Gosh!  May I have mistaken the injured party?ÂÂ
A woman linked to an online hoax played on a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide had no idea MySpace messages to the girl had turned cruel and did not write any of them herself, the woman’s lawyer said Tuesday.Lawyer Jim Briscoe appeared on NBC’s “Today” show, as did the parents of Megan Meier. Megan, a 13-year-old girl from the St. Louis suburb of Dardenne Prairie, hanged herself last year minutes after receiving mean messages on MySpace.Briscoe said his client “absolutely, 100 per cent” had nothing to do with negative, nasty comments posted online about Megan Meier, and wasn’t home when they were sent.”She didn’t find out about it until after Megan had taken her own life,” he said.
********
It is unclear who created the account, but a police report said that the woman and her then-18-year-old employee fabricated the profile. St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas, who announced Monday there would be no criminal charges in the case, said there are different accounts between the woman and the employee about the creation of the profile.Briscoe said Tuesday the woman “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.”ÂÂ
*********
Briscoe said the woman did know about what was going on, though she didn’t think mean messages were being sent, and didn’t stop it. “She wished she did. If she could turn back the clock, that’s the part she would do differently,” he said.The Meiers say the woman has changed her story since Megan’s death. They believe she was home while messages were sent, and said they plan to proceed with a civil case.Tina Meier told The Associated Press on Monday that the bottom line for her was that the other mother knew about the fake profile, knew Megan was on medication, and let the hoax continue. She said the fake profile was deleted right after the death. Then, she said, the woman didn’t tell the Meiers about what happened.”Our daughter died, committed suicide, and she still didn’t say a word,” Meier said. “I still feel what she did is absolutely criminal.ÂÂ
I think that this lady would have been better served by remaining quiet.
Well, this is the lawyers try for a soft landing. As dicussed in a PW thread about this case just last night, as a matter of fact.
Lawyers say a lot of things for their clients that clients under oath can’t get away with saying…
and everything said was very carefully crafted to bring about the best he could do for a crash and burn client situation. His aims, in no particular order, are to mollify the mob so that his client can pick up the pieces and start over. To telegraph a willingness to admit wrongdoing through negligence, instead of malicious intent. “I admit knowing about it, and not stopping it, etc”
What ever umbrella policy or homeowners or business insurance policy she has will pay out for negligence, but may refuse to cover crimes or intentional torts or punitive damages for malice.
To create a public perception, to the extent possible when prejudice against his client is high that there are mitigating factors or fewer or lesser aggravating factors with regard to her conduct
To telegraph willingness to pay a price that will allow her to keep some claims to reputation and to be given another chance by others
The truth is, the “mob” is always somewhat mollified when a price is paid for bad conduct.
If she were to admit wrongdoing and settle out of court, there would be those who would stick by her or give her more benefit of the doubt.
If I were Drew, I would settle at limits for negligent inflicition of emotional distress.
I would admit nothing more, but pay that price, which would keep me from losing most every significant tanglible asset/and or possibility of having any again. I would hope that acknowleging the lesser participation in an official way would allow some closure for myself and a chance to begin again.
I believe one reason the prosecutor announced there will be no charges, when he might have waited or tried harder, is that Drew’s counsel has telegraphed a willingness to admit some wrong and attempt to settle, and criminal charges would keep an insurer from paying out for some time to come, even if she were found innocent, and not at all if convicted.
I’m cynical that way.
SarahW – this is the kind of claim that routinely lands on my desk. I agree that we would likely have to defend this claim, under a Reservation of Rights, but given what we know about it, there would be considerable question as to the actual availability of coverage based on intentional actions. I could see this winding up being resolve via a Declaratory Judgment prior to the civil case advancing very far. It would all really depend on how the complaint was worded, and the evidence secured in discovery and depositions. These never play out easily, but what is already known would lead me to believe that the carrier would/should pursue a denial of coverage if the evidence is consistent with what is known. Clearly, the bulk of the damages in a case like this would be punitive in nature, and as such, not covered under the insurance contract.
