Imagine the year is 2004 and this is you...

Imagine you know next to nothing about computers. You're a substitute teacher for a seventh grade class. There's a computer in the classroom and, knowing you're going to be sitting there for a while, you ask a fulltime teacher if you can use it. He logs you in with his password and tells you not to shut it off because you couldn't get back on.

Not that you have a clue about this stuff, but that computer is running Windows 98 and the outdated Internet Explorer 6.02. Its filtering and anti-virus software have expired, and it has no anti-spyware software.

You step out of the classroom for a moment. When you get back the kids are clustered around the computer, checking out hairstyle websites. But one is actually a link to porn sites, and it loads a Trojan onto the unprotected computer.

Suddenly, pop-ups start appearing — X-rated popups.

You start to panic. You're not supposed to shut the machine and you don't realize you can just shut the monitor. You try to block the screen, but — like normal seventh graders — the kids are curious and pushy.

You run to the teacher's lounge for help. Finally you get some and the crisis ends. But the kids have seen the porn. They tell their parents. The parents tell the school.

You tell the school administrators what happened, but they don't bother (or don't know how) to check the computer for the adware you described. Instead they fire you.

And soon you're arrested and charged with four counts of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child." You're facing 40 years in prison.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm)


Sadly, this is not fiction but reality for Julie Amero, a substitute teacher from Norwich Conneticut. And she has recently been found guilty and faces the possible prospect of 40 years in jail for her crime. Now I would imagine we have all fallen prey to the madness that are pop-up's. You know the type. The more you close, the more keep appearing in a mad stream across the screen. This is what Julie Amero was faced with.

Now the school had failed to protect their computers with up to date spyware and anti-virus protection systems, having not kept up with the payments required to ensure their system was protected. However instead of being held liable for their negligence, the prosecutors have instead argued (successfully it seems) that she Julie Amero was actively looking at pornography sites while teaching the class and they have said that she had just not shut down the computer fast enough. Keeping in mind she had been specifically ordered to not shut off the computer. While she could have simply shut down the screen, this was a woman who had no idea about computers and was using an unknown computer (she was a substitute teacher) and she panicked. Having had a stream of pop-up's happen to me a while back, until it effectively locked up the computer with a screenful of a woman's vagina and a male penis in very close proximity. I could not even shut down the computer. My husband, who thankfully is a programmer, managed to get rid of the viruses and the ridiculous amounts of trojans that had existed on my computer for a while and I had failed to update my spyware and trojan protection for a couple of weeks (something he had kept reminding me about and I had just shrugged off thinking he was paranoid). I had no idea what to do or how to get rid of it. So I can understand how this poor woman would have reacted. I was lucky in that my husband was near (fast asleep in bed early on a Saturday morning) and it seems some of the research into a case that I had been doing set off the crap on the computer. It happens and it happens easily.

However Julie Amero's case is one that shows a complete failure of the justice system. The only "expert" allowed to testify at the trial was a police detective:

Detective Lounsbury has completed two two-week FBI training seminars on computer security and other continuing education programs. He is also a certified user of the computer monitoring software ComputerCOP Pro.

Allison Whitney, ComputerCOP's director of communications, explained how her company certifies police officers to use the software:

"They get a full hour of training, and then they're tested," Whitney said. "A lot of these people don't have any kind of training. Their [superior] officers may give them some kind of low-level training. Most of the time we do the training over the phone."
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)


Hmmmmmm...

Sadly for Amero, the expert for the defence was not allowed to testify at her trial due to her lawyer having failed to tell the prosecution what they intended to argue. So the prosecution just shut them down.

Furthermore, the defense's expert witness was not allowed to share with the jury more of the evidence he had amassed. Herb Horner has 40 years of experience as a software engineer and an IT consultant. Over the past few decades, Horner has traveled the world to investigate computer glitches. His clients include a Swiss bank, a major airline and a national chain of hardware stores.

"I like to get to the bottom of things," Horner told AlterNet. "If there's a plane crash, I say don't just bury the bodies and take the trash to the dump. Find out what happened."

If the defense had told the prosecution about Horner's findings earlier, the prosecution might have been able to forestall problems by choosing an expert witness who was qualified to address Horner's testimony. Instead, the prosecution moved to suppress evidence that it wasn't prepared to handle.
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)

If this wasn't so damn tragic, it would actually be funny. Like one of those bad movies where a poor soul is being prosecuted and tried by a bunch of bumbling fools in a poorly written comedy. Sadly, this is not the case and Amero now faces a possible 40 years in jail for her supposed crime.

It stands to reason that the "expert" for the prosecution would have looked at the school computer and realised that it had been infected by spyware and trojans. But amazingly enough, they did not. Instead, they came to their conclusion that she had actively sought out the pornography because they appeared in the web browser address and history.

Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, testified that the computer logged deliberate visits to porn sites. Had Lounsbury actually been an expert, he would have known that a browser's log doesn't record whether a site came up because you clicked on something or because adware opened the link.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm)


You'd think it was common knowledge. Even I, in my computer zero knowledge capacity, am aware that pop ups do put their addresses in the browser logs. Sadly, had Horner and other experts who actually understood computers been allowed to testify, the jury might have heard that you don't actually have to click on the images for them to appear in your browser logs. Trojans and pop-up's such as these are known to list themselves in the browser logs, even if you are just closing them down. It's what they are meant to do.

Lounsbury says he is satisfied that Amero intentionally viewed porn in class because the logs show that her computer accessed various inappropriate sites while she was sitting at the computer.

"I take that at face value," Lounsbury told Alternet. "It's evidence. It speaks for itself. The pop-up defense is a Twinkie defense."

Lounsbury said that Amero must have navigated to pornographic sites in order to have infected her computer with obscene popups. "You've got to get that ball rolling," he said.

Horner's analysis of Amero's hard drive cast doubt on Lounsbury's conclusions. Horner found that the computer had been infected with malware before she arrived.

"She was set up days or weeks before she ever sat down," Horner said.
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)


Horner, the expert with 40 years experience under his belt lists how the classroom computer had gotten infected. Lets not forget, there was no protection at all on this computer and it was running an outdated software package. The school did not even have any net nanny type of program in operation on their computers:

Here are just a few of the red flags Horner discovered in course of his laborious forensic reconstruction: Anti-virus software triggered security alerts as soon as he started copying the hard disk for testing. The computer's Norton activity log showed that by the time Amero came to Kelly, her computer was already infected with spyware from notorious websites including marketscore.com and new.net.

One piece of spyware had been already been tracking the computer for about a month.

Horner also discovered that someone, presumably the computer's regular user, had been accessing eHarmony.com before Amero's visit. As he noted, dating sites are notorious for spreading porn-related adware.

