Megan Meier - Did The Prosecutor Say NO LAW Fits?

Dardenne Prairie, Mo. (The Weekly Vice) - You're getting warmer. Warmer. Now you're HOT!

Across the country, an outraged public has begun the search for the law it thinks Missouri officials may have missed. Some even conclude that these officials failed to make any real effort.

While it's true that the legal code falls well short of adequately covering all aspects of Internet usage, it is also true that many laws have been updated to cover larger portions of it.

For example, the music industry has forced lawmakers to sharpen it's definitions of online music sharing. Laws like Jessica's law and Megan's law have created harsher sentences and public shaming of sexual predators.

The case of Megan Meier and her online stalker Lori Drew indeed crosses many different sections of the legal code. Harassment, child endangerment/welfare, exploitation to name just a few. So how could a case cross so many different paths, yet fail to elicit a charge in any one of these codes and statutes of law?

Why didn't a county or federal prosecutor pick the best match and at least file a charge? Every prosecutor knows that they will not win 100% of their cases. Many prosecutors gather the best possible evidence and get the matter in front of a Judge. The Vice points reminds readers that the St. Charles County Prosecutor's office claimed to not even be aware of the incident until the story broke in local newspapers.

Below is just one section of law in many that are beginning to surface as a possible direction prosecutors might have gone. It is only one small example in many that could have been considered, but has never been addressed.

These laws belong to the people of our country, not just lawyers. Take a look for yourself. Should laws such as this one been discounted so quickly? Why was a Judge or Jury never allowed to examine a law like this in relevance to Megan Meier's case? Share your own opinion.

-------------------------------------------------
The Communications Decency Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Policy Act of 1996,

TITLE V--OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE

Subtitle A--Obscene, Harassing, and Wrongful Utilization of Telecommunications Facilities

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the 'Communications Decency Act of 1996'.

SEC. 502. OBSCENE OR HARASSING USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES UNDER THE COM MUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

Read the complete text of this law HERE

---------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223

Prev Next

§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

How Current is This?

(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—

(1) in interstate or foreign communications—

(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—

(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and

(ii) initiates the transmission of,

any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Gillian Gibbons - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Teacher May Receive 40 Lashes For Allowing Class To Name Teddy Bear

Khartoum, Sudan (The Weekly Vice) - A 52 year old British teacher has been charged with inciting hatred, insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs after she allowed her class to choose the name Muhammad for a stuffed teddy bear.

If found guilty, Gibbons could face a large fine, 6 months in prison or a punishment of 40 lashes.
The teacher, and mother of two was teaching a lesson about animal habitats and invited one of her pupils to bring in a teddy bear the student owned. She then invited the class to think of names for the toy. Several names were offered, however the teacher's class ultimately decided on the name Muhammad.

Gibbons was arrested after a parent complained, accusing her of naming the teddy bear after the Islam prophet Muhammad. Although it is common for Muslim men to be named Muhammad, apparently giving this name to a toy or animal is considered Blasphemy.

A British Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that Gibbons had indeed been official charged in the case.

"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed it's investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," Suna said quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.

British lawmaker, William Hague called on the British government to "Make it clear to the Sudanese authorities that she should be released immediately. To condemn Gillian Gibbons to such brutal and barbaric punishment for what appears to be an innocent mistake is clearly unacceptable."

The English-language private school, Unity High School, has been closed for at least the next week until the tensions ease.

The school issued a statement in local newspapers calling the incident a "misunderstand". It also reiterated the school's "Deep respect for the heavenly religions" and support for "beliefs of Muslims and their rituals".

The school has also added that "the misunderstanding that has been raised over this issue leads to divisions that are disadvantageous to the reputation of the tolerant Sudanese people."

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Megan Meier - New Law Fatally Misses The Mark

Dardenne Prairie, Mo (The Weekly 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.

But as details of the new law come to light, serious flaws are beginning to surface which suggest the new law may be ineffectual, may conflict with Freedom of Speech rights and may not even apply to the case it was designed to address. The Vice would agree with the first and third concern.

While most critics of the case remain unimpressed with the new measure, city officials have succeeded in appeasing some. Officials who are eager to quiet critics point to this "feel good" ordinance, although they acknowlege it's limitations.

Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?

There's a hole in the bucket

The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. The reasoning behind this opinion is that city officials have consistently treated this case as an Internet harassment case instead of a child welfare/exploitation case.

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.