Just a question – How does positioning oneself so that an isurer has to pay for their bad actions, rather than the wrong-doer themselves, show that they are willing to admit some wrong? They are out nothing at that point. In your scenario, only the insurance company is out, and the actual wrong-doer has no tangible repercussions for their actions. And, if the prosecutor is willing to balance their charges against a civil settlement, that is even worse. The prosecutor either has a case, or does not. Whether or not AIG, Travelers, Zurich, Hartford, or any other carrier chooses to defend this claim, deny coverage, or settle the claim, should have no bearing on the outcome.
If it did, the prosecutor is setting up the insurer for a bad faith action.
As with so many other “misdeeds” reported by the press, we probably don’t have any notion of what the truth is in this case.
Remember “The Jena Six”? Anyone who bothered to research that incident knows that the truth will never be known, except by those involved, and by those who dug very deeply. The “press” is represented by a bunch of assholes who waltz in with no idea of what the local reality is, but know that they want to make a name for themselves, and know how to look down their noses at the local yokels. And they certainly know how to stroke emotions to do it.
When I was a teenager, a friend of mine murdrered his father and a fellow high school student. At the time, my town was small (about 7,500 people), and even if you weren’t close friends, you basically knew every one in the town.
About two months after this incident, I found a magazine article about the murders in the local drug store.
It’s relationship to the reality of the crimes was NIL. Whoever wrote it had their own agenda (dumping on a wealthy community), and payed no attention to the nuances (hate to sound like Harry Reid here) of the crime, and had no clue what the town was actually like. But they didn’t give a shit, because the main thrust was about the “wealth” of the town = which had absolutely nothing to do with anything that had happened.
I suspect that almost any story about this tragedy is agenda driven and meant to tug at our heartstrings. As outsiders, the information we get is driven by the agendas of whoever reports on it. Unfortunately, that includes some of my favorite bloggers.
I just can’t believe that this poor little girl was not on the verge to start with. It breaks my heart to think about her pain, but I do not believe that any of this hubub comes anywhere near the truth of this matter. Perhaps this other woman IS a dick, but how can we know that? Do we believe the press otherwise? I don’t know why I should believe what the media says about this when I don’t believe anything else they say.
Maybe this woman is a demon from hell, but we don’t really have a clue unless we lived our lives in these people’s neighborhood, and have some clue as to the main character’s states of mind. And we DON’T have that.
I hate to say it and sound callous, but we really don’t know shit about this incredibly sad story. And I certainly don’t trust the media to inform me, any more than I trust them to inform me about anything else.
Does this make me a dick?
SarahW – I just asked a prosecutor about this, and he indicates that it is specifically and explicitly against their policy to consider such matters in charging decisions. That is not to say that this prosecutor did not take that into account, but it is not likely very ethical of him were he to do so.
Also, though this all stemmed from the actions of her and one of her employees, and presumably were on their work computers, I cannot imagine a scenario where these actions would be considered to be within the course and scope of their employment, or in the furtherance of their business interests. They would likely have a better shot at coverage under their homeowner’s policy, but will run into the intentional actions exclusion there.
Actually, TLD, it makes you quite prescient. We could all do well to step back and wait to see how things unfold. However, given our access to information, and the whole opinion to asshole ratio of the world, we do tend to make educated guesses based on what the facts are assumed to be.
Apparently, one of the Jena 6 pled guilty today, and will be serving 18 months.
JD,
Thanks. I was a little bit “trepidatious” (if that’s not a word, it is now)to post that.
But you are right on with the “assumed facts” part.
After seeing that story in my town (I was about 14 years old), I have always taken these kind of stories with a whole shaker of salt to wash them down.
How lucky was I to find out, as a young teen in the early 60’s, that the press was full of shit? That lesson has never been forgotten.
And, as an addendum, the press in the early sixties wasn’t one tenth as fucked up as it is now…
TLD – According to Robert Hartwell Fiske, editor of The Vocabula Review, trepidatious is most assuredly not a word, and is not to be used by anyone that cares even one iota about the English language. However, as another said, trepidatious conveys the sense of “trembling uncertainty” that no other word fully conveys. So, I vote it to be a word. Since the Left can make up whatever meaning they wish to give to a word, I say we can just make up words.