Another program called Pasco showed that malware had automatically redirected Amero's browser. Horner stressed that this particular form of hijacking is invisible to ComputerCOP Pro.

On Oct. 19, someone did an online job search shortly after 8:00 a.m., activating several different malware apps. At approximately 8:15 a.m., someone accessed www.hair-styles.org, Horner suspects student involvement, in part because the next visit was to Crayola's homepage. Over the next several minutes, still more malware came alive, most likely triggered by the hair site.

The user kept surfing, and by this point, "crap was pouring into the computer at the speed of electricity," Horner said. The real point of no return was when the computer received a huge porn-filled Java file. From that point on, the machine was locked in an endless porn loop.

Note that Amero's class started around 9 a.m. Neither the prosecutor nor detective Lounsbury was able to tell AlterNet whether the room had been locked before class, or exactly what time Amero sat down at her desk.

At trial, it emerged that the school IT department offered no protection against obscene content or invasive software. The Kelly Middle School's firewall license had expired, leaving the whole system unguarded. To make matters worse, Amero was working on a very old Gateway PC running Windows 98, an extremely vulnerable setup.
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)



Amazing isn't it? I thought this was all a joke when I first heard of and read into this story. Her possible 40 year sentence is the result of a technologically illiterate Kelly Middle School, technologically illiterate police, a technologically illiterate prosecutor, and a technologically illiterate jury (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm).

Lets all bow now to justice and its failures... :worship: ...

Hopefully true experts will be allowed to testify when her new lawyers appeal her conviction. Andrew Kantor put it best when he said:

The parents of the kids in Kelly Middle School should be demanding that school official explain why they let its Internet filter expire, why no one bothered to update the anti-virus protection, and why no one took the time to install free anti-adware software.

Julie Amero was a victim of a school that couldn't be bothered to protect its computers, of a prosecutor without the technology background to understand what he was doing, a police "expert" who was not, and a jury misled by all of them. "Miscarriage of justice" doesn't begin to describe it.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm)


Indeed..

That is so sad. The poor woman. :(

That really does suck balls.

Poor lady

Well 40 years in jail will certainly teach her to update her antivirus programes

To the womens defense, some computers don't automaticly shut down when you press the of button. You either have to reset them and then you need a pen or something or really pull the plug. Neither is advisable.

They no longer update Windows 98.

Not overly surprised, I keep thinking they're eventually going to get someone in trouble somehow.
I really think it's time for the rats to jump ship now, or at least for large scale protests against such BS decisions, only one way the government will listen.

And she has recently been found guilty....
..., the prosecutors have instead argued (successfully it seems) that she Julie Amero was actively looking at pornography sites while teaching the class and they have said that she had just not shut down the computer fast enough.

That's the way our court system works, Bells ....the prosecutor argues his case, the defense argues theirs, then the jury decides the guilty or innocence. Note your own statement ..."...prosecutors have instead argued (successfully it seems) ..."

No, our court system is not perfect, but until it is perfect, what are we to do? Should court cases such as this be left up to public opinion? Or should one judge have the right to throw out a verdict on a whim?

We have murderers being exonorated even in the face of overwhelming evidence, while at the same time, there are innocent people being put into prison for life for rape with only the victim's testimony as evidence.

What should we do, Bells? Should every case be tried first in court, then in public opinion?

You've presented a pretty good argument, Bells, but I have to wonder what evidence was presented for the prosecution? I.e., are you only presenting one side of this case as a sensational thread for us to argue? We weren't in the court room at the time, so....? And surely you don't want us to decide guilt or innocence based on only what you've present, do you?

As you've presented it, the case sounds like it sucks giant donkey dick, but is that because of how you presented it or because that's how it is?

Just curious, Bells, but would you like all court cases to be tried in public opinion "courts" instead of legal courst of law?

Baron Max

Orcot

Well 40 years in jail will certainly teach her to update her antivirus programes


It was not her computer. She was a substitute teacher (brought in for the day to replace the regular teacher and user of the computer) at a school that had failed to maintain any form of protection for its systems.


The school however have not been found to be negligent in failing to maintain any form of computer protection or to even install software that protects it from pornographic content (eg net nanny which was in existence in 2004). In fact, the school was not even questioned as to why it had failed to provide any form of protection to its computer systems at all... computers that students had access to on a regular basis. And it was a student's search for a hairstyle site when she had stepped out of the room for a few minutes that brought forward the massive amount of spyware and trojans that had already been there before she was even brought into the school to substitute for the day.

I mean what school, with computers in classrooms that have access to the internet, fail to have net nanny, virus and trojan protection updated on a regular basis and what school fails to pay for the registration costs to ensure its systems are protected? And instead of blaming the school for its being slack and down right negligent, they blame the substitute teacher who had only arrived at that school that day.

She is the scapegoat.

She is the scapegoat.

Why didn't the defense prove this to the jury?

See? This is what bothers me about all this ......if you know all this, have evidence to prove her innocence, why didn't the defense attorney have it also? ..and present it as you have?

See? Something is just ....wrong ....here with this thread. You're leaving something out, Bells, so as to make this another one of your sensationalist threads to stir us all into a 'shark feeding frenzy' of anger and hatred and violence and.......whatever.

Something about this is all wrong, Bells ......what is it?

Baron Max

That's the way our court system works, Bells ....the prosecutor argues his case, the defense argues theirs, then the jury decides the guilty or innocence. Note your own statement ..."...prosecutors have instead argued (successfully it seems) ..."

No, our court system is not perfect, but until it is perfect, what are we to do? Should court cases such as this be left up to public opinion? Or should one judge have the right to throw out a verdict on a whim?

We have murderers being exonorated even in the face of overwhelming evidence, while at the same time, there are innocent people being put into prison for life for rape with only the victim's testimony as evidence.

What should we do, Bells? Should every case be tried first in court, then in public opinion?

You've presented a pretty good argument, Bells, but I have to wonder what evidence was presented for the prosecution? I.e., are you only presenting one side of this case as a sensational thread for us to argue? We weren't in the court room at the time, so....? And surely you don't want us to decide guilt or innocence based on only what you've present, do you?

As you've presented it, the case sounds like it sucks giant donkey dick, but is that because of how you presented it or because that's how it is?

Just curious, Bells, but would you like all court cases to be tried in public opinion "courts" instead of legal courst of law?

Baron Max
Google it and see for yourself Baron.

In a case, one would expect that she would also be able to present evidence to back up her case. However the judge refused to let her expert witness present his evidence.

