(Hartford-AP) _ 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. They wrote on behalf of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old Windham resident with no prior criminal record convicted in January of four counts of risk of injury to a minor.
[...]
While prosecutors insist she is guilty, some experts believe that the lewd images were caused by unseen spyware and adware programs, which critics call one of the top scourges of the Internet.
The 28 professors who signed the letter want an independent investigator brought in to look at the case, and they want Amero's sentencing delayed until that investigation is complete. Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane won't say whether that's a possibility.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Professors urge indie investigation in Amero case
Outraged over the apparent railroading of Julie Amero in the classroom porn case, a group of computer science professors are stating their support of an independent investigation in the case. From WTNH.com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What is remarkable is that jurors (according to interviews this week) seem to have completely disregarded where the porn came from - and remember that the prosecution actually showed the jury pornography from the sites that the popups actually linked to, not the popups themselves...so this was FAR more explicit than what the handful of kids claim they saw.
The jury apparently based their verdicts on their perception that Julie should have done more to prevent kids from seeing the popups, like unplug the computer. The jury never saw a diagram of the layout of the classroom (which shows that the computer in question was far away from students and pointing away from the class).
The Norwich Bulletin has published transcripts of the whole trial and the sense that this is a ridiculous witch hunt is even more clear when reading the transcripts.
I have trouble understanding how a prosecutor can work so diligently to ensure an obviously blameless woman get convicted. Aren't they supposed to look at the facts of the case that aren't admissible and make a judgement about the case, or is this guy simply a "win at all costs" fucking "lawyer"?
And then they wonder why people hold their profession is such low esteem.
Post a Comment