In November, jurors decided Drew was not guilty of the more serious felonies of intentionally causing emotional harm while accessing computers without authorization. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on a felony conspiracy charge.

Now the Judge questions whether charges should even have been brought against her period.
He's threatening to throw what's left of the case out!


The reason she has faced so many different crimes is because the DA cant get a prosecution.
They say, "oh, that didnt work. Lets try this one!"

It's harassment!

you said....Now the Judge questions whether charges should even have been brought against her period. He's threatening to throw what's left of the case out! ...that is not what the article said. you twisted it. I'm sure they could have reasonably charged the woman as an accessory to the suicide as well...now how much proof they would have...we don't know

the judge referred to the act didn't fall under the charges charged...not that there shouldn't be charges...unless I missed something in the article

It's not a good thing for the prosecution when a judge says that.

The DA went for a felony charge.
Wrong charge.
Waste of taxes.
Nobody brought back from the dead.

you are twisting what was said....the judge did NOT question whether charges should even have been brought against her period

he was referring to the wrong charges brought against her...not that there shouldn't be charges against her

in this case the D.A.'s charged her with the wrong crimes and probably didn't have it all together anyway.

cyberstalking and harassment are crimes...just as stalking and harassing in person. and should be charged as such

as for the childish actions of an adult...I imagine some people are thinking she's an idiot and have little respect for her and she will have to live with acting like a child and being a poor role model for her children

You cant try them for one crime and change the charge at judgement time.

It would result in a new trial!

did I say that??? NO. they should have charge her with the correct charge to begin with...but the judge didn't say she shouldn't be charged at all

now the catch why they may not have prosecuted the woman for the suicide is because of intent. if there is no intent on driving the child to kill herself...then they may not be able to charge with it....there would need to be proof of intent. the intent of harassment can be proven...but not for suicide

A federal judge on Monday questioned whether prosecutors were correct in bringing charges against a Missouri mother who was involved in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor who ended up committing suicide.

U.S. District Judge George Wu had been scheduled to sentence Lori Drew on three misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. However, Wu delayed sentencing until July 2, saying he wanted to review the testimony of two prosecution witnesses.

Wu squared off with Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause for more than an hour about a defense motion seeking to dismiss Drew's conviction. The judge wondered whether Drew should have been indicted under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which in the past has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases.

"Using this particular statute is so weird," Wu said.

He also was concerned that sentencing Drew for violating a Web site's service terms might set a dangerous precedent. He said millions of people either don't read service terms, as happened in Drew's case, or give false information.

"Wouldn't that constitute a misdemeanor if the court adopts the government's position in this case?" Wu asked.



Sounds to me like he mocked the DA!

FOR FILING THE WRONG CHARGES!!!!!!! NOT BECAUSE SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED AT ALL

let me know when you are done twisting the story....

They shouldn't have made such a big deal out of it.
But, when you cant get a story-line on Law and Order you're forced to get public attention through the media any way you can get it.

Esp. when its tax payers money they're spending.

wow...back to the Law and Order...running out of things to twist?

You know a child is dead as a result of the actions of this adult woman.

But for her actions the child would be alive.

Fanta...you accuse others of all sorts of things and I am not going to waste my time with you on this any longer. You are clearly either deliberately ignoring the facts of this case or just plain trolling to get a reaction. Either way it's insulting to your fellow posters and the readers of this thread.

I don't what the correct charges are here, but that piece of sh!t of a woman should pay for what she did. What she did is no different than taking a gun and shooting the girl, and then saying, "I didn't mean to kill her. I was shooting over her head. I was only trying to scare her".

What makes matters even worse is that Lori Drew was the girl's neighbor. She knew the girl and the girl was taking anti-depressants and had ADD.

It's ironic. It's a St. Louis case but it's taking place in California due to the fact that MySpace is there.

why should people care these days????? what a sad statement on socity that a so called adult person could act that way to the child

And possibly get away with it scott free.

who is scott???