As a person who is fairly computer illiterate, I would probably have convicted her as well. But then when I dug a little deeper, I found out that the judge had literally shut down her defence. Her expert witness was prevented from showing the jury actual evidence that the computer had been infected before she was even brought into the school on that day. If you prevent the jury from hearing all the evidence, they can only make a decision on what they have heard. And what did they hear? A police detective, who's sole training was a 2 week course, who had not even bothered to even check if there were trojans and spyware on the computer that could have resulted in the pop-up's. Pretty lax, don't you think? So he said that because the addresses of all those pop-up's were in the browser log (something pop-up's and trojans tend to do when they start popping up.. they implant themselves in the browser logs), he testified that she must have sat there and searched for and opened up the porn sites herself.

Do you think that sounds plausible Baron?

Ever had a computer infected with spyware, viruses and trojans Baron? Take it from me, it's a bloody nightmare. Because once those pop-up's start, they cannot be stopped. I've had one that had imbedded itself so deeply in my computer that turning off the computer did not get rid of the image it had set as my background on my screen. It had not only shown up in the browser logs, but also on the menu option, on my toolbar, desktop, near the clock.. basically everywhere. Could not delete it. And I had done nothing. Had not even clicked on the site. It came in when I was doing a search on a particular medication and to check to see if it was safe for pregnant women to take. My computer had already been infected, but the search and the site I opened to check the safety of the medication triggered it and that was it.

Now lets look at Amero's actions. She either did one of two things to get those images up on the computer that day:

Scenario A: In the middle of class, a substitute teacher decided to surf for thumbnail-size porn images (an analysis of the hard drive showed that's all that ever appeared on the screen — tiny pictures).

Scenario B: A classroom computer running Windows 98 with outdated anti-virus software, no Internet filter, and no anti-spyware software began displaying popups after some kids visited the wrong site.

Assistant State's Attorney David Smith believed Scenario A, despite the ease of verifying Scenario B by checking the computer for adware and Trojans.

The school and the prosecutor declined to do that. Amero called an expert, one W. Herbert Horner. He confirmed everything she said: The computer was infected before she got there, a site visited that morning caused the pop-ups to start, and the porn was the result of pop-ups, not deliberate action.

But the judge refused to let Horner offer all his evidence.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm)



Hmmmm...

I am not saying public opinion should try this case. What I am saying is that she be given a fair trial and have all evidence presented to the jury. Because if you have a jury who don't know how computers work and you only present them with one side of the evidence, of course they are going to convict, as they have done.

The prosecution, because it was unable to prepare an expert witness with the expertise of that of Amera's expert witness, preferred to suppress Horner's testimony (a man with 40 years experience). At what point does this case simply not stink? The detective who was the only expert witness heard in the case did not have the experience or the expertise to check. Hell, the software he was using to look through her computer could not check to see if she had clicked on it or whether it was pop-up's. The jury never got to hear that either Baron.

I am well aware that the justice system is not perfect, but this case has made a total mockery of the justice system. It has made a mockery of the very notion of justice.

Why didn't the defense prove this to the jury?

See? This is what bothers me about all this ......if you know all this, have evidence to prove her innocence, why didn't the defense attorney have it also? ..and present it as you have?

See? Something is just ....wrong ....here with this thread. You're leaving something out, Bells, so as to make this another one of your sensationalist threads to stir us all into a 'shark feeding frenzy' of anger and hatred and violence and.......whatever.

Something about this is all wrong, Bells ......what is it?

Baron Max
Something is "just wrong"? Nooo.. really?:eek:

Yes something is wrong Baron. This whole case is wrong. Read the articles. If you don't like it, google her name and see what turns up. She was an idiot for not turning it off, but she was ordered not to. She did not know she could just turn off the monitor. Moronic, no?

So do you think that deserves a 40 year sentence?

Her defence did not say that there could be trojans in the pre-trial phase. And that is why the judge refused to let her expert testify on her behalf.

Now, lets see, you have a computer in a school and this computer has no protection at all. When this happened, she told them that pop-up's appeared on the screen and she could not stop them. And what do the police do? They don't bother to check to see if there were trojans on the unprotected computer. Not a single check. Ummm.. ok.. ya, I can see why that is her fault.:rolleyes:

And should you be outraged? Yes. In fact, you should be afraid as well. Because imagine if you go to use a computer in a public library for example, and that public computer has no protection at all installed or running. People use this public computer and do internet searches on a variety of things. Some look at some dating sites, some look at search sites, some look for jobs.. anything at all. And each time, spyware and trojans are hiding themselves on the computer. So you come along and do a search on anything at all.. lets say something innocent like a hairstyle site (imagine you wish to change your look).. and next thing you know, the computer becomes flooded with pornography pop-ups. You try to close them and they just keep on appearing (and I can assure you, it is annoying and scary when it happens because you have no control). At the same time, each pop-up starts to appear on the system logs as well. Some kids walk up behind you and see what's on the screen. Their parents also realise that there is pornography on the public computer you are using and call the police. You have done nothing wrong except do a simple search. You then get arrested and charged and the police don't check to see if what you say about the pop-up's is true, instead they say you actively searched and sought out the pornography site because the site addresses have also appeared on the system logs. It can happen anywhere on any computer that is not protected. This is why you should be outraged.

This can happen to anyone. This is why computers should always be protected. However some institutions (be it schools or anywhere else for that matter) don't always ensure their systems are protected and the result? Bye bye to your freedom and say hello to Jack your new prison room mate who asks you to bend over to pick up the soap in the shower.

Dear Bells,

thank you for starting this thread.

Baron thank you for being such a prick (sorry bells!!!)

I damned wish somthing like that owuld happend to old maximus. He is so uncompassionate it is untrue it may actuallt teach him,i pray he is winding us up, anyway back to the point in hand

Didn;t the courts do a charcter asssesment, surely they could ahve used a bit of common sense and put her on a computer training course or something.

Surely she cant get 40yrs for that. kids will see porn regardless, its all part of being a youngster.

The poor lady, she must be devastated, espicially as she seemed overwhelmed in the first place, and things got out of her control. it not like she did anything purposely bad or evil or did any real harm.

it really annoys the shit out of me this sort fo thing and it annoys me more when maximus come out with his usual shite..


~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

...he testified that she must have sat there and searched for and opened up the porn sites herself.

Do you think that sounds plausible Baron?

Yep, sure does!

So do you think that deserves a 40 year sentence?

Well, it does seem a little lenient ....burning at the stake or being drawn and quartered by four big Clydesdale horses would have been more appropriate, but there's just too many fuckin' wimpy liberals in the world these days!

"Justice" was served in a legitimate court of law. All you're saying, Bells, is that you don't agree with the verdict ....and that's your right, to bitch n' moan, but do nothing else about it. Why don't you, for example, hire a hot-shot, multi-million-dollar defense attorney and have him work the case?

Baron Max

Even if she purposely brought up some porn sites and showed it to the kids, 40 years is too damned much. 4 months would be more realistic.

