Opening Arguments in United States v. Lori Drew:
Kim Zetter of Wired has the story. I feel compelled to point out the very bottom of the story, which briefly notes the side that has mostly been absent from press coverage of the case:
Defense attorney H. Dean Steward, delivering his opening remarks, painted a very different picture. He claimed that Drew knew about the plan to create the hoax MySpace profile and manipulate Meier, but neither encouraged nor participated in it.
Steward told the jury that forensics evidence will prove the account was not created from Drew's computer, and that no messages were sent by Drew.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Opening Arguments in United States v. Lori Drew:
- "Judge: Evidence of suicide OK at Web hoax trial":
- Update in United States v. Lori Drew:
- Lori Drew Update:
- Pro Bono Defense in United States v. Lori Drew:
Normally those irritate me, but as a special, rare treat they're sort of fascinating, and it's been quite awhile since I've seen one.
According to the November 28th, 2006, St. Charles County Sheriff's Department Incident Report by Edwin Lutz:
If Mrs. Drew testifies that she didn't participate, then the defense will have to contend with Edwin Lutz's testimony.
Yikes! One of the first things they teach about openings in trial advocacy classes is that, if you're the defense, you should never take on the burden of proof. It sounds like Steward just made a pretty dangerous move.
Of course the write couldn't be too familiar with MySpace to spell it that way.
Most likely Lori Drew's lawyer is just claiming something that is not true, but he might feel that's the only defense he has at the trial level, so he makes this pathetic claim rather than just give up. It's a really bad defense.
If an emplyee did the profile, it is quite likely this wsas not done on Lori drew's personal computer, but the accusation is that not only did she endorse this whole schem,me, she even tyoed out some messages (were they only proposed messages?)
The big questioin is what reason should she have expected this to result in a suicide? The intention was probably only to make the teenage girl feel bad. (and I doubt that anyone would really thin of thids as a violation of the terms of service even if literally, it was. But if it was, so weer so many other things.
But still, even if you accept her version -- that she knew about the hoax on Meier but did not participate -- she is still an absolute scumbag. I mean, by her own apparent admission, she let her kid pull a "prank" that humiliated a teenage girl to the point of suicide. And if, as seems likely, she actually participated and encouraged this -- laughed along with it -- she's even more of a scumbag.
Yes, the legal principles involved are important enough to let this scumbag go. But I honestly hope this woman is held up to constant ridicule and torment for the rest of her natural life.
Does "forensics evidence" modify both clauses? Or is it just bad writing?
I can see that forensics evidence can certainly "prove the account was not created from Drew's computer" but how could it prove that "no messages were sent by Drew"? I assume that Drew and her daughter will testify to the latter.
Since when is being a scumbag criminal or legally actionable? It certainly shouldn't be. Not everything that is morally wrong should have legal consequences.
"The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely"
....
William Roper: Arrest that man!
Sir Thomas More: On what law?
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons
to the point of suicide.Fixed it for you. Unless you are seriously contending that she knew beforehand that the victim would be driven to suicide, then all any honest commenter could say she knew was that she let her kid pull a prank that would hurt the feelings of the victim.
Now the government is able to show its power to destroy someone's life based on an expansive interpretation of the law, and they won't be subject to appeal (since Lori will not have been convicted). And they themselves will believe they were furthering the cause of justice, since Lori in their view deserves to suffer and the trial itself was punishment.
The government also does not risk an unfavorable construal of the CFAA on appeal this way.
Anyway, you heard it here first.