Ruthlessly stolen (with permission, so you can't beat me up) from this post here. The people in this picture are (left to right) standing:
Chad Loeven of Sunbelt, me, Joe Scalia, Ari Schwartz (CDT), Eric Howes of Sunbelt, Alissa Cooper (CDT), and Eric Davis of Google. Seated: Herb Horner, Alex Eckelberry, Julie Amero, Wes Volle, and Judy and Chip Neville.
In case you're wondering what's going on, while at the ASC Conference I had the extreme good fortune to finally meet a lot of the people involved in the Julie Amero case. While I'm at it, here's a random link to The Julie Group website, which kicks all sorts of ass.
It was truly an honour to meet Julie and Wes, and I was blown away by how excited Julie was to meet everyone, when surely it was the other way around :)
Every single person who did something to help - from the reporters who kept it in the media, to the forums, websites, blogs and of course the Myspace hordes - everyone has contributed to keeping this story from spiraling into a disaster of biblical proportions in their own way (some would argue it already got to that point, but that's for another day).
As Alex points out, this isn't over yet, but everyone should feel pretty damn pleased with the way things have gone so far...
I just saw this article appear via Google news and my jaw nearly fell off:
"Porn Loving Teacher to Get a New Trial" Now, I'm not one for causing a fuss...heh...but here's a nice list of people to contact (and by contact, I do of course mean "complain to") anyway: ckellum@ktvo.com Station Manager 660-627-3333 camini-rad@ktvotv3.com Business Manager 660-627-3333 danmagruder@ktvo.com Web Manager 660-627-3333 mbillington@ktvotv3.com HR Manager 660-627-3333 mspeas@ktvo.com News Director 660-627-3333 cthomas@ktvo.com Assignment Editor 660-627-3333
"NEW LONDON - Judge Hillary Strackbein this morning granted a motion for a new trial for Julie Amero. The judge's decision is based on evidence that shows some of the computer evidence shown at court was inaccurate. A new trial date has not been set. Amero has entered a not guilty plea."
As expected, the judge presiding over the Julie Amero trial has decided a new trial is the way forward. This would suggest the whole thing is going to be then speedily dismissed. It also possibly means those who screwed up the first time round don't have to stand accountable for their actions, but oh well.
"In setting aside the guilty verdict, Strackbein ruled that the witness the state presented as a computer expert, a Norwich police detective, provided "erroneous" testimony about the classroom computer.
"The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information," said Strackbein."
...can you say, "whoops"? The following is also important, for obvious reasons:
"Assistant State's Attorney David Smith argued then that the evidence was "clear cut" that Amero was at fault because she caused the pornography to appear on the computer.
But today, Smith said state would take no position on Dow's motion for a new trial, making it unlikely she will be tried again. Smith also acknowledged that erroneous information about the computer was presented during trial."
That's got to be good news, right? Finally, here's a great picture from The Day.com. I'd love to do a whole "hooray for everything" closing paragraph, but given everything that's happened to Julie Amero because of this I see no reason to clap my hands and cheer wildly. In all likelihood, this will fade out as quickly and quietly as possible for Norwich so that nobody is left looking embarrassed - but that doesn't change the fact that Julie Amero took some serious crossfire in the process.
The important thing to remember here is that someone's life was pretty much destroyed because of some Spyware and Adware - infection files that (let's not forget) were pretty low down on the "danger scale", yet still managed to stir up the biggest shitstorm I've seen in some time.
If you ask me, that's as good a reason as any to resolutely refuse the current trend of Adware and Spyware makers insisting they now "do now harm".
The simple fact is, if you pop up adverts of any description onto a PC, then you pose a very real and present threat. Not to the PC, but to the lives of the individuals witnessing those adverts. A while ago, I wrote this:
"Check out Marketscore and New.net. Not a spectacular score, threat wise - there's plenty of things out there with a bigger, badder bite. Yet in some strange way, both of these two have been tangled up in the Julie Amero case (according to the details filtering out from the ongoing case, they were both present on the infected PC spawning the popups) and she faces anything up to forty years in jail because of some fairly generic, otherwise harmless porn adverts.