As Zak pointed out, children will see porn sooner or later. People having sex is a natural thing, assuming it was normal porn that came up. Looking at pictures of two people having sex or parts of their anatomy should be in the fucking curriculum.

I don't think I could live in the US. It's unbelievable the way nobody intervenes in things like this. You'd have thought the DA, the judge or anybody with an ounce of sense knew that a computer set up that way was bad news and seriously susceptible to bad things happening to it. Hold the school liable, if anything. Train the woman how to use a fecking PC. Don't send anybody to jail. Tell the parents to take a pill and that little Tommy and Sue will see much more porn in years to come.

Yep, sure does!



Well, it does seem a little lenient ....burning at the stake or being drawn and quartered by four big Clydesdale horses would have been more appropriate, but there's just too many fuckin' wimpy liberals in the world these days!

"Justice" was served in a legitimate court of law. All you're saying, Bells, is that you don't agree with the verdict ....and that's your right, to bitch n' moan, but do nothing else about it. Why don't you, for example, hire a hot-shot, multi-million-dollar defense attorney and have him work the case?

Baron Max

Your an old man, who doesn't care for the well-being of anyone. Compassionate. Your the kind of person who votes for money, not for the well-being of society. Gah, old-people should have their vote taken at 60, before they get too cynical.

It all gives prosecutors a bad name.

A prosecutor who was doing his or her job would have insisted that a computer expert, a real computer expert, examine the computer and find out exactly what happened. This is due diligence, just as a prosecutor is also expected to find out who actually murdered someone, not just try to pin it on anyone who is handy.

WTF?!

How stupid are people? I know from personal experience that a shitload of porn and casino adware can be installed on your computer, WITHOUT visiting any porn or casino promoting sites.

If I were that woman, I would have thrown a tantrum in court, cursing the dumbass judge and jury (and perhaps taking a swing at the baliff). If I'm going to get a potential 40 years in jail, so I don't have much to lose...

And 40 years for showing porn to children? Huh? So if a father gives a porno mag to his curious 15 year old son, he deserves 40 years in jail?

Oh, god, I just cain't believe that y'all really believe that that woman is going to got to prison for 40 years for what happened. If y'all really believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya'.

Seriously, do y'all really and truly believe that, in the USA, that woman is going to be sentienced to 40 years in prison? You really believe that????

Baron Max

I damned wish somthing like that owuld happend to old maximus. He is so uncompassionate it is untrue it may actuallt teach him,i pray he is winding us up, anyway back to the point in hand

I wouldn't wish what happened to this woman on anyone.

Here is the thing though, this could happen to anyone at all. It can happen in any public building that has not updated or maintained its protection software.

Didn;t the courts do a charcter asssesment, surely they could ahve used a bit of common sense and put her on a computer training course or something.
Why would they? She was a substitute teacher who was brought in to replace the regular teacher for that day. Even with computer training, she would still have not been able to prevent the stream of pop-up's that appeared. The people who had used the unprotected computer before her had already set everything in motion before she even got there, through no fault of their own, nor hers. An innocent search triggered it all and the pop-up's started streaming across the screen.

The detective who was the only expert who was allowed to testify was severely unqualified and was using a system that could not distinguish or tell if the computer had been infected before hand, nor could it tell if it was in fact pop-up's that had appeared. Instead, he went by the fact that the pop-up's had embedded themselves into the systems logs (which they always do) and claimed that because of that, she must have searched for the porn... never having actually bothered to check if the computer she had been using in that classroom was even infected. That is all the jury got to hear. They were never given any information about whether the computer might have been infected or not.

Surely she cant get 40yrs for that. kids will see porn regardless, its all part of being a youngster.
Indeed. What amazed me however were the calls that she could have just turned the monitor off before she left the room to get help. I have a 17 month old and he knows how to turn the computer monitor on and off. I would imagine the 12 year olds would have known to turn it on after she'd run from the room to get help. She had been ordered to not turn the computer off under any circumstance. The kids were, by their own and even the prosecutor's admission, trying to push her out of the way as she tried to bodily block the screen, to watch the stream of porn on the screen. It would have been funny as hell to be honest if she had not been arrested, charged, found guilty and could now face a sentence of 40 years.

What I wonder is why didn't the school have any form of protection in place on their computer systems, when they knew the children could access the internet from the classrooms?

Yep, sure does!

You want to know how her side of the events might have come about? It is very easy. Just make sure you do it in your own home and not on any public computer as you could find yourself in the same boat as Amero. And make damn sure there are no children anywhere around when you do. Remember, this was not her computer. It was a school computer, at a school she had just been brought in to substitute for one day:

Turn off all your computer's protection and visit new-hair-styles.com, the site the kids were checking out when all this started. See how fast your PC is infected.
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm)

Try it Baron. I dare you.

Well, it does seem a little lenient ....burning at the stake or being drawn and quartered by four big Clydesdale horses would have been more appropriate, but there's just too many fuckin' wimpy liberals in the world these days!
On second thoughts, try the above in a public library when there are lots of little kids running around. Then you too can experience the leniency she has been given.:rolleyes:

"Justice" was served in a legitimate court of law. All you're saying, Bells, is that you don't agree with the verdict ....and that's your right, to bitch n' moan, but do nothing else about it. Why don't you, for example, hire a hot-shot, multi-million-dollar defense attorney and have him work the case?
You still don't get it?

I don't just disagree with the verdict. I disagree that this farce was even allowed to get to trial. She should never have been tried. She should never have even been arrested.

News of the guilty verdict sparked widespread outrage, particularly in the IT community. How could a 40-year-old woman with no prior criminal record be facing such serious charges over a few pop-up ads?

"The fact that the machine was never scanned for spyware by the investigating authorities is outrageous. In fact, this alone should have resulted in the case being dismissed, as the defense found a major spyware infection by their expert forensic evidence," wrote Alex Eckelberry, the president of Sunbelt Software, a Florida-based firm that makes anti-spyware products.
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)


By all accounts that I have read, internet security experts are basically lining up (to testify) in outrage that this poor woman could have been arrested, found guilty in a trial that was a joke and could now face 40 years in jail. So are lawyers who are experts in the internet security field and they don't even want to be hired, they wish to help her for free. Because anyone with half a brain could recognise that she was innocent and is being tried to appease the anti-porn hysteria that has beset the US and also many parts of the world of late. As even the detective has said:

According to Lounsbury, some of parents whose children were exposed to the porn demanded an aggressive police response.

"You know what people need to understand?" Lounsbury continued. "These were 12-year-olds. They reported [the porn] to their teachers, the teachers went to the administrators who brought the complaints to the network administrators. Of course, the kids told their parents. Complaints were lodged with the police. This isn't China. This isn't North Korea ... we're not Big Brother."
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)

Interesting don't you think?

