Finally, we learn the name of Evil- Lori Drew.

You, and all those others voting for “troll” may well be correct.

Not least of the reasons for that is that because this story scrapes open some of my own scars, so I keep trying to walk away from it. Otherwise I get far too angry for my own good.

Alas, I can’t quite keep that resolution.

FWIW, I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread again - if anyone has a comment they want me to see, they will do better to email or PM me. I don’t pretend that I will be able to stay away from this thread, but I want to avoid the constant reminders of it, at least. I’m sorry if that means I’ll be missing your posts later on in the thread.

Any link or summation available? I’d love to hear the lawyer’s “official” story.

MHIC may be a troll, but whoever it is does fit the profile of a sociopathic drama queen. I can easily envision Ms. Drew as someone who is crying out for attention, attempting to justify her deeds by going public with all the crazy stupid shit going on in her brain. It’s analogous to O.J. Simpson and his “alleged” armed robbery, which took the spotlight away from the Goldmans publishing his book; he doesn’t give a shit about the consequences as long as he can be the center of attention.

Hopefully we’ll discover the truth soon.

[

](http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/58703BE04D620959862573A7004C5AF3?OpenDocument)

Troll or not, like I said, that’s probably the way she justifies it to herself.

Her logic is that Megan was ruining Sarah’s life by (allegedly) saying mean things about her. Megan, OTOH, should have shrugged off the mean things that were said to her. Sarah was vulnerable and needed protection, you see.

Forgive the double post. But, if the real Lori Drew is the author of that blog, perhaps what we’re seeing is deep, deep denial.

People are generally inclined to accept guilt, even when it’s not really necessary. And death shakes up a person’s world view. It’s not unheard of for someone, upon hearing of the death of someone they didn’t like, to wonder, “Should I have been nicer to them?” or at least, “Was it worth it to hate them so much? If I’d known they only had a few years left…”

Lori might simply be unable to accept the enormous consequences of her actions. The defense of her motives and attacks on Megan’s character might spring from a frantic need to justify Megan’s suicide to herself, to tell herself that it couldn’t possibly be her fault in any way, that she did what she did for a noble reason – protecting her daughter, who herself could have suicided as a result of being bullied – and that Megan was a menace to society and deserves no sympathy, and her parents were negligent, and all the rest of that bull.

Perhaps she can’t admit culpability, because that would mean admitting that she’s the lowest of the low. And that would be a hard thing to face. Accepting it might drive her to suicide herself, so denial would be self-preservation. She does sound like a drama queen herself (even if she did have a valid grievance against Megan, who’d have listened to this hysterical cow?), so blaming others is probably par for her.

That’s if she’s the person posting on MHIC, of course. If it’s not her, then we’re looking at the troll of all time. Right at the peak of a hot, and hot-button, issue, someone posts in defense of the already-despised perpetrator, giving everyone a forum for their outrage, and gives more and more of the same in multiple replies, never letting it die down. And does this knowing that they have the perfect cover – impersonating someone who became notorious for impersonating someone else. If it’s really not Lori, who’d believe her when she said, “No, I didn’t open a blog pretending to be a teenager”?

Doesn’t MySpace have chat logs?

Local authorities investigating the meganhaditcoming blog - Lori Drew denies involvement.

Rilchiam–I agree, IANAP, but I read that blog as Lori trying to minimize what happened by putting the onus onto Megan. It’s like she’s pushing away any responsibility for her actions and putting it all on Megan. While I don’t think Lori tied the noose, I do think she bears some responsibility for this. Most people around suicides carry heavy guilt–if only I’d known; if only I’d gone to the movies that night with him etc–this is a taking on of guilt that they should not feel. But Lori is doing the opposite, and in that (if this blog is hers and to me it feels like it is–I could be completely wrong), she is revealing that denial to everyone else, but not to herself.

Sad, sick woman. Poor Megan and all those who loved her. I don’t see any healing happening here. And I wonder what happens to Lori in 30 years when she is in a nursing home or similar–will she look back on this and then feel remorse and regret? Or will she go through her life expending incredible psychic energy pushing this away? Sad.

That article only briefly mentions the blog and just says that Drew’s father claims that his daughter isn’t behind it. Not the same as Lori denying it.

The father quoted in the article is Lori Drew’s father, who has been speaking for the family throughout this event. Curt Drew has not spoken to the press to my knowledge.

So, lawyerly types, what are the prospects for a (successful) civil suit against the Drews? What sorts of damages would be sought? (Ignore, for the moment, that, I believe, the Meiers said that they won’t pursue any further litigation options.)

There’s little question on the technical side about what happened. What’s hard to say is who had access to the account in question, and of those people, who typed the messages, who knew about them, and who had no idea what was really going on.

I can state with authority that someone logged onto these boards under the Zebra ID this morning asked, “Doesn’t MySpace have chat logs?” The mods could even pull IP records and possibly verify that the message was posted from a computer in your house. But if you don’t keep that computer locked, and other people have access to it, and somebody else knows your SDMB password–then it’s hard to say that you asked that question.

FWIW, Paul Harris on KMOX says the blog contains info that he believes was not released to the public.

From the linked article:

This might be a bad, bad idea.

I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I can definitely see them winning damages in a civil suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain and suffering, etc. If I were the Drews’ homeowners insurers, I’d be telling them to shut the fuck up about it because she’s not helping her cause.