Juror Speaks: Teacher in Porn Case
A juror in the Julie Amero porn pop-up case sent me an e-mail. He thinks Amero was guilty of not protecting the children in her classroom and wanted to give me his rationale for the guilty verdict. His words in a sec.
Julie Amero's Dilemma
If you're not familiar with Julie Amero's problems, you can catch up by reading "Woman Faces 40 Years for Porn-Infected PC (Crazy, but True)" here.
It's a longish piece, but here are the basics: Amero is a substitute teacher in a small Connecticut town. The PC in the classroom where she was subbing was infected with spyware and malware, and several children were exposed to inappropriate content. Amero was convicted of not protecting the children.
The Juror's Words
The e-mail from the juror, ConnYankee1951, came as a complete surprise. He said he subscribed to my PC World newsletter and proceeded to talk about why he voted to find her guilty. (He asked me not to reveal his real name and to use his nom de plume instead.)
Through sources with access to court transcripts, I was able to verify that ConnYankee1951 was definitely on the jury that convicted Amero.
Here's exactly what he wrote in his e-mail to me, including typos (I've inserted my comments in italics):
"I was on the jury and yes we did find her guilty."But everything seems to be misquoted by the papers and reporters envolved. The bottom line was that it didn't make a difference who or how the porn sites showed up on the computer."
According to the trial transcript, Amero testified that she made every attempt to keep the children from seeing the images. In fact, a number of children at the trial testified that she had attempted to block them from seeing the screen. Also, another substitute teacher testified that Julie had asked for help in the teachers lounge.
"The fact that a teacher in a public scol system did absolutly nothing to keep it away from the children is what was wrong. Yes we were told that she was given no permissions to turn off the computer, she also said she was not allowed to use any other school equipment."If a 40 year old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?"
At the trial Amero testified that she didn’t, in fact, know how to turn a computer on or off.
"If you and your wife were watching an xxx rated movie the you put into the dvd player, you powered it up and you hit play, then went into the other room for a snack and your child or grandchild entered the room would you expect your wife to stop the dvd or just let it play because she didn't start it. No you would be upset as all get out."Even giving Julie the benefit of doubt, not knowing enough about a computer to be able to turn it off. Some paper and tape would have covered the screen or a coat or sweater, it was October after all.
"Finally she was pronounced guilty because she made no effort to hide or stop the porno, not just because she loaded the porno onto the machine. Going to the history pages it was obvious that the paged were clicked on they were not the result of pop-ups."
Actually, the defense expert at the trial testified that the sites visited were from pop-ups.
"Each web page visited showed where links were clicked on and followed to other pages. Pop ups go to sites without change lnk colors, as in used links."
That’s incorrect. Pop-ups show as a changed type color, just like a normal site visit.
It's Your Turn
There's plenty of room for your thoughts in Comments below.
Tomorrow: Comments from Detective Mark Lounsbury, the crime prevention officer with the Norwich Police Department.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
Even taking this juror's statements at their face value (while recognizing that the judge wrongfully suppressed exculpatory evidence) I still see reasonable doubt.
If this juror's statements are indicative of the sentiments discussed in the jury room, it's appalling to think that this woman was convicted simply because the jurors wouldn't want someone who couldn't figure out how to turn off a computer to be teaching children.
Now, I haven't read the court transcripts. I don't even live in Connecticut. I have, however, been a victim of malware. My only wish here (besides seeing Mrs. Amero's conviction overturned), is that the jurors who convicted her never access the internet again.
After all, I wouldn't want someone to serve on a jury who isn't smart enough to determine the meaning of the phrase "reasonable doubt."
Signed,
TexAtty
Injustice. Horrible. Whether the teacher was inept enough to not know how to turn off a monitor, the negligence was on the school's IT staff/team. They should keep those computers well filtered. Whether it is software that gets updated per PC, or a system-wide filter at the router/gateway, their incompetence is what caused the scene. We are talking about who brought the gun to school... Not who shot it. Root cause is slacker administration. Not some dolt who doesn't know how to cover a monitor or unplug it. Simple question: In light of where she is now, would she risk ruining the computer by yanking out the power cord? Or would she have done things just the same? Stupid question, but worth asking...
My wife is studying to be a teacher, I sent her this and told her never to touch a computer in the class room for any reson. The juror apparently ignored the testimony of several people who said she tried to stop the pop ups and prevent the childeren from seeing it. This is an outrage and a mockery of our legal system, I think the DA who brought this to court should be the one facing jail time.