The school, which had failed to provide any form of protection to its computers gets off scot free. Why or how could a school be allowed to have computers in their classrooms and not have at the very least, net nanny installed? They had no spyware protection. No virus protection. They had nothing installed to ensure that students who use the computers would not be exposed to pornography. Sadly Amero was tried by a lynchmob who were hell bent on making someone pay and she was the scapegoat.

In short, a computer infection (caused by the school's negligence) has now resulted in this substitute teacher facing a possible 40 years in jail. Had she slept with one of the 12 year old students, she might have gotten a couple of years. How is that for irony.

A prosecutor who was doing his or her job would have insisted that a computer expert, a real computer expert, examine the computer and find out exactly what happened. This is due diligence, just as a prosecutor is also expected to find out who actually murdered someone, not just try to pin it on anyone who is handy.
Exactly.

What should have happened was that someone should have checked if the computer had been infected in the first place. Surely anyone with any common sense would recognise that a computer with no protection at all installed and a report of a stream of pop-up's could have been the result of an infection. That they never even checked is ridiculous and what it does show is an over-zealous idiot of a prosecutor who is only interested in getting a guilty verdict.

I just cannot understand how she was even arrested. And then amazingly brought to trial. Had the jury been allowed to hear all of the expert evidence, there is no way she would have been found guilty. This whole case is a sham. Her arrest is a sham and the trial that followed is akin to a comedy. Sadly it is not a comedy and she now faces the prospect of spending the next 40 years in jail for somethign she did not do and had no control over. And this can happen to anyone at all. Be warned. If you ever have to use a public computer anywhere at all, make damn sure it has all its protection systems in place and up to date because this could happen to anyone at all.

Ya' know, Bells, the more I read about this issue, the less I believe anything about it.

I'm beginning to think that it's perhaps like some of those conspiracy theories where all the evidence is twisted and convoluted until it's not even evidence anymore ....just fuckin' lies, outright lies!

And if you really believe that it's true, can you find us the actual law that spells out the penalty of 40 years in prison for not turning off a computer in time??? :D

Baron Max

This is madness. Bells, where can we write to support Ms. Amero? Do you have an address or link or something?

Geoff

The judge refusing evidence from experts is screwing the justice system.

Yeah that strikes me as bizarre, idiotic and intensely frustrating.

"Look, we have some evidence..."

"Well that's for me to decide."

Bugger that.

Geoff

Ya' know, Bells, the more I read about this issue, the less I believe anything about it.

I'm beginning to think that it's perhaps like some of those conspiracy theories where all the evidence is twisted and convoluted until it's not even evidence anymore ....just fuckin' lies, outright lies!

And if you really believe that it's true, can you find us the actual law that spells out the penalty of 40 years in prison for not turning off a computer in time??? :D

Baron Max
That is what everyone is asking themselves here Baron. How can not turning off the computer or shutting down the monitor quickly enough result in a possible 40 year sentence. And yet, this is exactly what has happened. Amazing isn't it?

Is this a conspiracy theory? I wish it were. However this is the sad reality and fact this substitute teacher faces.

This is what the former head of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit thought of the case. It is a very long article, but even he admits that the trial was a farce and that the jury should have been allowed to hear all of the evidence instead of only the testimony from the detective who had no idea what the hell he was doing.http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434

He was highly critical of her behaviour and her teaching methods which had her browsing the internet and her email when she should have been teaching. However this was not what this case was about. It is an interesting article and one that you should read. Even if you think she is guilty, it basically shows how easily this can happen to anyone at any time and how the law in question is dodgy to say the least. He goes through every aspect of the case and he discusses the faults of all involved.

Even the Connecticut model jury instructions simply say that you are guilty of the crime if you “without legal right or justification” permit a person under sixteen, “to be placed in a situation that . . . was likely to . . . impair his morals.” The jury was also told that "morals" means good morals, living, acting and thinking in accordance with those principles and precepts which are commonly accepted among us as right and decent. So Amero could be convicted even if she didn’t type any URLs or click on any porn sites – in fact, even if (and maybe specifically because) she never even touched the computer! Indeed, she could have been convicted even if there was no porn on any of these sites – all the law appears to have required was that the materials be “indecent” – a four letter word would have supported a decade in the pokey. Perhaps it is the government’s theory that not yanking the plug placed the members of the seventh grade class in a situation that was likely to impair their morals. If that was the case, then why present any forensic testimony? Talk about strict liability! Without individually interviewing each of the jurors, we have, quite frankly no idea what the jury convicted her of. I love the law.

Link (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434/3)

Scary huh?

if you wanted to assert that the defendant deliberately clicked on pornographic websites, and offer expert testimony to that effect, it would be incumbent upon you to eliminate the possibility – indeed, the probability – of the existence of malware. Indeed, the police detective himself suggested that a normal procedure would be to look for malware created before or at the time of the alleged criminal acts.
Link (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434/4)

What a shame for Amero that they failed to follow normal procedure for her case. Then she would have never been arrested, let alone charged and found guilty.

So what does the former head of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit think of the decision to find her guilty? Here is the last paragraph from his long article:

An incomplete forensic examination can lead to the creation of an “airtight” criminal case against the wrong person. Next time it could be a senior corporate executive who could face some jail time. Maybe then we will do something about it.
Link (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434/7)

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

And may well have reason to as a form of self protection.

The angry geek gods of the computer world are besieging Norwich, shredding the credibility of a community on the verge of sending an apparently innocent woman to jail.

For this, every teacher in Connecticut should be thankful. Because if a Superior Court verdict in Norwich isn't tossed out and there's a computer with uncertain protection in your classroom, you'd better worry.

If substitute teacher Julie Amero goes to jail, so could you.

-------------------------------------------------------

Filters designed to protect school computers from porn were woefully out of date. Although the assistant state's attorney conclusively told the jury that the porno popups "didn't just happen" and that Amero "purposely accessed these websites," detailed examination of the computer hard drive proves the opposite.

To make his point during the three-day January trial, prosecutor David Smith projected lurid images from the porno websites for the jury to see. These were detailed images that no students saw - and that experts say Amero never "purposely" clicked her mouse on.

The porn storm that took over the computer in the classroom did, in fact, "just happen," enabled by viruses that infected the machine.

"These pornographic sites use these popups that are self-regenerating. You wind up with a popup storm," said Robert Johnston, a certified information systems security professional who has worked for the state's top insurance companies.

"A precedent is being set," said Johnston, who got involved after hearing about the court decision. "This could happen in any school system."
Link (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-rgreen0302.artmar02,0,6599658.column?coll=hc-utility-local)


Sadly, it is not just teachers who are in danger. Anyone could find themselves in a similar predicament if this conviction is not tossed out.

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

Oho! Interesting point. I'm going to mention that to the Prosecutor in my email.

