This Is The Story of a Girl

This is pretty sick and twisted. The end will surprise you.

Here’s the recap:

From blog.wired.com:

Megan Meier, who had trouble controlling her weight and was self-conscious about it, was thrilled when a 16-year-old hottie calling himself Josh Evans approached her online one day and asked to be added to her MySpace friends list. The two became fast friends, though they never met in person. Then one day Evans turned on Meier and began sending her hateful messages. His negative comments grew in intensity and left Megan feeling deeply wounded. Already prone to depression and low self-esteem, she took the attacks on her worth to heart and hung hanged herself.

Okay, sad and tragic. Girl meets boy, girl falls in love with boy, and perhaps in series of events somewhat similar to Romeo and Juliet, girl takes her own life. Here’s where things get down right creepy.

From stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com:

Six weeks after Megan died, on a Saturday morning, a neighbor down the street, a different neighbor, one they didn’t know well, called and insisted that they meet that morning at a counselor’s office in northern O’Fallon.

She told the Meiers that Josh Evans was created by adults, a family on their block. These adults, she told the Meiers, were the parents of Megan’s former girlfriend, the one with whom she had a falling out.

According to Tina, Megan had gone on vacations with this family. They knew how she struggled with depression, that she took medication.

Like I said, the end would be surprising. Interestingly enough, no criminal charges are going to be filed. The St. Charles Journal decided not to publish the names of the persons involved for safety reasons, however some bloggers have been able to out at least one of the people involved based on information within the article. You should really read the entire article because it is well written.

Thanks to Amanda for the original heads on up this.

5 Replies to “This Is The Story of a Girl”

  1. Ms. Drew used the same same exact mode of operation as a child predator enacts in the seduction of a child.

    Drew posed as a member of the opposite sex and spent weeks and weeks luring this girl into a relationship.

    But yet it went further. The adult Drew formed a heated relationship with the 13 year old girl. She worked hard to gain the girl’s confidence. She exploited the girl intimately by posing as a boyfriend. She enacted the same methods child predators use to groom their victims.

    Then the woman emotionally raped this child. She took her supposed love and sexual stimulation and crushed the girl emotionally with them -all while knowing the girl was unstable.

    This adult and her friends calculated the best way to achieve maximum mental distress and then carried out their plan. Even enticed others to join in the destruction of this child.

    There are manslaughter convictions on the books that won based on looser ties to a person’s death than this. Child predators go to jail for following this scenerio.

    Ms. Drew is the clear definition of a child predator. She used the internet to stalk, entice and lure a 13 year old girl into a romantic, sexually sparked, full fledged relationship. She then used that power to inflict Great Mental Harm to this child… A physical rape and mental rape are both as equally destructive to a 13 year old child. Drew knew this (or should have known this) and still proceeded unabated.

    This is so far beyond “Harassment”, this is full fledged exploitation of a child.

    Is the local police of this county out of their minds to think that NO charge will stick?

    Is the local District Attorneys office serious if they don’t think this girl’s rights have been thoroughly trampled by a grown woman?

    Does the DA really expect people to roll over while this woman goes without so much as even a single charge?

    Does even a speeding ticket register a more serious offense than this?

    _____________

    Last of all, the very worst. Ms. Drew remains defiant and indignant. Claims the girl was already on the edge mentally.

    Ms. Drew denies wrong doing and insists she bears no guilt in her actions.

    She justifies her actions as being “protective of her daughter”… Please tell me how she was protecting someone by mind raping a 13 year old child?

    To add insult to incredible injury…. The Drews file charges against the family that lost this child.

    The Drews, in a final act of ultimate hate, seek to hurt this family who lost a beloved child. She seeks to harm them financially….

    Just as MS. Drew attacked an innocent little girl, Ms. Drew now attacks a grief stricken family – again seeking to harm someone’s very life.

    This woman is evil incarnate

    This woman has county officials protecting her…

    The same county officials who would put ANY other child exploiter in jail.

    It would appear we have a few corrupt city officials. Officials who need to be fired

    Perhaps the county detectives on the case need some scrutiny. Did they really investigate this crime thoroughly? Apparently not.

    There had better be some charges…and some heads better role from this complete mismanagement of law enforcement.

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

    This wicked MOA Drew used is the exact methodology that a child predator employs to bait, lure and reel a child victim into doing their will. Child grooming was utilized over weeks and weeks to gain the child’s trust… and once trust was obtained, she exploited it into a relationship. (Another Child Predator Hallmark).

    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. Even her business employee joined in the game.

    Ms. Drew then delivered the final blow that many depressed 13 year old girls would crumble under.

    She mentally raped the child and left her for dead. Better said, encouraged 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.

    She 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.

    If even assisted suicide is criminal intent, driving someone to it should at least qualify as something more heinous than an ordinary parking ticket.

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

  3. 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? Really?

    It is becoming clearer everyday that Lori Drew employed many of the same grooming techniques that child predators utilize to charm their way into gaining a child’s trust. 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 here, 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.

    There are 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.

    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 was enacted partially to inform the public of persons, events, proceedings and reports that may effect the public directly. The 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 someone 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

  4. 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *