It will be difficult to draw the line between constitutionally protected free speech and conduct that is illegal.

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the idea of using a fraud charge to tackle the unusual case was “an interesting and novel approach.”

“But I doubt it’s really going to lead to the type of punishment people really want to see, which is this woman being held responsible for this girl’s death,” she said.

Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common.

“This may be a net that catches a lot of people,” she said.

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney who specializes in privacy and free speech issues for the legal advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the potential of this case to set legal precedent criminalizing online speech is worrying.

“The right to speak freely online is hugely important. Whistle-blowers create pseudonyms,” Opsahl said. “So do many people who anonymously report on corporate or government bad practices.”

I gather it is being reviewed now, but it doesn’t bode well when all the local talent is shrugging their shoulders.

Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The Drews need not have intended her ultimate undoing.

As suggested earlier, she could have had a reasonably predictable nervous breakdown given her history which was known because of the familiarity between the two teenage girls and their families which was exacerbated by the, then current, fit of pique.

It was an accident waiting to happen, as it were.

Lori Drew smells like a sociopath.