I just want to say I work for one of the stores listed on this blog. I really have to say that this is absolutely crazy. Had we or I’m sure any of the businesses on this list known of the activities we would NEVER have agreed to do business with them. When you enter into an agreement with a company, small or large you take them at their level of business. If they do a good job, then they are worth the time. If they don’t then you get rid of them.

I assure you that if we knew what horrible things that they did in their spare time, we would have never ever done business with them.

To judge a business for having these people render service is just like judging Wal-mart for selling the bullet that kills a person. Somewhere personal responsibility has to come into play.

i’ll continue to pray for everyone who is involved.

Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim or actually weaken the current law?

I reject the premise of this new law and believe 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 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. It was not harassment at all. It was invited attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.

This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators can use to reclassify their cases to harassment issues. 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.

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?

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. I’m outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.

Those satisfied with this response out of Missouri officials need to think through the effect this law will truly have. It quite honestly has the potential to directly undermine Jessica’s law. It quiet easily gives prosecutors a way out of prosecuting child endangerment and child predator cases in the future.

Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing here.

Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

I don’t understand what would motivate an adult to stalk and harass a child, particularly one who is depressed and medicated. These adults can’t be very smart can they? And to have no remorse because the girl was troubled? That says more about the adult than the girl and makes me very happy that I don’t live near these excuses for humanity.

May Megan find the peace in death that she failed to find in life.

http://www.minger.net/2007/11/18/picture-of-curt-drew/

They removed his picture at that Caldwell page. Hurry before they remove this one.

Also if you use ‘Find Associate’ and enter Curt Drew you will find his picture here:

http://www.coldwellbanker.com

meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/

Lori Drew is one sick individual.
I really don’t blame Curt Drew because there hasn’t been any evidence that he had anything to do with the myspace page. Men typically avoid female catfight drama at all costs. I bet he didn’t even know about it until his foosball table ended up in his driveway. Wifey Lori probably carries his balls around in her purse.

Lori Drew (Shreeves)
Big Shoal Elementary School, Kansas City, MO, 1964-1971
Linden West Elementary School, Kansas City, MO, 1965-1968
Winnetonka High School, Kansas City, MO, 1975-1977
Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, 1977-1981

Since the justice system has failed in this case, I think it is just up to people to point out their unease with this kind of immorality. It would be good for us, as citizens, to signal how we feel about taunting children to death. And then calling the police over a fosball table.