My question is, do we need to start applying a "real world" danger ranking to Adware and Spyware? And if so, what other possible score could we give than the equivalent of "10 - Extremely Dangerous"? If any and all Adware can now be used to lever a situation where someone could face jail time, what other response could we have?"
...I think this is needed sooner rather than later.
I'm now going to throw up. I also particularly love how they write these hang-em-high style efforts, yet nobody seemingly wants to put their name to them. Once more, I am compelled to get my punchbag out in the yard and exert the sum total of 20+ years of martial arts mayhem on its ass. At this rate, I'm going to do an Apollo Creed and hire a bunch of chumps to smack up in my own personal boxing ring of doom.
Heh, I just read a kickass writeup on the Julie Amero fiasco.
The angry geek gods of the computer world are besieging Norwich, shredding the credibility of a community on the verge of sending an apparently innocent woman to jail.
...I figured, a few more Emails to the people listed here couldn't hurt, right?
So with that in mind, I decided to harness the awesome power of WEB! TWO! POINT! OH! and take a ride around a bunch of social networking sites and see if I could whip up some more support for Julie.
A quick blast on Myspace and Comicspace later, and (thanks to a nifty assist from my good mate LoLo) we have about sixty bazillion Emails now winging their way to the various individuals on the list of shame.
Thanks to everyone getting involved, and please, continue to keep kicking ass.
There are some important things we can learn from the sad case of Julie Amero:
1) Without fail, almost every single article published on this website seems to present an uneven, hang em' high style approach to journalism that frankly makes me sick. Whether it's this guy deleting blog posts left, right and centre or the main Norwich Bulletin website itself laying its cards on the table by means of presenting a continually slanted take on things with titles such as "Inaction Sank Amero" (apart from the fact it seems to be her actions, rather than inaction which seems to have "sunk" her, heaven forbid they should offer anything up that even remotely sounds like Amero might not be guilty), you're NOT going to get a fair crack of the whip in Norwich, CT.
2) Detective Mark Lounsbury promised we'd all basically look like idiots once the full transcripts became available - like there was some major smoking gun in amongst the wreckage.
Well, I've read about 85% of the documents now, and he's right - there IS a smoking gun in there. The smoking gun is that THIS ENTIRE CASE IS STILL A JOKE.
At some point, major, major alterations were made to the goalposts - the main thrust of the prosecution went from "SHE INTENTIONALLY LOOKED AT PORN! THE POOR KIDS!" to "SHE DIDN'T UNPLUG IT OR SWITCH IT OFF! THE POOR KIDS!"
....it's great how "turning it off" or " unplugging it" WOULD have been considered "doing something about it", but no consideration is given to the similarly productive act of turning the screen away from the class (which wasn't hard, given that the PC was facing away from the kids in the first place). If the kids in the class can't actually see the screen, does it matter at that point whether it's switched on or not?
Is this fair? Or does this smack of rampant stupidity and ignorance?
Worse, the closing argument from the Prosecution guy is ENTIRELY based around Julie Amero INTENTIONALLY ACCESSING PORN IN CLASS AND LOOKING AT IT AND STUFF. The whole stupid "throw a coat on it" thing is mentioned but the alternative of simply turning the screen away (which Amero did) is NOT given any thought as a possible solution.
Because, you know, that would've meant Julie Amero would have gone free.
I'll quote an individual from the Norwich Forum at this point, because they did an awesome job of summarising:
Mr Smith explicitly states in his closing that:
"There are two issues that the state is going to discuss, and the first issue is whether the defendant intentionally accessed those websites. I think the evidence is very strong, very clear cut that the defendant was the only person who had access to that computer; there was no pornography before she got there; there was no pornography accessed after she was gone"
"You would have to actively click to get at these websites"
"Finally, as you recall, I brought Detective Lounsbury back in. Exhibit 6 is hopefully trying to explain the difference in color as to the Javascript elements that he clicked on. Some of use using our common sense understand this; when you click on a webpage it transfers you over. And that changes to show that you actually accessed that page. Take this into account for intent; that the defendant purposely accessed those websites"
"I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did purposely access those websites"
"It is the state's contention that she purposefully went to these websites"
Regardless of what people maintain now as critical facts about how malware works have emerged, this case was by no stretch of the imagination about inaction. It was about actively downloading pornographic content while class was in session. That, and that alone, is what the prosecution closing argument in the written transcript reflects.