Ordinance Sets a Disturbing and Backwards Precedent

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.

Our 13 year old children should not be expected to stop their own seduction. What happens when future child predators defend themselves by insisting their activity was invited? This leaves an incredible opening in the legal code for officials to discard cases they feel aren't worthy of the stiffer penalties for Child Predators that are now on the books. Even if a prosecutor was successful in establishing the harassment, a Judge is free to deliver the same kind of penalty a speeding ticket would impose. Maybe less.

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.

We can go on and on here, but the parallels between this case and many other child predator cases that are successfully prosecuted bear striking similarities.

Child Predator laws do not require much more than simply proving that an adult has engaged a minor in sexually explicit conversation. Lori Drew has already stipulated that her conversations with Megan were sometimes sexual for a child Megan's age.

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?

New Law Weakens Older Laws

On June 5th, 2006, Governor Matt Blunt signed into law stiff penalties for convicted sex offenders. The Vice believes that officials continually reject a child predator classification of this case in order to keep the penalty of this offense out of this harsher realm.

Opponents of this law are active in defeating this law not by changing it, but by disqualifying cases like Megan's from ever being heard.

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.

Lastly, the ordinance enacted Wednesday has one more tell tale sign of it's real limitations. It applies only to residents of Dardenne Prairie. If a predator/harasser stalks a child from a computer that's one foot outside of the city line, this ordinance would get the same response from city officials that Megan Meier's case has achieved thus far.

'Don't call us, we'll call you.'

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Megan Meier - Here A Law, There A Law

(The Weekly Vice) - There is a law on the books called Megan's Law. This law was signed by President Clinton in 1996 and was enacted to provide our children protection from Child Predators, wherever they find, bait and manipulate a child.

So it seems ironic that when another teen named Megan needed similar protection from her kind her child predator, this law failed her.

Megan's law was built upon the groundwork laid by another law, Washington State's 1990 Community Protection Act. Seems the initial law needed a little more clarification as well.

But when will children like Megan have justice, rather than laws drawn up by politicians who use legislation to quiet crowds instead of protecting children?

When a future Megan becomes a future victim of a child predator, what will the technicality be then? How many laws does it take to define what child exploitation is before the law will punish it?

The Vice is wary of prosecutors who ran under a desk when Megan needed protection, instead of even filing motion on the laws that are already defining what a child predator does. Even in light of this brand new misdemeanor law, anonymous law maker worries that this law may fail under a 'Freedom of Speech' contest.

Simply Amazing.

The Vice predicts that as quickly as this new law has passed, officials will begin efforts to retire the case back to a cold case status and quell the crowds with rhetoric. We as the public will have to debate if we're willing to give them that option. Elections are always around the corner.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Mo. City Outlaws Internet Harassment

Betsy Taylor, Associated Press

Dardenne Prairie, Mo

City officials unanimously passed a measure Wednesday making online harassment a crime, days after learning that a 13-year old girl killed herself last year after receiving cruel messages on the Internet.

The six-member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Mayor Pam Fogarty said the city had proposed the measure after learning about Megan Meier's death.

"It is our hope that by supporting one of our own in Dardenne Prairie, we can do our part to ensure this type of harassing behavior never happens again, anywhere," Fogarty said, adding, "after all, harassment is harassment regardless of the mechanism or tool."

Several dozen people broke into applause after the measure was passed.

Authorities have said they could not find a crime to charge anyone with in the case of Meier, who thought she had met a good-looking 16-year-old boy on the social networking site MySpace last year. But he began sending her mean messages and others joined in, her family said, then abruptly ended their friendship.

Megan hanged herself within minutes of receiving the last messages on Oct. 16, 2006, and died the next day.

Megan's parents, Ron and Tina Meier, learned about six weeks after Megan's death that the boy, Josh Evans, was not real. The boy was created by a mother down the street who wanted to know what Megan was saying about her own daughter, who had had a falling out with Megan.

Her father said he found a message from Josh, which he said law enforcement authorities have not been able to retrieve. It told the girl she was a bad person and the world would be better without her, he has said.

The four-page measure defines both harassment and cyber-harassment, essentially making it illegal to engage in a pattern of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer "substantial emotional distress," or for an adult to contact a child under 18 in a communication causing a reasonable parent to fear for the child's well-being.

City attorney John Young said constitutionally protected activity would be exempt. The measure would apply when one of the people communicating was in Dardenne Prairie.

