A Disgusting Mother: Lori Drew

Update 12/06/07:  you must read Karoli's further account of Lori Drew's sociopath-like behavior, and danah boyd's essay.

Karoli puts Lori Drew's self-serving words into real language

Permit me to paraphrase in real language: That bitch attacked my precious, and I want to beat the shit out of her in person. Or her parents. But since that wasn’t an option, I came up with a plan…

 

danah:

Deceiving children is problematic to begin with, but doing so by tapping into their emotional weaknesses is outright deadly. At a gut level, Lori knew that she could capture Megan's attention by creating a male character that showed interest. In other words, Lori knew how to manipulate Megan's attention and emotions. She capitalized on that knowledge, self-justifying it as responsible parenting. She knew how to have the "perfect" relationship with Megan, to gain her trust. This is knowledge that adults have because we've had our mistakes and learned how to negotiate social interactions. The reason that Megan's relationships were so fraught was probably not because she was evil but because she and her peers were struggling with how to appropriately interact with one another. It's clear from Megan's reaction to Josh that she was fully capable of positive interactions in a social context not strife with miscommunication and the confusion of school status. If she were truly as messed up as Lori assumed her to be, she would not be capable of this.

In my opinion, by choosing to "teach her a lesson," Lori acted in a manner that was both ethically and morally inappropriate. Revenge is foolish in every context, but adults should never take revenge on children, regardless of how much those children upset them. This is an abuse of power. Furthermore, it signals to Lori's daughter that revenge is an OK response to being hurt. Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? For a Christian society, we don't do a good job of upholding basic Christian values.

I first heard about Lori Drew from Nordette, who asked, When Should Cyberbullying Be Considered A Crime?  Nordette didn't use her name, but the commenters did.

Why is Drew a disgusting mother?  She set up a fake account on Myspace, pretended to be a  "cute guy", and went after  her neighbor's 13 year-old daughter,  Megan Meier.  Drew posted to Megan's account, causing Megan to believed  to believe that the cute guy was attracted to her.  Drew then posted a hateful, hurtful rejection.

Megan Meier committed suicide minutes after reading the rejection.  Drew felt little remorse.

Drew stated she knew “arguments” had broken out between Megan and others on “my space”. Drew felt this incident contributed to Megan’s suicide but she did not feel “as guilty” because at the funeral she found out “Megan had tried to commit suicide before.”

Karoli posted a passionate denunciation of Drew's actions: Charge Lori Drew With Child Abuse.

[Cyberbullying] is intolerable when it’s done by peers, but the real crime here is that it was an adult, fully 35 years her senior who was aware of her depression and ADHD and took advantage of her anyway.

Here’s a news flash for Lori Drew:  Megan’s final words to her mother were this: “You’re supposed to be my mom!  You’re supposed to be on my side!”  Those words could just as easily be applied to you, Lori Drew.  “You’re supposed to be an adult!  You’re supposed to protect kids, not abuse them online or otherwise.” 

Impersonating, stalking and bullying a child online is child abuse.

As I was reading, I was thinking about my blog-friend Terrance's list of poisonous parents, and his what kind of community he wants to live in.  Terrance wrote:

We create families, create communities, and make our contributions daily, in hopes of making those communities better for our families and the families who share them with us.

Drew surely qualifies as a poisonous parent -- but what are we to do?

There's a vigil for Megan tonight in her home town.  As you read this, think about what you can do to have a virtual, daily vigil.  Think about what you can do to keep the children in your life safe--not just your kids, but all the kids you come in contact with.  Think what you can do to put a stop to cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying.

Comments

[GraceD]

Liz, good for you for outing this heinous beast of a person.

That's all I can say. This crime left me speechless.

[ms_teacher]

I saw this earlier in the week and I was very disgusted. I only hope that karma kicks in and this woman has a miserable life.

[Joel]

My comment here: http://paxnortona.notfrisco2.com/?p=5170

[Bill]

She should be prosecuted. It seems to me that she has admitted her culpability. The local prosecutor says there's no crime, but there is always some section of the criminal code that can be applied.