Geoff

Also, this prosecutor is just a crook, plain and simple.

Watch out MetaKron... he might sue you for libel. ;)

What a fucked up case. I can not believe that sentence. Even if she had been viewing porn on purpose and the kids happened to see it, forty years in prison!

I've heard of people convicted of murder getting out after eight years! Especially women who kill their children never seem to do much time. So exposing children to porn is worse than killing them?

What a fucked up case. I can not believe that sentence. Even if she had been viewing porn on purpose and the kids happened to see it, forty years in prison!

I've heard of people convicted of murder getting out after eight years! Especially women who kill their children never seem to do much time. So exposing children to porn is worse than killing them?

We're talking about a country that had a collective heart attack when a nipple was flashed during the superbowl entertainment. Sad thing is, if she had slept with one of the children, she would have probably gotten less.

Her sentencing is this month however and she could find herself facing 40 years in prison unless her defence team can have the conviction thrown out. They are hopeful because if this sticks, then it leaves the door open for a plethora of cases. Basically, no teacher will be safe if they have a computer in their classroom and the protection on the computer is even a few days out of date or is not updated frequently. It also leaves the door open for prosecution for anyone in their work place or who might need to use the internet in a public area (internet cafe or public library for example).

I sent a letter to the senator - I recommend everyone else here do the same.

What age of kids are we talking about? It's just that as far as the 40 years goes, do we know exactly what came up on the screen? Some porn pop-ups aren't just natural sex that every kid will encounter, they can be all the more sickening and scarring.

I sent a letter to the senator - I recommend everyone else here do the same.

Ok geoff that is a good idea.

have you got a copy of the letter you sent so i can adapt it and email it across.

do you have the seantors email address?

thanks geoff

~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

I don't have the letter any more but here's the link:

http://julieamer.blogspot.com/

It has all the relevant addresses on the site.

We're talking about a country that had a collective heart attack when a nipple was flashed during the superbowl entertainment.
That was ridiculous. Big freakin deal if Janet wants to show her nipple.

Sad thing is, if she had slept with one of the children, she would have probably gotten less.
If she's hot, she would have gotten no sentence whatsoever.

What age of kids are we talking about? It's just that as far as the 40 years goes, do we know exactly what came up on the screen? Some porn pop-ups aren't just natural sex that every kid will encounter, they can be all the more sickening and scarring.

They were in 7th grade, so probably around 12 - 13 year olds. The type of images that kept popping up across the screen were described by the prosecutor as:

ccording to the prosecuting attorney, David Smith, Amero's computer began displaying images of naked men and women, couples performing sexual acts, and "bodily fluids."
Link (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/22/questionable-conviction-of-connecticut-teacher-in-pop-up-porn-case/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org%2Frights%2F4692 5%2F&frame=true)


Other reports have indicated the children pretty much saw thumbnail size images.

It's the usual crap that you get when you are infected and the stream of porn starts infecting the computer. And recent studies have indicated that children, especially boys, will have been exposed to more internet pornography during the ages of 12-17 than any other age group. I would be willing to bet that most of them had seen pictures of naked people and pornography on the internet before that day.

But to have her face a possible 40 years in jail for something that was not her fault at all. The computer was infected before she had even gotten to the school to substitute that day and if you've ever had an infected computer, you would know there is no way to stop the stream of pop-up's. The school had not protected its computers at all, they did not even have net nanny installed. No virus protection, no malaware protection, no trojan or worm protection. The school, by their own admission had failed to maintain the payments to protect the computers and had also failed to download any updates for quite a while. She had no idea there was no protection on the computer as she was substituting there for the day. She literally had nothing to do with what happened to that computer that resulted in the porn pop-up's. How she could be held liable is frankly, obscene. And this is a scary prospect as this has set a very dangerous precedent, one that every teacher, librarian, net cafe, anyone at all basically should be very worried about.

I'm aware what it's like, but in truth if you have patience and keep clicking the x, it does close the windows down, there may be quite a few of them but it does end. If it's one without an x then you have to select it on the taskbar and select close(or if all else fails use the task manager to close IE).
Presuming she's just ignorant with computers(which does make me wonder why she's on it) it still isn't really her fault, she shouldn't have been told not to switch it off(I see no reason to be told that) and the school is entirely to blame for not keeping it's computers protected.
I just thought the 40 years they gave this poor scapegoat might be due to the extreme disturbing nature of some popups and the young age of the children that it might scar them for life(If I'd been younger seeing certain popups I dread to think how it could have turned out).
If using a public computer and desiring to avoid embarrassment at what people may assume when seeing these popups; the first course of action is the reset button. I'd hope we all know where it is.
I do completely agree with you however.

Is anyone beginning to believe my assertion that there are some scary people in power?

I'm aware what it's like, but in truth if you have patience and keep clicking the x, it does close the windows down, there may be quite a few of them but it does end. If it's one without an x then you have to select it on the taskbar and select close(or if all else fails use the task manager to close IE).
Presuming she's just ignorant with computers(which does make me wonder why she's on it) it still isn't really her fault, she shouldn't have been told not to switch it off(I see no reason to be told that) and the school is entirely to blame for not keeping it's computers protected.
I just thought the 40 years they gave this poor scapegoat might be due to the extreme disturbing nature of some popups and the young age of the children that it might scar them for life(If I'd been younger seeing certain popups I dread to think how it could have turned out).
If using a public computer and desiring to avoid embarrassment at what people may assume when seeing these popups; the first course of action is the reset button. I'd hope we all know where it is.
I do completely agree with you however.

From what the experts were saying, there was no way she could have closed the windows as it was literally a stream of porn pop-up's.. as in the more she would have closed, the more kept on appearing. There were quite a few trojans and viruses on the computer and they were there quite a while before she ever got to that school.

As for having been told to not turn off the computer, the person who logged her in had ordered her to not turn off the computer as she did not have a login or password to use the computer (she was there only for the day as a substitute). But this has set a very dangerous precedent for every teacher with a computer with internet access in their classroom. What this case and the guilty verdict has ensured is that even if just one child even glimpses at the screen and there is a pornographic image on it, it is enough to have you arrested and charged. Teachers now will have to ensure that the computers in their classrooms are well protected and said protection maintained and updated. And if in doubt, double check if using a computer in a public space, such as a library or net cafe. The school should have been held liable for not having protected their own computers, not a substitute teacher who was there for that day and had done nothing wrong. That computer was badly infected and that could hardly have been her fault.

This whole case is just ridiculous in my opinion. She should never have been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Even if she only gets a suspended sentence, she could end up with a potential sex offenders record and basically her teaching career would be out the window. This case should have never even made it to court. My hope is that the conviction is thrown out and she is found to be innocent. The prosecutor can have the conviction set aside and lets hope he does.. for her sake and for the sake of everyone basically.