During a break in the meeting, Fogarty embraced Megan's mother with tears in her eyes. She said she was sorry there had not been a law previously in place to prosecute Megan's harassers.

Tina Meier said she was thrilled that the city had passed the new measure.

"This is not a stopping point," she said. "We're not done."

City officials also passed a resolution encouraging state and federal officials to outlaw cyber-harassment and cyber-stalking. A state lawmaker has questioned how state law could be altered without running afoul of First Amendment issues.

The Weekly Vice Reaction:

Look at the last paragraph in the Betsy Taylor article. Study what was just said. Are lawmaker's suggesting here that harassment measures may impede on First Amendment issues? Is this for real?

I'd like for this lawmaker to come forth and identify himself/herself. Why does the article protect the name of the lawmaker?

Think of this for one moment. If predators have a First Amendment right to bully a person in the opinion of the lawmakers themselves, shouldn't we know which of our elected officials holds this view?

Is this political correctness gone wild? The elected officials who remain anonymous at this point are ready to put a fork in this topic and call it "done". The fact that overwhelming numbers of voters are demanding justice for Megan in this case has for the most part fallen on deaf ears. Lawmakers hastily enacted a mere misdemeanor charge in response to the outcry.

The Vice sees through this political grandstanding (whether it be Republican or Democrat), and isn't ready to put the issue to bed. We know what Missouri lawmakers are doing here and it has nothing to do with giving Megan some measure of justice.

The Vice is glad to see that a first step has been accomplished here, but warns readers to not be baited by this effort. A misdemeanor charge would hardly cover the damage caused by Lori Drew in this case. We challenge readers to watch out for the closure lawmakers obviously will begin expecting in this case. Scrambling to enact another law with dull teeth is no true justice for Megan. It does not satisfy the outcry for Megan and does little to truly punish those who follow Lori Drew's example in the future.

While this may provide some small measure of atonement for future cases, this law puts the final nail in Megan's coffin for justice in hers. Think not? Watch how fast officials in this case fold up shop. The sign in the window of the St. Charles County Prosecutor's office states.

'There's a new law in town. Direct all Megan Meier inquiries to a friendly courthouse near you.'

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Why Outing Lori Drew Was The Right Thing To Do

Dardenne Prairie, Mo. (The Weekly Vice) - The questions surrounding the Megan Meier Suicide/Internet harassment story are numerous. What should happen to the Drews? What will the prosecutors do? Will the Drews actually continue with their law suite against the Meier family?

The most debated question however is not whether or not some sort of punishment should be metered out. The pressing question is whether or not the adult who is responsible for this deadly hoax should have been reveal to the public.

The original story, published close to a year ago concealed the name of the adult bully behind the fake MySpace account that convinced Megan to take her own life. Even now, I have yet to find a major news outlet that's been willing to reveal Ms. Drew's identity to the public at large. It was the Blogging community that decided to unmask this modern day villain. Here's why I think they were right to do so.

My Sharp Opinion

As details about Lori Drew's 6 week cyber-voyeur techniques emerged, the more I am convinced that outing this kind of behavior is not only right, but essential. Essential? Why?

It is becoming clearer and clearer that Lori Drew employed many of the same grooming techniques that child predators utilize to charm their way into gaining a child's trust. Even Lori herself reported to police that she created the MySpace account in order to find out what Megan was saying.

The most significant key here is that Lori Drew spent approximately 6 full weeks baiting Megan into this trust by posing as a "cute" boy that Megan would be attracted to. Right there, Drew utilizes the sexual stimulation that exists in male/female pair bonding in order to manipulate the 13 year old girl.

Lori Drew groomed her victim like many child predators do, enticing her with flirtation, mild sexual conversation and playing on Megan's weakness. Lori knew that Megan had a low self esteem and was treated for depression.

Examples of Child Predator techniques can be seen here and here. Read them and you'll see uncanny parallels between the typical Child Predator MOA and those utilized by Lori Drew to control and manipulate Megan in the relationship Lori developed with her.

Outing Child Predators has been public policy in most states and is usually upheld under the premise that the public has a right to reasonably protect itself from criminal behavior where it exists. Families with children have a right to know when those who might prey upon their child, live nearby. Public policy dictates that if a child is exposed to potential harm from predatory activity, then parents should at least have the opportunity to be aware such harm may exist.

It is the predatory nature of this case that bears striking resemblance to the public policy. The only difference in this case is that the alleged perpetrator of this heinous act has not been charged or convicted.

