, 2007-02-12
Substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for exposing kids to porn using a classroom computer, but the facts strongly suggest that she was wrongfully convicted. Many issues remain, from the need for an independent computer forensics investigation and the presence of spyware and adware on the machine, to bad or incomplete legal work on both sides of this criminal case.
Expand all |
Post comment
Mouse-Trapped
2007-02-13
Anonymous (6 replies)
Anonymous (6 replies)
Mouse-Trapped
2007-02-21
FreewheelinFrank (2 replies)
FreewheelinFrank (2 replies)
Mouse-Trapped - A lesson to be learned
2007-02-22
MikeP (1 replies)
MikeP (1 replies)
Connecticut State Bar
30 Bank Street
PO Box 350
New Britain CT 06050-0350
Phone: (860) 223-4400
Fax: (860) 223-4488
Dear sir/madam,
I request you launch an immediate investigation into the actions if State?s Attorney David Smith as per the case of Julie Amero. He has made numerous false statements to the press, the jury, and the judge in this case. Such misconduct is wrong and needs to be investigated by your office.
In one such false statement, State?s Attorney, David Smith reportedly told the jury, "You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," when referring to the web sites that showed up on Ms. Amero?s computer. Other times he went further, and suggested not only that Amero clicked on the web site links (URLs), but that she physically typed them in.
The CEO of the maker of the forensic software that Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury used to examine Julie Amero?s computer stated that, while the software can find all sorts of files and images, including deleted images or images in unallocated disk space, by keyword or by filetype, [it] does not determine the cause of those files being on the computer (whether caused by malware, intrusion, or direct and willful use), and that it is not the function of [the software] to make that determination."
Nevertheless, both the detective (Mark Lounsbury) and the prosecutor (David Smith) were unequivocal in their statements to the press and the jury that the forensic evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the substitute teacher deliberately ?typed in? the porn sites. They knew these statements were false, yet they made them anyway.
Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury has gone further, though. He reportedly also said that he can differentiate between what is and what is not a pop-up based on the source codes [sic].
Such statements are all false, and are not backed up by the evidence. To make such an assertion to win a case is wrong, it is prosecutorial misconduct, and is therefore cause for disbarment.
In addition we will be petitioning the U.S. Department of Justice to open a civil rights investigation into the actions of the State?s Attorney, David Smith, and Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury in this matter.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/434/34360#34360