Julie Amero logged in to look at her AOL mail and, about six minutes later, either she or one of the students visited various websites about hair products or hair styles. Now one can reasonably ask why Julie was checking e-mail, or for that matter surfing the web while she was supposed to be teaching"

Who testified that she was surfing? And though one can reasonably ask, one shoulsd have a factual basis for the claim. No?

"In fact, she spent most of the day logged on to the Internet ? not just logged on, but actively surfing"

Again. What is the basis for this claim? Are you suggesting that during her break while soliciting help from 3 teachers and a sub that she was surfing? Why would she be desperately seeking help to stop the activity in that case? A sinister ruse?

Not suggesting that at all. Indeed, the evidence is murky about what she did in reaction to the incident... how she solicited help and from whom. I am waiting for the trial transcript for more detail, but as to her reaction, I relied on the published reports, most of which are linked in the article.

"And why were her students allowed to be surfing Internet websites about hair styles? " How do you know they were her students?

The defense forensics indicated that the surfing occured AFTER she logged into her AOL account. So it is reasonable to conclude that either she or someone in her class was doing the surfing.

"In fact, Julie Amero had been reprimanded for not paying enough attention to the students and instead just web browsing while in class."

I spoke with sources who worked with Amero in the school. I am not speaking here about the incident that lead to the charges here, but in general. This was prior to the incident.

So you're saying that someone in authority came, saw the porn pop-ups and told her to pay more attention to the students? Odd, no? Or was this during the next two days when the school administrators were setting her up?

"The substitute teacher said that she immediately stepped in and shielded the children from the images, pushing them away or physically blocking them from seeing the images. As she tried to close the pop-ups down, new ones would pop-up. She walked down the hall to get the assistance of another faculty member, who advised her that there was nothing that could be done. Meanwhile, of course, the hard-core porn was popping up on the computer for all the seventh graders to see. "

Really. A screen situated in the corner of the room facing an outside window is visible to the class? Were they standing outside? Was class in session when she walked out?

Apparently, students testified and told their parents that at least 10 of them saw the porn images on the screen. Indeed, this is why Amero was originally charged with 10 counts. Why 6 counts were dismissed is not known to me.

"and the log data indicates that Amero had continued to use the computer for the rest of the day ? browsing lots of other sites, unrelated to porn. Oh yeah, and unrelated to her work as a substitute teacher. In fact, it appears that Julie continued to browse the web all day ? even after the pop-up incident."

There were two different reports - one in the local and national news, and one based on the forensics about whether there was surfing activity AFTER the pop ups. According to the news reports, Amero stayed online surfing porn - something I discount. The forensics appear to indicate continued browsing AFTER the pop ups, and interviews with staff indicate that Amero continued to surf until the end of the day.

Is that right. And you know this because somebody watched her over her shoulder? Maybe it was the help that never came? Or the teachers who didn't raise a finger? Or the vice-principal who found it so significant he never bothered to check?

So far, I dont know exactly what Amero or the staff did in response to the porn sites popping up. There are conflicting claims here based on media reports. Some claim that Amero did nothing, some claim that she physically pushed the kids away, some that she sought and did not receive help. The transcripts should reveal what evidence the jury heard, but that may or may not comport with what actually happened. My problem is that the jury might have convicted her based upon how she REACTED to the porn, rather than based on whether she deliberately surfed or clicked for porn - and that would render the forensics irrelevant.

This information has veracity because... [please fill in the blank].

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/434/34333#34333