My wife is also in a graduate program for teaching. When I originally told her the story, her reaction was naturally that Amero should not be convicted for popups that people with technical expertice can easily explain. However, when I told her the part about Amero leaving the classroom to get help, her thoughts changed. Her thoughts were that if that's what really happened, she didn't think this case was about porn at all. it is about a teach who does not have the responsibility to handle our country's youth. You should NEVER leave a classroom of kids alone for any reason. Stay there, tell the kids not to look. Something. Every school room I've ever seen has a phone. Ask the kids how to use it if you don't know... kids are smart. The point is she handled the issue incorrectly and thus could have been a danger to kids in more than just porn. What if something more serious happened? How would she have handled that? Whether she deserves a ton of jail time is a different issue
The cop who testified either committed perjury or deliberately mis-represented himself as an expert. The prosecutor deliberately provided false testimony to the jury or will immediately file a motion to vacate the conviction. The prosecution had absolutely no way to ascertain if the links were clicked on. The prosecution was so scared of finding out the truth that they never even bothered to scan the computer for adware, trojans, spyware, or viruses.
A federal investigation needs to be launched into collusion between the school board, the DA, and the police in Norwich.
The statements made by this jurist are indicative of the way this entire event has been viewed by the folks whom we entrust not only with our children, but upholding the principal’s of democracy.
The statement
“The bottom line was that it didn't make a difference who or how the porn sites showed up on the computer."
How can anyone expect a fair trail based on factual evidence when the jury is thinking in this manner?
This is exactly what the problem lies:
"The bottom line was that it didn't make a difference who or how the porn sites showed up on the computer."
That means by definition, a perfectly innocence person could be sent to jail simply because his/her (possibly) inability/ineptness of turning off the monitor? Are you joking? Where is "the benefit of doubt" that ConnYankee1951 is so generously given?
Let alone the fact that he didn't even notice those *children at the trial testified that she had attempted to block them*
These jurors should never be a parent since they are obviously living in a bubble -- According to recent study, 42% of children ages 10 to 17 have been exposed to porno on the internet last year and 2/3 of them were due to popups and mistyped URL.
I think we can all agree that the vast majority of jurors in our country are incapable of disseminating anything meaningful that is presented to them. The last 10 years of ridiculous high profile court cases should be enough to substantiate that in itself.
If I had my druthers I would vote to have the jurors breeding rights revoked......
Connyankee1951 should be ashamed of himself, ashamed of the jury, ashamed of the court, ashamed of the DA that was elected by his community, and ashamed of his community. If ignorance was a capital crime, no doubt the death penalty should be enforced in this situation. At the least, connyankee1951 should be sentenced to school until he/she/it can spell and type. Absolutely pathetic transgression of basic simple inate intelligence.
I agree with all the above sentiments. It's dumbfounding that this hasn't reached someone with some common sense and put an end to this stupidity.
Side note: if one is going to berate another's spelling, they should ensure theirs is correct.
Have these jurors ever been a victim of pop-ups? They disguise themselves as important system notices. The non-informed will decide that it's in their best interest to click that button. When they click it, WHAM!
A mis-typed URL can lead to a bad site, as well. Try to kill these pop-ups or close these pages, and more pages open up. A "newbie" has no chance against this.
The teacher was in a lose-lose situation. They probably also would have knocked her for staying there and not seeking help.
This should have been prevented by internet security which was obviously not implemented by the school's IT department. Someone needs to be fired there, but not thrown in jail.
This better get appealed to a higher court with a judge who has some common sense and is preferably net savvy.
This is ridiculous! It is the school district, first and foremost, who did not protect the children in their care, by keeping the computers secure with up-to-date security software.
I find it hard to believe that a 40-year-old woman does not know how to turn a computer on or off--and actually all that had to be turned off was the monitor, where the switch is usually easy to find AND turning it off does not violate her instructions not to turn the computer itself off.
BUT, to convict her of failing to protect the students because of not knowing how to turn the computer off--outrageous! Talk about making a scapegoat of someone instead of owning up to your own responsibility!
PS: In over 20 years of owning a personal computer, I have NEVER had an x-rated pop-up pop up.
Completely ignoring any of the facts in this case, is anyone else scared at this e-mail from one of the jurors? Not for nothing, but to have someone with such poor command on the English language being given the power to decide the fate of another is TERRIFYING!!!!!! That's just my opinion, I could be wrong
To the person who has never had an x-rated pop-up. Have you ever had a teenager use your computer????