But what if a child predator confesses to a crime, but is never convicted? Does the potential for risk exist despite the legal process?

Thus far, details in the case have been heavily supported by Lori Drew's own admissions, police records and interviews. The amount of speculation in this case has been minimal, and the majority of public outrage has largely focused on the facts presented.

The Missouri Public Records Act of 1961 were devised partially to inform the public of persons, events, proceedings and reports that may effect the public directly. These records (such as the charges Lori Drew filed against the Meier family), were the principal documents used to tie Lori Drew to her abhorrent acts. By filing this police report, Lori in effect put herself into the spot light. The Blogging community simply connected the dots and reported the results.

The Vice enjoys the sharp irony that Lori Drew's own actions, activities and zeal to hurt eventually lead to her own uncovering. As I see it, public policy laws and Lori Drew's own manipulations of those laws worked to her undoing. The Vice is appreciative for Lori Drew's assistance in these efforts.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here

Can You Hear Me Now? Megan Meier Controversy Reaches a Fever Pitch

St. Louis County, Mo. It took just a matter of days for the outcry to reach a fever pitch. The story of Megan Meier, a 13 year old who took her life nearly a year ago after an adult bullied her online for weeks has finally been told.

It took just a matter of days for this sleeping case to go from relative obscurity to front page news across the country.

St. Charles County Officials sought to quell the outpouring of outrage by vowing to have a new look at the case.

St. Charles County Prosecutor, Jack Banas announced recently to review the case in an effort to see if a law would apply to the Internet activities employed in this case.

"The Problem with such a case isn't just whether a law has been broken, but determining who was responsible for what." said Banas.

Thus far, the lukewarm assessment given by local and federal officials in the Meier case has met with harsh criticism, included other attorneys and prosecutors across the country. Average people struggle to understand how such venomous actions could register a lessor offense with our legal system than a simple parking ticket.

The Vice will be following this case closely to report what the St. Charles County Prosecutor's Office determines.

Your Ad Here

No Law Fits the Megan Meier Case? Really?

Take a close look at the Missouri Statute


Endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, penalties.

568.045. 1. A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree if:

(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old; or

(2) The person knowingly engages in sexual conduct with a person under the age of seventeen years over whom the person is a parent, guardian, or otherwise charged with the care and custody;

(3) The person knowingly encourages, aids or causes a child less than seventeen years of age to engage in any conduct which violates the provisions of chapter 195, RSMo;

(4) Such person enlists the aid, either through payment or coercion, of a person less than seventeen years of age to unlawfully manufacture, compound, produce, prepare, sell, transport, test or analyze amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues, or to obtain any material used to manufacture, compound, produce, prepare, test or analyze amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues; or

(5) Such person, in the presence of a person less than seventeen years of age or in a residence where a person less than seventeen years of age resides, unlawfully manufactures, or attempts to manufacture compounds, produces, prepares, sells, transports, tests or analyzes amphetamine or methamphetamine or any of their analogues.

2. Endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree is a class C felony unless the offense is committed as part of a ritual or ceremony, or except on a second or subsequent offense, in which case the crime is a class B felony.

Your Ad Here

Will There Be Justice for Megan Meier?

Monday, November 19th, 2007

(The Weekly Vice) - A little over a year ago, a 13 year old girl named Megan met a boy named Josh Evens through her MySpace page. Megan was was on overweight teen who struggled with her self esteem. So much so that she was depressed and was prescribed medication. But that seemed to subside more and more since Megan met Josh. She was happy to have finally met a hot boy who took considerable interest in her.

Josh spent 6 weeks talking to Megan. He was verbally affectionate with her and made her feel special. He worked hard to gain her confidence through one conversation after another. He considered Megan his girlfriend. With this new found bond, he got Megan talking, sharing her most intimate feelings and thoughts. "She was the happiest she had ever been in her life" according to her father, Ron Meier.

On October 15th, 2006 Josh's story took an abrupt turn for the worst. Suddenly his warm, caring disposition turned cold. "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends."

Puzzled and confused, Megan emailed back, desperately trying to find out what her sweet Josh was talking about.

On October 16th, 2006, Josh dropped the hammer that crushed the 13 year old Megan. He told her that "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you!"

Megan then began to see messages from other individuals, people she didn't even know, firing insults at her and to others about her. She frantically tried to find a reason behind them, but none was forthcoming. "Megan Meir is a slut. Megan Meier is FAT!" filled the bulletins Josh knew Megan frequented.

