Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Woman indicted in fatal MySpace hoax on girl

LINDA DEUTSCH

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 8:07 AM EDT 16/05/08

49-year-old mother accused of using a fake MySpace persona to ‘torment, harass, humiliate and embarrass' a 13-year-old girl who later hanged herself ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Connie Wardhaugh from Canada writes: This is a shocking story, I am glad she has finally been indicted.
  2. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: Good.
  3. Har Har from Canada writes: I hope she gets the maximum
  4. Mike McFae from Canada writes: This person is a nutjob and the streets will be better without her.
  5. stan bink from Tee Dot, Canada writes: What a cruel thing to do! Hope she gets the max.
  6. Adrian D. from Vancouver, Canada writes: You'd think this 49 year old would have better judgement.

    What is she actually being charged with? The article just said conspiracy.
  7. Kathleen Degelder from Tacomawashington, Canada writes: Mother from Hell. What is the percentage of sociopaths in this world? Hope she gets the maximum. I also feel sorry for her daughter.
  8. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Some people are unbelievably sick - talk about Machiavellian . . .
  9. No Name Necessary from Canada writes: She is a sick and evil woman.
  10. A A from Canada writes: How messed up is this. I am glad somebody snitched on this stupid woman!

    So she wanted find out what this megan was saying about her daughter. Here is a novel thought. Ask her!

    I hope they throw the book at this stupid woman.

    As a parent I am infuriated by this!
  11. Jeff Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: I've been following this story since it broke, this is the same woman who told the parents of Megan, on live TV when confronted (they are neighbors too) after it broke that she was the one who pulled the prank to "get a life" and "get over it". The parents relationship subsequently deteriorated and they have since divorced, after loosing their only child.

    This is a sick woman, who has been under police protection for the last year due to the constant threat of vigilantly justice while the DA has been working to figure out how to charge her. It seems they have modified the law to snap this evil human up, and good on em.

    I hope they are able to find a few more ways to apply the law to this woman so she never see freedom for the rest of her miserable life.
  12. John Smith from Calgary, Canada writes: How low can we (as a species) go in depraved behaviour against our own? I hope I never have to deal with someone like this worman in my lifetime.
  13. michael morris from Prescott, Canada writes: Good, 20 years is noy enough!
  14. Alexander Slimnich from Canada writes: What, exactly, did she do that was illegal? The article doesn't make this clear. Is it illegal to have a fake online persona now?

    I'm not defending this woman, but I think that this is an overreaction because the girl committed suicide (because someone she thought was a teenage boy broke up an online relationship? good grief!)
  15. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: Alexander Slimnich from Canada writes: What, exactly, did she do that was illegal? The article doesn't make this clear. Is it illegal to have a fake online persona now?

    Um Alex you are coming late to this story, this Mother stalked a minor - harrased daily if not hourly and then counselled the girl to just do herself in! So do your homework, or excuse reprehensible stalking because the Internet is such a safe place...
  16. James P from Canada writes: I'm with Alex, the story here does not define the crime.: Conspiracy - but to do what? This piece is poorly written. I think there is a civil law suit here (negligence cause death), but they should explain what the charge is. It does not necessarily mean there is a crime just because someone did something terrible.
  17. Jesper Haaps from Matsqui, Canada writes: Yeah, I'm confused. If no crime is specified, then where does the reporter get that 20 year maximum from? I do agree with others, however, that this woman's actions were reprehensible.
  18. Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: Dr. Demento, it has nothing to do with Machiavellian. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book called The Prince which detailed the things a person needs to do to take power and keep power. Machiavellian refers to behaviours we see in people like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin etc. While this woman is evil, Machiavellian does not apply.

    Me thinks that Lori Drew is an ugly woman with ugly kids and sees this attractive woman and attractive kid and well likely felt a need to insult this young girl to make herself feel better. You'd think a 49 year old would have better judgement, but it would appear that she does not.
  19. y meier from Canada writes: It clearly states in the article what the charges are:

    "Ms. Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."

    Then goes into some detail out how the mother did it.

    There's nothing wrong with how the article was written. Just with the comprehension abilities of some of the readers.
  20. Jesper Haaps from Matsqui, Canada writes: y meier, I understand that (my comprehension's not all bad), but conspiracy to what?
  21. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: This story breaks my heart.
  22. Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: Jesper, maybe it is conspiracy to commit fraud. Pretending to be someone else for nefarious purposes? I too wondered what was meant by conspiracy...obviously written by someone without full understanding of the story and tried to look smart by blindly quoting someone.
  23. michael hoepfner from Canada writes: Bravo!
  24. A Wong from Montreal, Canada writes: To all those who don't understand what the conspiracy is, first take this sentence:

    "Ms. Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."

    Then separate the sentence out into its component parts thusly:

    "Ms. Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy...to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."

    AND

    "Ms. Drew was charged with...three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."

    And there you have your conspiracy.
  25. y meier from Canada writes: Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. In this case:

    "Ms. Drew and others who were not named conspired to violate the service terms"

    in this case of MySpace and,

    "used the information obtained over the MySpace computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile MySpace member"
  26. y meier from Canada writes: Or to spell out the exactly what is going on:

    You can't use MYSpace to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass others, nor can you sign up using a false identity.

    Ms. Drew, (the only one charged among her conspriators) - conspired with others to violate the terms of the use of MySpace, and is therefore charged with a count of conspiracy, and with serveral counts of accessing protected computers without proper authorization (i.e. MySpace computers which administrates all of the accounts accessed by its users).