This whole thing is a witchhunt. Has Norwich, Conn. not advanced at all since the 1600s? This is from the theater of the bizarre. I think everyone in that courtroom should dress the part and put on pilgrim attire and fancy powdered wigs.
This case must be overturned. Otherwise all teachers are at risk for ending up in the slammer if they get a pop-up. Yikes!
Based on Horner's report, Julie Amero is without a doubt innocent of all charges. Its a computer for god's sake, you can tract what's taking place minute by minute with a simple check of the log.
The fact that the defense was unable to present its case because of inadequate filing speaks of defense misconduct that should lead to disbarment.
Further, the prosecution's zelousness here also smacks of misconduct worthy of disbarment.
When all is said and done, Mrs Amero will own this school district and the prosecuter's office.
Insane.
Wow... just wow. This guy wants to "remain anonymous"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
About a minute with my good friend Google and I know his real name, what he looks like, his Wife's name, his parents names(and when they were born and died), his date of birth, his Wife's date of birth, his daughter's name and when she was born, his daughter's first and second husband's names, his grandson's name and when he was born, the town he lives in, how much he weighs, etc, etc, etc.
If this guy's technical know-how and intelligence is indicative of the majority of the population of Norwich... I feel sorry for the community. Almost as much as I feel sorry for Julie and the tremendously unthinkable injustice that she has been put through.
Unbelievable. As a computer information system technician that works for a school board, I can be the first one to tell you that first, just by trying to find an innocent thing like Pooh Bear can turn into a circus. It is so easy to find porn on a system and I see it on a regular basis when I fix systems. Check the computer to see what really happened.
The children testified that she tried to block them and she went to her peers in the staff room to ask for help. What more does she have to do. I know at the school board where I work if a teacher touches a computer let alone tries to unplug it the union would be turning her life upside down.
In my professional eyes she is innocent. She tried beyond a reasonable doubt to stop the kids from seeing anything. I hope her sentience is revoked. This just proves that in some cases the jury system for cases like this needs to be examined. The jury should have been all computer professionals. She would be free right now.
If ConnYankee1951 is typical of the jury, no wonder they found her guilty. ConnYankee1951 seems incapable of either putting himself in her shoes or intelligence. The error started with the the grand jury (did they have one.?), and continued from there.
I, too, hope "Mrs Amero will own this school district and the prosecuter's office" and more. I think she should require them all to be active in-class room substitute teachers for as long as this has gone on...
Vyper, Roughneck had a typo, not unintelligent spelling...
I hate the hindsight reasoning this juror seems to be using.
Julie Amero is at least as guilty, or at least as innocent, as the school administration and those responsible for securing the the school district's computer system. If censorship or control of the district's computer access to the outside world is so important, they should be equally proactive in providing and maintaining current, state-of-the art blocking of offensive material. It is just that simple.
Julie Amero is at least as guilty, or at least as innocent, as the school administration and those responsible for securing the the school district's computer system. If censorship or control of the district's computer access to the outside world is so important, they should be equally proactive in providing and maintaining current, state-of-the art blocking of offensive material. It is just that simple.
Why are so many people so convinced that seeing a moment’s glimpse of porn is going to damage their children? Let's be serious here, most of these kids have their own computers in their own bedroom, and most them probably view porn on the net.
It’s easy for this "intelligent" juror to say she should have done this or that but he wasn't in that class. I'm betting this class is typical of most schools with 30+ students with 1 teacher to supervise them all. I'm willing to bet she was trying to gain control of the class before she even fully realized what was going on (most parents can’t control their own kids at home, how would they fair in a over crowded classroom as a substitute teacher?).
Even if this woman did allow the porn to be watched in class, 40 years is excessive. Convicted killers and rapists get less time! Is this the best our justice system can do, put a substitute teacher in prison for 40 years? This is Deaf, dumb, and blind justice!
Ever heard of the Mangaians?
"Mangaia is an island of lush vegetation, scant income, and many children. Infants are special people, rocked and indulged by all family members. Bare genitals are playfully or casually stimulated and lingual manipulation of the tiny penis is common. Girls' genitals are covered at age four or five, but boys may remain bare until puberty. Privacy is unknown, as each hut contains five to sixteen family members of all ages. Adolescent daughters often receive lovers at night and parents "bump together" so that young children may be awakened by the slapping sound of moist genitals. Although adults rarely talk to children about sex, erotic wit and innuendos are common."
http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/yates/sex/SexWithoutShame.html
The difference being that their children don't experience exposure to sex as trauma. These laws are more about maintaining the sexual introversion of the parents than "protecting" the children.