A made-up word is called “neologism,” which itself was once a made-up word.
Weren’t all words “made up” at some point?
Dictionary dot com defines trepidatious as an adjective, and backs up their definition from the nearly-notable American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
A floor or two above Wictionary and the Urban Dictionary, which defines trepidation as “Being scared as shit because of something.” Decidedly lacking in nuance…
JD – when I croak, could my family, if they try really hard, blame it on a former boss of mine? He was a real dick and caused me a great deal of stress. Reason I ask is that this whole having to die thing is offensive to me and my family. And certainly no fault of my own.
Thoughts?
Yes, Enoch, they could, and they do. Now, whether or not you could convince the insurance company to pony up is a whole ‘nother question. You might add Mother Nature to your complaint, just in case, though she may be without assets and judgment proof by the time Chimpy McHitlerBurton gets out of office.
“Just a question – How does positioning oneself so that an imsurer has to pay for their bad actions, rather than the wrong-doer themselves, show that they are willing to admit some wrong? ”
Rather, it’s the admission of wrong-doing, however insincere or incomplete, that will lead to some resolution for the client. I’m talking here about what a lawyer will attempt on behalf of his client, not about true reformation of character.
In this case, the positioning for the softlanding requires admission of the least she can be assumed to be guilty of, since she can’t get away with anything less, like pretending complete ignorance of the account. And that admission of negligence will actually settle some ire in the community. Create some benefit of doubt for her.
You would want to bust me in the mouth if you saw my expression when I read the part about what an ethical prosecutor will do, or consider. I quite agree that it is improper for a prosecutor to give weight to such things in a decision to bring charges or not. I am certain that Jack Banas would vehemently deny such a consideration, and be sincere. It’s the sort of thing that plays into these cases very quietly, on background, supporting an already all-but-decided issue, which has been reached for other considerations. In other words, if the prosecutor is weighing the state of the evidence and seeing considerable weakness in any case he could bring forward, screwing up a better outcome. on whole, for all, is something that might shade the decision, or increase comfort with it.
Lost Dog , by happy accident proves one of my points.
“I just can’t believe that this poor little girl was not on the verge to start with”.
I had actually started to address the eggshell skull stuff and thought I was getting too windy. So I wrote more generally “To create a public perception, to the extent possible when prejudice against his client is high that there are mitigating factors or fewer or lesser aggravating factors with regard to her conduct”. Briscoe’s remarks about Megan’s having discussed suicide before, etc, were quite deliberate and meant to play on the confusion of public about what that means with reguard to legal culpability.
And Lost Dog, you are no “dick”.
“I certainly don’t trust the media to inform me, any more than I trust them to inform me about anything else” . I feel the same way, and had to laugh a little at the irony of it a little. I share that kneww jerk reaction to distrust any story that yanks like that. I was not content to accept it at face value. For myself, I wanted to
check the names, dates, particulars, and look for contemporaneous
accounts of the events Pokin at the St. Charles Journal reported on, or descriptions by third
parties. Was this story real? Was there more to it that could be
discovered, which might shape the story in another way, or confirm the
events?
Her Lawyer wants to give her the opportunity to pretend or show some culpability or remorse, in a way that will maximise preservation of her assets and potential restoration of reputation, given a situation in which prejudice against his client is high. If the matter can be brought to some end, with Drew paying out, admitting SOMETHING, keeping or regaining some benefit of doubt about her actions, well then, he has done what he can for a crash and burn client – a soft landing.
Enough about lawyers.
In the end, in the light most favorable to Drew, there is no excuse for her. Her actions were despicable, deserving of censure and even penalty at law, even if seen in exactly the light her attorney wants you to see her actions. Which, by the way, I don’t, having a reasoned belief that she did, in fact, take malicious enjoyment in the “trojan boy” scheme. She did it to “mess” with Megan, and for the most ridiculous and petty of reasons. But assuming only what she admits, she is guilty enough.
