as though words spoken aloud are easier to monitor than something silently typed, and erasable at the click of a shutdown box.

edit to add:

And the lesson we can draw here, I believe, is that if you're a teenage girl then you should be extremely thankful that I'm not your father.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

must... resist... easy... joke...

i heard the only age when jbmagic was a teenager was 16. His other ages were 1, 2, 4, 8, 32, and 64.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

must... resist... easy... joke...

Yeah, yeah, I know. I thought about that too
But I couldn't come up with a better local example to use.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

i heard the only age when jbmagic was a teenager was 16. His other ages were 1, 2, 4, 8, 32, and 64.

And 2/3rds, never forget 2/3rds.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech.

"Go kill yourself" is a figure of speech.
The world would be much better off if you were dead, that one I am not familiar with.

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

if i'm at a bar and swaggs is a recovering alcholic (and i'm not aware of it) and i pressure him into having a shot with me, and then he has another, and another, and then he gets in his car and drives and kills himself in an accident - how is that my fault?

Lets make it more relevent.
If you are at a bar and swaggs is 19, but looks much older and you buy him drinks. Now you have contributed to the delinquency of a minor. I think the fact that an adult harassess a minor should be a crime in and of itself, I do not however believe it is manslaughter.


This is really tough for me to have an opinion on. The other mother is clearly a douche, Megan's mom probably made some decisions that in hindsight were not perfect, and the girl had other issues as well. I wont really mind if they all drop dead, I will be a little disturbed if they are convicted in a state (ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA) that no one lived in...

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.

I believe this has been covered on this board before, The Feds dont go after cases they cant win, that is a proven fact. The numbers speak for themselves.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If, as you seem to contend here, that inflicting "psychological abuse" on a teenager should be considered criminal conduct

Child abuse is a crime in every state in the US, and it includes psychological abuse. And you and I would both agree that it is a good thing that it is. I chose the word "abuse" for that specific reason.

As I stated earlier, the prosecutor probably has to reach a high threshold in this case -- likely something that the jury would find akin to psychological abuse. I stick by that.

You have assumed that because the MO legal folks didn't charge Drew, there isn't anything like that there. I have already conceded you may be right, but I don't rule out the possibility that you may be wrong, since none of us on the board have had access to the chat transcripts and email traffic.

Maybe it is an overzealous CA prosecutor; maybe it is an incompetent MO prosecutor. Maybe both prosecutors want to pursue the case, but a difference in the laws in the states enables one prosecution and prohibits another. Any way you slice it, we are speculating based on the content of evidence we don't have access to.

I probably have more faith in the jury process and the appeals courts to sort this out than you do, but that is fodder for another thread

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But there's the problem ... she let her daughter do it anyway, in spite of the fact that I can't imagine how anyone but a complete idiot would have approved of the situation. If anyone should be facing charges it's her, for parental neglect or something along the lines depraved indifference leading to the death of a minor (or a more correct way of phrasing negligent homicide when you negligently contribute to a suicide)

The girl created a fake Myspace account and the mom made her close it when she found out. Some time later (I don't think the article specified) she let her daughter create a new account with the understanding that she was going to monitor all of the communication...which she did. It isn't neglect to allow closely monitored communication. The tragedy is that mom couldn't talk to her daughter once crap started happening.

I wouldn't consider it to terrible to allow an anonymous internet friendship if you are going to monitor those communications and make sure they stay within acceptable boundaries.

[judicial clerk]

This seems like just another type of bullying, and the people responsible need their asses kicked. This adult woman and the others were being complete jerks to a 13 year old little kid. I am sure the result was beyond what they intended, but they shouldn't be messing with kids like this.

I don't buy blaming the mother. Imagine how hard it is to help a child with depression when plenty of adults have a hard time managing their depression. The depresion and volatility are probably multiplied ten-fold by the fact that this is a 13 year old girl having to deal with all the pressures of being in middle school or high school. And then these people go out of their way to fuck with this poor dumb kid. WTF.

From the legal point of view, there is nothing wrong with this indictment. People are saying that this shouldn't be responsible for the girls death or this cant be even manslaughter. The story doesn't read that they defendants are be charge with any sort of homicide, but instead with violating some technical federal computer statutes. Also, the fact that this is brought in california is not a big deal. This is an example of the difference between the federal and state criminal justice system. Federal law and state law are not the same. Different actions that are not illegal under state law my be illegal under federal law and vice versa. In this case, these losers actions did not violate any Missouri laws, but they arguably violated some federal laws.

[chesapeake]

[quote=CU Tiger;1729493If you are at a bar and swaggs is 19, but looks much older and you buy him drinks. Now you have contributed to the delinquency of a minor. I think the fact that an adult harassess a minor should be a crime in and of itself, I do not however believe it is manslaughter.[/quote]

It might be if, after downing the six shots you bought him, Swaggs got into his car and drove it into a tree and bled out. Depending on the state, there is probably a lesser felony you could plead to, though.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I saw the interview with Grills and it really looks to me like that kid is paying the price for what she did. I believe she sincerely knows she screwed up but Ms Drew is trying to exonerate herself by blaming it all on Grills and trying to screw up someone else's life.

Grills has come out and said she created the account and sent the majority of the messages. She also said she was the one that sent the last message.

I understand people want to all assume this was some coniving plan by the other Mother, but I have to feel that an obese 17-year old girl was also doing this as a form of building their own self-esteem. I think the Grills girl gets off too easy as everyone has focused on the Mother because of the audacity of them being involved. She is just as responsible in my eyes and deserves a lot of blame.

This isn't to say the Drew lady is in the clear, just saying if they targeted the Mother, they should also have targeted those involved.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In the most general sense, yeah, I can't imagine I'd approve of my (hypothetical) 13 y/o daughter being on the phone with a 16 y/o guy, for the precise reason you so eloquently stated above. I have to say "generally" because it seems as though words spoken aloud are easier to monitor than something silently typed, and erasable at the click of a shutdown box.

You're dealing with a hypothetical daughter though. Someone you have no attachment to, no emotions toward. The Mother probably just wanted her daughter to fit in, feel a bond to someone. Dealing with a child who has depression is so tough on a parent. In hindsight she may have made bad decisions, and I guarantee she beats herself up for it. But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.