    The crime in itself doesn't sound like much (i.e. illegal access of a computer system - especially an open access system over the internet), and there's probably many instances of abuse that don't get any attention from law enforcement. But the law was obviously created to deal with this sort of egregious example of abuse.
  27. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jesper Haaps from Matsqui, Canada writes: y meier, I understand that (my comprehension's not all bad), but conspiracy to what?

    In the states, it is a separate crime to conspire with others to do something which, if done, would amount to a crime. In this case, Drew and her "co-conspirators" conspired to 1) illegally access MySpace, since their TOS require truthful information, and 2) illegally solicit information from a minor, which is again, part of the TOS, and 3) a bunch of other stuff I didn't bother to read.

    Essentially, any crime done where two or more people either discussed or planned the crime, that is conspiracy. Therefore, because Drew conspired with others (Ashley Grills and her daughter, apparently), she was be charged with conspiracy.

    The whole indictment can be found here:

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/lori-drew-indic.html
  28. Jesper Haaps from Matsqui, Canada writes: Conspiracy in and of itself isn't necessarily a crime -- we could all be "conspiring" to derail this comments thread after all. ;)

    However, conspiracy to commit a crime begs the question: what crime? Violating the service terms of MySpace doesn't sound like a crime... and certainly not one requiring a 20 year maximum sentence. Also, tormenting, humiliating and embarrassing a juvenile, while most definitely falling under the definition of execrable behaviours, are also not crimes. Harassment (sexual, criminal?) maybe, but there's no indication that a crime of "conspiracy to criminally harass somebody" is what is being discussed here. Are there any lawyers around who can enlighten us? I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't criticising the writer of the article, I'm simply curious as to what the DA has managed to come up with legally. I think everyone agrees that the mother in question did something that was ethically appalling, and I'm just curious whether the legal minds managed to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak, or ideally a round peg in a round hole.
  29. Jesper Haaps from Matsqui, Canada writes: Okay, I posted that last response before y meier and Luke P added their very helpful responses. I think I get it now. And thanks.
  30. daniel saliken from Vancouver, Canada writes: At the risk of digressing I notice a trend in these news items that makes me think we Canadians are too quick to knock American values or justice............................... I find that every time I read a heartbreaking or disturbing crime story where truly innocent or vulnerable people are hurt I can pretty much guess the outcome by country of origin................................ In Canada the justice system impotently does next to nothing, adding insult to injury and making me wonder how our politicians or our laws reflect our moral values. However, in the USA I pretty much know the criminal is going to be severely dealt with. Check it out for yourself. Some monster molests or murders children...maybe a few years at most in Canada and back out for a third and fourth round of horrific damage to families. In the States you get caught trading some child porn (no touching) you are looking at 20 deserved years. We Canadians can learn something from our neighbours about more action, less talk on some issues. I offer this as a concerned citizen who wants to see tougher punishment for any act of violence against women or children.
  31. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: Dr. Demento, it has nothing to do with Machiavellian.

    Thank You!! I had just said to my wife after reading that comment; "what the hell does this have to do with Maachiavelli, he wrote The Prince, what does The Prince have to do with this story?"
  32. Concerned in Ottawa from Ottawa, Canada writes: It is disconcerting that the bully in this case is a parent.
  33. Dr Demento from Canada writes: Borys Nijinski from Canada writes:

    "Machiavellian refers to behaviours we see in people like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin etc. While this woman is evil, Machiavellian does not apply."

    Definition of Machiavellian from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

    "suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith "

    I stand by my description of her actions . . .
  34. James P from Canada writes: To those who thought we early posters were idiots for not understanding the charge, I will note that the article has been expanded since my comment. The article simply stated that she was charged with conspiracy and 3 related charges. Also, I am a lawyer.
  35. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    I believe that the 'evil' neighbors, after the young girl killed herself, but before it was known about the phony mySpace account, had the audacity to ask the victim neighbors to store a foosball table at their house that they had bought for their kids for Christmas. When it became known about the 'joke' (the mother bragged about it while carpooling), the victim neighbors released some of their anger by trashing the table. Poor kiddies of nasty mother didn't get their Christmas present.
  36. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I have a hard time understanding how this kid was allowed to have this relationship or whatever on the Net, if the Mom was monitoring it.

    She knew the kid was too young and still let her do it.

    Doesn't the Mom then have a responsibility for violating the rules of this net system?

    Seems to me this is a modern parent with limited mental capacity when considering her kid had problems that required med. and she sits back and watches this all unfold. Get real.

    Both women need to face some kind of charge.
  37. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: I feel sorry for everyone involved, but the case should remind everyone that, if we log onto a website using anything but our real names and addresses, we are committing fraud.
  38. ck f from Canada writes: boo! (testing)
  39. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: You (Rollo Tomasi, from Belgium) wrote: I feel sorry for everyone involved, but the case should remind everyone that, if we log onto a website using anything but our real names and addresses, we are committing fraud.
    -----------------------

    Ooops, that should be, register on a website...
  40. A A from Canada writes: You can guage from some of the comments who is or is not a parent.

    Very interesting.
  41. Dan Thomas from Canada writes: Still a bit of a stretch demento. Thanks for trying though, the dictionary definition is fine but trying reading the book, it still doesn't apply.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top