Clicking on the X often won't work because the mass of popups slows the computer response so that it can't clear windows as fast as they open new windows, and this inevitably freezes the computer. The user has to pull the plug, at least by disconnecting the Internet.

This is beyond bizarre, I see no logical reasoning behind the verdict.

This is beyond bizarre, I see no logical reasoning behind the verdict.

There is none! I think this entire issue is a hoax perpetrated by Bells. Or else she's so stupid that she can't see a hoax for what it is.

Baron Max

Clicking on the X often won't work because the mass of popups slows the computer response so that it can't clear windows as fast as they open new windows, and this inevitably freezes the computer. The user has to pull the plug, at least by disconnecting the Internet.

Never had a problem with that myself, and believe me I've had a lot of popups, exactly how old are the computers you're using??:p
Also if it slows it usually fails to display the web page, so there wouldn't be any images.

There is none! I think this entire issue is a hoax perpetrated by Bells. Or else she's so stupid that she can't see a hoax for what it is.

Baron Max

Yes moron.

I have perpetrated a hoax and forced the media into complying.:rolleyes:

Clicking on the X often won't work because the mass of popups slows the computer response so that it can't clear windows as fast as they open new windows, and this inevitably freezes the computer. The user has to pull the plug, at least by disconnecting the Internet.

This is correct, it has happened to me several times when I used a PC with poor security protection.

Some pop-ups are more benign than others. However, I have had a very nasty experience with extremely viscious malware which imbedded itself in my computer. I received a stream of pop-ups and site re-directions which I had no control over. Even worse, the malware hogged my mem, meaning that my computer ran at snail's pace.

It was hell to remove. Norton Antivirus couldn't remove it, so I had to do it manually via the Registry. In fact, I remember posting my dilemma here on sciforums.

American justice system sucks donkey balls.

Yes moron. I have perpetrated a hoax and forced the media into complying.

Well, Bells, I haven't seen anything that's even reliable about this case other than the original post. I haven't found anything about this case other than that "discussion forum" where the guy typed it all up as if it was a news article.

Can you give me a link, a reliable link, proving that this is actually a real court case?

Baron Max

American justice system sucks donkey balls.

You say "American", so does that mean that you know of a justice system in the world that DOES NOT suck donkey balls?

Baron Max

Even if I didn't know, it still wouldn't make American system suck any less.
And yes, continental European system is better, if purely for the fact that there is no jury, and any court decision is made only be legal professionals.

Well, Bells, I haven't seen anything that's even reliable about this case other than the original post. I haven't found anything about this case other than that "discussion forum" where the guy typed it all up as if it was a news article.

Can you give me a link, a reliable link, proving that this is actually a real court case?

Baron Max
You're kidding me right?

So all the news articles linked so far are not enough? You actually think this case is a hoax?

Here is a link to the Norwich Bulletin (the local paper where this case occured) and it has all the trial transcripts linked as well. You can read the whole trial if you so wish by clicking on each part of the trial... Norwich Bulletin (http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/NEWS01/702250334)

Although the Norwich Bulletin was criticised by internet security experts in how it reported on the trial, it has published the trial transcripts for those who wish to read it because this case has generated so much interest.

purely for the fact that there is no jury, and any court decision is made only be legal professionals.

But that would only be going backwards.:) Given the choice most would opt for the jury.

So it looks like U.S system would in fact be the better system/

You're kidding me right?

No, I'm not kidding ....but you took it the wrong way. I meant that no one, no court, no prosecutor, no jury, no judge, ....no nothin', would give the woman 40 years in jail for what she did. The media just hyped that up to make it into something sensational.

The obvious (I think?) reason for the "alleged" 40 year sentence is because of the number of kids ...if it was 2 years per offense, and there were 20 kids, then by some fictional-bullshit-idiotic-stupid reasoning, she could get 40 years in prison ......which is so far-fetched that only Bells could or would believe it. Thus Bells posted it here so that she could watch everyone go ape-shit and she could enjoy her little court! See? Sensationalist Bells at work.

Baron Max

No, I'm not kidding ....but you took it the wrong way. I meant that no one, no court, no prosecutor, no jury, no judge, ....no nothin', would give the woman 40 years in jail for what she did. The media just hyped that up to make it into something sensational.

The obvious (I think?) reason for the "alleged" 40 year sentence is because of the number of kids ...if it was 2 years per offense, and there were 20 kids, then by some fictional-bullshit-idiotic-stupid reasoning, she could get 40 years in prison ......which is so far-fetched that only Bells could or would believe it. Thus Bells posted it here so that she could watch everyone go ape-shit and she could enjoy her little court! See? Sensationalist Bells at work.

Baron Max
She's up for sentencing Baron and the maximum she could get is 40 years according to the law of her State. Why do you think there is such an uproar about this Baron? It is because she actually could get 40 years jail. She was found guilty.

I wish it were sensationalism because then it would mean this poor woman would not have to be going through this hell. Read through the links I have given you, even the one guy who headed the computer crime department for the DoJ in the US sees the inherent dangers of this trial and the fact she was found guilty and could get 40 years. He was very critical of her as an individual, but he recognises the law and the trial itself was a complete joke.

As ridiculous as it sounds, she has been found guilty and now faces a possible 40 years in jail. She should not have been found guilty at all, but she was and sadly could end up in jail. Why do you think security experts are literally flying out of Silicone Valley and elsewhere in the IT industry to help her? Professors from across Conneticut are also begging that the evidence be reviewed by an independed expert.

HARTFORD, Conn. --Nearly 30 Connecticut computer science professors have signed a letter urging an independent investigation in the case of a Norwich substitute teacher convicted of exposing her students to pornography on a classroom computer.

The professors, from eight Connecticut colleges and universities, took out an ad in Tuesday's Hartford Courant on behalf of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old Windham resident with no prior criminal record.

Amero was convicted in January of four counts of risk of injury to a minor and faces up to 40 years in prison when she is sentenced March 29.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/03/06/computer_profs_urge_independent_investigator_in_te acher_porn_case/

Christ, she doesn't even deserve criticism.

Is anyone beginning to believe my assertion that there are some scary people in power?

Who doesn't believe there are scary people in power? I know a few names.:shrug:

The obvious (I think?) reason for the "alleged" 40 year sentence is because of the number of kids ...if it was 2 years per offense, and there were 20 kids, then by some fictional-bullshit-idiotic-stupid reasoning, she could get 40 years in prison ......which is so far-fetched that only Bells could or would believe it.

I can definitely see something like that happen.

I had a virus or some trojan hop onboard while visiting a site once that didn't seem like where you would expect to get something like that from. I think sometimes sites can be hijacked by programs (viruses?) that will upload BS onto unsuspecting computers. Any computer geniuses know anything about that?

