Proof that the Julie Amero Jurors are completely clueless

..wow, just when I thought I couldn't be made more annoyed by the overwhelming display of unfettered stupidity with regards the Julie Amero witch-hunt, along comes some new horror to ensure I'll be punching that bag in the yard all weekend.

And by bag, I mean sack of stuffing, not some old woman.

Check this out - one of the jurors involved in hanging Julie Amero out to dry decided to send an email to a guy from PCWorld - unfortunately, he'd have been better off not bothering. Why? Because he did so under the pretense that he be "left anonymous" by using his online nickname, as opposed his real name.

BEEEEP! MISTAKE, CONTESTANT NUMBER ONE!

It's already clear this guy has no clue, because it's hardly the most anonymous sounding username, is it? Thirty seconds Googling him, and I'm reasonably certain I know

* his real name
* his website
* what he looks like
* that he recently had surgery
* where he lives
* a bunch of other random stuff, including the sites he hangs out at and the level of technical knowledge at his disposal

Off to a flying start, aren't we? Oh, but it gets better.

Go out. Buy a piece of wood. A real hard one.

Clamp it down with a vice, then take a good few steps back for the run up.

Put your head down, then run these words through your head as you charge towards one seriously soon-to-be smashed up piece of wood:

"The bottom line was that it didn't make a difference who or how the porn sites showed up on the computer."

....oh God........need to kill.....rising.......anger......going through roof......incentive to commit random acts of violence to make me feel better....satiated by fifty straight hours of Tekken 3.....

/ goes away for twenty minutes, then comes back

....gnaaah. Sorry, it's no good. We have uncovered something spectacular here - a black hole of complete stupidity, where all sanity and common sense is sucked into it's inescapable jaws, chewed up and spat out, and finally converted into more pieces of idiocy such as

"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."

GAH! What the Hell does that last sentence even MEAN?!

This is NOT some woman sticking a hornyporn DVD into the player for an evening of hawtness! This is a SUBTITUTE TEACHER, expressly INSTRUCTED by the guy who gave her the logon details to NOT SWITCH IT OFF, ASSAULTED WITH POPUPS THROUGH NO CHOICE OF HER OWN!!!

"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."

She DID! What part of the trial did you fall asleep in - like the judge - when it was mentioned that she was PUSHING THE KIDS AWAY from the screen?

"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."

......stop, please stop. Where is this clown getting this from?

There's more, but to conclude we have a guy who can barely string a sentence together, faulty logic, HORRENDOUSLY incorrect statements (ironic considering he opens his salvo with a rant about "reporters misquoting facts") and the amazingly silly assumption that by using his nickname, he is somehow "anonymous".

There's a promised interview with the supposed techno-genius responsible for the "hi-tech" crime division that effectively buried Julie Amero. Read all about him here. A notable quotable:

"Apparently, Lounsbury and his partner were forgiven for contributing to the delinquency of minors, driving intoxicated, generating pornographic materials and whatnot. Reasonable doubt is not required when none exists.

So Lounsbury at about that time became the department's cyber-crime expert. The Department snatching the keys to the department's love van away from him and giving him what they thought might be less tempting material to work with."

Hey, I've got a job suggestion for you and it involves asking me whether I want a shake with those fries.