I don't understand this.

Remember the Megan Meier case? If not, I'll remind you. Meir was the 13-year-old girl who committed suicide last year after receiving taunting MySpace messages by someone who she thought to be (and had represented themselves as) peers. Turned out, it wasn't her peers, it was her adult neighbors.

A lot of people were outraged about this, me being one of them. It's sometimes referred to as "the internet suicide case" or likewise, but to me, the key was never the tools used, it was that grown human beings--let me rephrase that...

Grown up creatures had nothing better to do with their time than to band together and try to hurt a little girl. There's a trial going on for one of those creatures right now, and the judge in same...

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu told attorneys he was leaning toward excluding the evidence [of the suicide] from the trial of Lori Drew, who is accused of using a fictitious profile on the social networking site to drive Megan Meier, her daughter's former friend, to hang herself.

Emphasis mine.

"I don't necessarily think the suicide is relevant to the crime charged," Wu said, adding he thought details of Meier's death would unfairly prejudice the jury.

I don't understand this.

(again, emphasis mine)