The overload proved to be too much. Megan's whole world was crashing down around her including a life she had spend months and months building. Everything good that was happening to Megan suddenly turned sharply against her.

Megan heeded the last advice she received from Josh. While her mother prepared dinner downstairs, Megan hung herself with a belt in her bedroom closet. Although a neighborhood boy next door was summoned to help revive her, Megan died in her parents arms the next day.


THE WORST WAS YET TO COME

Megan's parents, Tina and Ron Meier were devastated by the loss of their daughter Megan. However the grief was magnified when they learned that Josh never even existed. The boy who spend weeks and weeks luring their daughter to her death never existed. The entire set up was constructed by someone far more familiar.

It wasn't a just a school kid prank. It wasn't just a case of teen angst.

It was a trusted adult who played this cruel hoax. An adult the family knew well.

Megan had formed an on again/off again relationship with a neighborhood girl. When Megan decided to cool the friendship for awhile, that is when the friend's Mother, Lori Drew took matters into her own hands.

Ms. Drew fabricated the profile of the boy who would later befriend Megan, lure her in, entice her, groom her for a relationship and then deliver the crushing blow.

Ms. Drew was the architect that stalked, baited and then hooked Megan into a full blown relationship.

It was Ms. Drew who employed the help of others to join in the scheme. She even convinced an employee of her business to assist in the facade in order to keep the pressure on.

When the Meier family learned of the identify of their daughter's stalker, they destroyed a foosball table they had been storing for the Drews.

Instead of compassion, remorse or shame, Ms. Drew filed charges against the grieving Meier family for breaking the table.

Incredible.

AFTERMATH

A year has passed and this story is just coming to light. Major news outlets have just recently picked up on this story. Although the story was initially reported by Steve Pokin of the St. Charles Journal , the story has largely been suppressed by the authorities and attorneys in the case. Only recently have the perpetrators of this heinous act been outed. Not by news outlets, but by bloggers across the world who tracked down the name, address and finally the police report of the adult that masterminded the entire scheme.

Major news outlets have still been slow to "name names" in this case in consideration of Ms. Drew's daughter, however the news has already hit the proverbial fan. The neighborhood knows. The world now knows.

Danny ViceGrip has a belief that no adult who seduces a child to her death through sexual and intimate manipulation is due anonymity. While we are slow to get into more specifics of the Drew's location, we will not prohibit others from discussing the information because it is part of the public record. That anonymity is gone anyway - and it's best to assure that the focus remains on Ms. Drew herself.

There is no factual reporting or information I have found that directly ties the husband or the Drew's child(ren) to this act of horrific revenge on the 13 year old victim, Megan.

TOUGHER WORDS

Well okay. Time to call it as I see it.

I'm pissed, and for good reason. An adult child predator named Ms. Drew has gotten away with the perfect crime in my opinion.

Ms. Drew utilized the same MOA used by many Child Predators to seduce a 13 year old child to her doom.

Ms. Drew stalked, enticed, manipulated and lured her victim Megan into intimately male/female conversations. She went on to form a heated relationship with this child, posing as another child. She groomed the 13 year old victim for weeks and weeks as most any other online predator does.

Ms. Drew then diverted her child predator tactics in a dangerous direction. Drew was fully aware of Megan's bout with depression. Ms. Drew knew Megan was on medication and suffered from depression. Ms. Drew used the weaknesses of this child against her, knowing full well the full force that would be brought to bear on the child.

Ms. Drew played directly on the sensitivities she knew would cause maximum damage to the child. Ms. Drew lured the child in a way she knew would be most devastating to the child.

When Ms. Drew saw her bullets were hitting it's mark, she turned up the heat. She invited others to partake in the sick, twisted mental assault on this child, keeping the pressure up for weeks and weeks.

Ms. Drew then delivered the final blow that any depressed girl would crumble under.

She mentally raped the child and left her for dead.

Ms. Drew remains smug and defiant about her actions - even seeks to attack this grieving family while their beloved daughter's memory is fresh in their mind.

Ms. Drew has committed the unthinkable.... and doesn't even acknowledge she abused this child.

Child Predators go to jail for their actions. Physical contact is not required for a conviction. Evidence of any kind of sexually charged grooming of a child by an adult is worthy of a charge of indecent liberties with a child.... or at the very least harassment.

IT'S YOUR TURN

It's now your turn to turn the ViceGrip a notch. What do you think is just here?


Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Your Ad Here