And speaking of neologisms. there ought to be a word for “too impatient or lazy to proofread/spellcheck” And it had better not have my name in it.
SarahW – I can understand how an insurance settlement would be good for the parents, but I fail to see how that would in any way provide some semblence of punishment for La Femme Fatale Drew. If the extent of the responsibility she has to bear is that her insurance company has to pay out on her behalf, then there is nothing she will learn from this. Why should she not lose some of her own assets in a vain effort to make the parents whole?
I guess my basic beef with your position is that for some reason, the potential presence of insurance funds could prove to be a salve to diffuse the situation for all. First that is not what the insurance, though a noble cause. It also was not designed to protect people from themselves when they commit an intentional act, or an act outside of the course and scope of their business. It is designed to protect people from the unforeseen consequences of unintentional actions.
But, I will get off my soapbox.
If you had not outed Lori Drew, none of this would have ever happened ! ;-)
“It is designed to protect people from the unforeseen consequences of unintentional actions”
Except for the “forseen” part. For recovery, the harm has to be foreseeable, just not forseenbecause of negligence.
Self interest, at this point, must require her to paint her actions as being in this light.
I am not saying “hip hip hooray” to this painting, mind. I am simply asserting this is the soft landing her lawyer is attempting, and that in reality, admission of some culpability and some restitution, albeit inadquate, will have some practical effect on public outrage against his client.
Re the outing – consulting the Austen I-ching: I deserve neither such praise, nor such censure.
The story was destined to roll out in pretty much the same way, even if a band of angry squirrels had chewed through my router cable.
You and I are not far apart. It is clear what her lawyer is attempting to do, and you are spot on in your assessment of that. As I stated, I do not see how any insurance dollars could ever make the parents whole, they most certainly cannot. And, I do not see how insurance dollars would serve to mollify public outrage against their client. An actual acceptance of responsibility, and her or her business coughing up the money would go much further towards such mollification. How much responsibility is one actually assuming when the responsibility comes in the form of someone else’s money?
“How much responsibility is one actually assuming when the responsibility comes in the form of someone else’s money?”
I’ll have to get back to you on that. The Clintons are busy right now, and I am waiting on their reply..
JD, let me not misstate what you are asking about responsibility – are you asking why anyone would cut Drew a break for taking some some responsibility vs. her taking total or none? Because if you want to know what I think of Drew’s sense of responsibility, I haz sum lolcat spellng for you.
My opinions notwithstanding, I think there is understanding by the Mob(!!0!1 ONOES11!!!), or rather, the public at large, that there are extra-legal payments Drew has faced and will face, in loss of good-will of the community, affecting her business and general claims to reputation and social standing.
So that, plus admission, and trying to settle the matter and ::cough:: move on, as it were…people want a price paid, and they want peace.
#9 et al … “trepidatiousâ€Â
(… in rather a scornful tone)
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean –
neither more nor less ….
JeffG?
Wherever you are, trust me, don’t look under the sundials. There’s cheeze and badgers under there.
SarahW – I am saying that convincing her insurance company of a fact set that would make them pay out on her behalf is not taking the least bit of responsibility for her actions. I agree they want a price paid, but that is not what insurance dollars are for. What you describe is punitive in nature, and as such, not covered by the insurance contract. My position is that the people that committed this intentional wrongdoing, in order to make their symbolic acceptance of wrongdoing, have to actually sacrifice, via their own wallet, lifestyle, etc … Convincing their insurance company to provide coverage for actions that fall outside of the coverage provisions in order to get them to make payment does not strike me as accepting responsibility, in fact, quite the opposite.
Law-talk is damn interesting!
/not sarcasm
AKA, MOAR!
You’re putting a layman’s spin on things that lets someone like me (hardwired to suspect lawyers and their ilk) understand how and what lawyers do. I might start thinking lawyers are people or something if you all keep this up.
Please do.
I do not believe this