[Joel Sax]

Here are the police reports from The Smoking Gun:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html

[Danny Vice]

The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.

The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to 'out' individuals who's actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.

Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they're true.

In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.

I'm wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event

Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.

I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I've never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.

Don Henley's 'Dirty Laundry' certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.

Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.

I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.

News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori's name and Lori's own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.

Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized - the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.

Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

[Danny Vice]

On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting 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?

The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as 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. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.

This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. 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.

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?

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. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

[Danny Vice]

The Weekly Vice Offers This Open Letter To St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas.

Jan 9, 2008 (The Weekly Vice )

Dear Jack Banas,

The nation has been horrified as an adult mother, her daughter and an employee of the adult stalked, harassed and bullied a 13 year old minor child continually until that minor child committed suicide.

When you reviewed the case, the nation watched as you willfully ignored a sworn statement by Lori Drew stipulating her involvement in this process. We watched when you willfully adopted Lori Drew’s new account of what happened - while failing to address Lori Drew’s previous, sworn statements. We are now watching as you willfully and neglectfully ignore the legal implications that go along with falsifying a police report.

Jack Banas, you have claimed repeatedly that Lori Drew violated no state law or statute. You have gone on the record with these statements multiple times. What you have not done is explain why some citizens of your county are required to follow the laws of the land while others are not. Why some citizens are prosecuted for filing false reports with Missouri authorities, while others seemingly are not required to be accountable for such acts.

On November 11th, 2006, the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department responded to a complaint that Lori Drew wished to file. The authorities in your county arrived and took Lori Drew’s detailed statement.

The officer carefully accounted word for word Lori Drew’s statements using quotes to accurately record her words, and in this statement Lori Drew stipulated to several key facts that she now disputes. Among those key statements, Lori Drew stipulated the following:

“Drew stated she, her daughter and Ashley all typed, read and monitored the communication between the fake male profile and Megan. Drew went on to say, the communication became “sexual for a thirteen year old. Drew stated she continued the fake male profile despite this development.”

This statement is the exact text as stipulated by Lori Drew in the Incident Report she willfully filed. In this Incident report, Lori Drew detailed in clear language her active involvement in the shameful activities that cascaded into tragedy for Megan Meier.

Jack Banas, Lori Drew’s current statements dramatically and compellingly disagrees with the statements she rendered as true testimony in the November 11th report. She now has stated through her attorney Jim Briscoe, the following:

“Everything, as far as Mrs. Drew knew, was that all the communication was nice and polite and there was no harassing going on,” Briscoe said. “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.”

Lori Drew has also given public statements, denying that the report she filed on November 11th is accurate. In doing so, she herself calls into question the accuracy of the statement she submitted to St. Charles Deputies in her November 11th complaint.

You Cannot Have It Both Ways:

Jack Banas, Missouri Law demands that when a citizen files an Incident Report in the State Of Missouri, the citizen has an obligation to tell the truth.

Jack Banas, the citizens of Missouri would like to know why some citizens of your county are expected to abide by the law and play by the rules, while others are allowed to thumb their nose at these requirements.

Jack Banas, the citizens of Missouri would like to know why an elected county prosecutor personally reviewed this case and willfully ignored the obvious reversal Lori Drew has made in her statements between the November 11th incident report and her statements now.

Jack Banas, since you have stated that Lori Drew did not break the law, we have no other choice but to assume that filing a false statement and/or false police/incident report with St. Charles County authorities is acceptable under the laws of your county.

Jack Banas, you can no longer have it both ways. Either Lori Drew (and the St. Charles County Prosecutor’s office) has been untruthful with the citizens of Missouri on November 11th, 2008, or you are being untruthful with us now.

Tax paying Missourians demand that you enforce the laws you have been sworn to uphold.

We await your reply with voting card in hand.

Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Contact Jack Banas here:

http://www.sccmo.org/departments/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=32