She SHOULD have at least shut the monitor off. No matter, I doubt she was purposely looking at any pornographic material. The fact that it's very easy for stuff like that to happen, and the apparent negligence of the school in keeping internet security up to date, I think other people should be blamed, if anyone should at all.

I think that laws regarding sex and children tend to get blown out of proportion, and such things could possibly result in a 40 year sentence for exposing minors to pornography. How many of those kids were mortally traumatized, as opposed to those who were probably elated? Only in the paranoid eyes of conservative Christians could such an offense be so grave. It seems in this country, some people have strange priorities.

I think popups, especially pornographic, should be severely regulated by law, if not eliminated. No one needs them. Except people who make money everytime they pop up.

As ridiculous as it sounds, she has been found guilty and now faces a possible 40 years in jail.

Mass murderers often face several death penalties for their actions. How many of those do you think they get?? ...LOL!

She should not have been found guilty at all, ...

That's for the jury to say, Bells, not you or me.

I hope she does get 40 years in prison .....then maybe we can have a review of the justice system and work out some of the idiocy that often occurs.

Baron Max

Update

A Superior Court judge has decided that Julie Amero does deserve a new trial due to the false information that was presented to the jury in the first trial, which led to her conviction.

Flawed testimony by a state expert witness led a Superior Court judge Wednesday to order a new trial for a Norwich substitute teacher accused of surfing Internet porn during class.

Judge Hillary B. Strackbein overturned the Jan. 5 conviction of Julie Amero, 40, of Windham, who was scheduled for sentencing Wednesday at New London Superior Court.

--------------------------------------------------------

The defense claims Amero's computer was inundated with adware-generated pop-up ads, contradicting the state's contention the surfing was deliberate.

Strackbein said, "The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information." She ordered a new trial "in the interest of justice."

--------------------------------------------------------

Assistant State's Attorney David Smith, who prosecuted the case, acknowledged Wednesday the "erroneous evidence," presented to jurors, based on a follow-up examination of the computer at the state police crime laboratory. He gave no indication whether the state planned to pursue the charges against Amero.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007706070374

Update

A Superior Court judge has decided that Julie Amero does deserve a new trial due to the false information that was presented to the jury in the first trial, which led to her conviction.

Thanks, Bells. And this is just one of many such cases/instances of how everyone here, and everywhere else for that matter, jumps to conclusions without adequate info or knowledge or skills or education.

It was a "sensationalist" post in the first place, and escalated from there. It's exactly what the news media does, except they aren't so nice as you to post an update.

Baron Max

40 years? wtf......... even if she showed the kids porn on purpose she shouldent get more than a year or 2 in jail. hell even if she punched the kids in the face 40 years is too much,

in england they let convicted guilty child rapists out of jail within 2-5 years, this just shows how fucked up the legal system is.

shit i only got a small sentence and jail term, and i endangered dozens of peoples lives, and stole thousands of pounds, and i walk free before im even 18.


peace.

40 years? wtf......... even if she showed the kids porn on purpose she shouldent get more than a year or 2 in jail. hell even if she punched the kids in the face 40 years is too much,

Well, the way the law works is by number of offenses ...the more, the merrier. The teacher didn't just show porn to one kid, she showed it to a whole bunch of kids.

It's sorta' like murder ...a guy who kills one person is a bad man, but if he killed 40 people, that's really bad, so we try him for all 40 murders. I.e., he gets 40 life terms in prison. See how much worse that is??

Baron Max

Baron you are Lawful Evil.

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html

Thanks, Bells. And this is just one of many such cases/instances of how everyone here, and everywhere else for that matter, jumps to conclusions without adequate info or knowledge or skills or education.

It was a "sensationalist" post in the first place, and escalated from there. It's exactly what the news media does, except they aren't so nice as you to post an update.

Baron Max

I don't understand why you're calling the original post "sensationalist". When the original post was made (4 months ago) it was completely accurate. The woman was only granted a new trial a few days ago.

who cares if the kids saw porn anyway? and even if anybody does care 40 years is just way too much for that offence.


the law doesent mean right and wrong. the laws are still opinions. not things that are truth, and this ruling is obviously a load of shit.

peace.

who cares if the kids saw porn anyway? and even if anybody does care 40 years is just way too much for that offence.

Any jail time is too much for that "offence". How many of those kids haven't already seen porn pop ups on some other computer?

I found a stash of my dad's playboys when I was in first grade! My friends and I were quite interested in female anatomy. I eventually got busted because one guy took the centerfold home and his mom found it. When questioned, he ratted me out. I didn't do any jail time, though. In fact, my dad didn't even yell at me. I think he was more embarassed than I was.

Any jail time is too much for that "offence". How many of those kids haven't already seen porn pop ups on some other computer?

I found a stash of my dad's playboys when I was in first grade! My friends and I were quite interested in female anatomy. I eventually got busted because one guy took the centerfold home and his mom found it. When questioned, he ratted me out. I didn't do any jail time, though. In fact, my dad didn't even yell at me. I think he was more embarassed than I was.

yeah jail time is way over the top for this case, its ridiculous. yeah parents get embarassed over that kind of thing lol,


peace.

The judge refusing evidence from experts is screwing the justice system.

Seriously. How can a judge justify not allowing expert witnesses?

The police are also at fault for training people with dangerous incompetence in the matter. Assuming the one that testified did what he was trained to, he does not know what he is talking about but thinks he does, and to judges and juries appears to be a reliable source.

The police are also at fault for training people with dangerous incompetence in the matter. Assuming the one that testified did what he was trained to, he does not know what he is talking about but thinks he does, and to judges and juries appears to be a reliable source.

Exactly. The police "expert" said that there was no way she could have gone to those sites unless she actually typed them in - which any 10 year old could probably have told you isn't true. As a result of his lie, she went to jail. It seems like she should be able to sue either the police or whoever they hired to train their "experts".

In any case, has anyone ever proved that children are actually harmed by looking at naked people? It seems like the lawmakers should have to provide some sort of proof that something actually harms people before they outlaw it.

In any case, has anyone ever proved that children are actually harmed by looking at naked people? It seems like the lawmakers should have to provide some sort of proof that something actually harms people before they outlaw it.

This is a good point, and probably the result of a knee-jerk reaction by conservatives still hankered down in their 19th century taboo concerns. Such people believe in the "village raising each child" approach - crap in my opinion.

On top of that, law governing ever growing and widely available media content is still something of a novelty and is entirely too dependant on attempting to draw precident from cases only marginally similar.

At any rate, this case was clear cut mistrial, and likely will result in a dismissal this second time around. Were I Ms. Amero I'd sue the school for undue mental trauma, and possibly countersue the state for malicious harassment or perhaps wrongful arrest.