At one point, Mr Smith comments:
"However, for the sake of argument, let's go with the defense proposition that this pornography was being filtered in, pumped out, boom, boom, boom, uncontrolled by her. And what you have to do is apply that to the law. Did that create a situation in which the morals of the children were likely to be impaired? What did she have to do to stop that?"
Mr Smith goes on regarding turning off the computer, the monitor, or draping something over the monitor. Naturally, he conveniently ignored turning the monitor away from view as an equally viable solution as well.
Whether or not this paper or Mr Smith wish to admit it, the details of how pornographic content was downloaded to the computer is a material fact in this case. It was the most material fact in the prosecution closing argument. It is a "material fact" based on inaccurate/false testimony. As an officer of the court, Mr Smith has a professional responsibility to notify the court of this state of affairs. That fact alone taints the verdict beyond salvage.
.....wow, look at those goalposts - they've moved ALL THE WAY TO BOLIVIA.
If you want to read the full transcripts, click here...they're in the "Related Articles" box. I have a feeling they should have re-titled it to "Crock-tastic", but I guess you can't have everything.
I wasn't too happy about this, and left a few choice words for him to digest - along the lines that everything he said was complete and utter nonsense.
He eventually pulled his blog entry, but this didn't really solve anything. So in the spirit of public enquiry, I left the following comment on his blog yesterday:
"So, why DID you remove your poorly written rant about Julie Amero?"
Well, knock me sideways with a bag of angry monkeys - everything has been pulled and his blog now only contains one entry!
As I've said before, I will pursue each and every poorly conceived piece of garbage written about this woman, and I will do it like a force of nature. I'm sick of people saying what they like about Julie Amero like it doesn't really matter or make any difference to anything, and it seems to me if you're gonna' go wading in with your size-nines, don't be surprised if someone should happen to turn up and provide the victim with covering fire.
It was noted in my comments section that the blog post I ranted about here has been pulled - for those who don't know, that blog is run by some guy who reports on school related stuff. His hardcore stance on Julie Amero being GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY sucked and I set him straight in his blog comments (I wasn't the only one, either!)
Well, people can reserve the right to pull their badly informed, non-factual garbage if they like.
However, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CACHE YOUR BADLY INFORMED, NON-FACTUAL GARBAGE AND RETAIN IT FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE.
Oh dear, are people panicking because they jumped all over Julie with garbage and nonsense, and now they might actually be thinking they have to pay the piper?
Well congratulations, Mr School Reporter guy, because a winner is you! Notable quotable extract here:
"Enough. Enough e-mails, phone calls and letters to the editor defending Julie Amero. I'm sick of them. The worst part of all is that people jump to these conclusions without viewing any of the evidence or police documents. Here are the facts: Amero showed graphic pornography to up to 10 children in a Kelly Middle School class, according to a police investigation."
Hmm, she "showed" them graphic pornography? Really? Did she? That's a rather strong way of putting it.
Full, turgid rant here via Google Cache (scroll down). Get saving copies people, it might come in useful! I've got mine, and a winner is me!
Meanwhile, some good news - the case might be delayed while some top legal type guy wades into the fray. Pile in, people, pile in!
Click here to see a diagram of what the classroom in the Julie Amero witch-hunt looked like. Those poor, innocent kiddies who were all corrupted and destroyed by some random hornyporn on the PC were....COMPLETELY FACING THE WRONG WAY. This kind of makes a mockery of the whole "she exposed them to porn for a whole day and is worse than Satan" line of (non) reasoning employed by people actively involved in said witch-hunting.
Yeah, let's throw a coat on the monitor (the main criticism of Amero if you happen to be from Norwich, apparently) and....BURN THE SCHOOL DOWN.
..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.
....those who would attempt to poison and DESTROY my brothers. And you will KNOW my name is the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee...
Here is an example of what Julie Amero is up against in her hometown. Are you angry? Are you incensed to the point where you want to simply hand her a gun and tell her to actually make some use of those 40 potential years in the slammer?
No wonder half the people in authority there want to keep this whole "send an innocent woman to jail" thing under wraps. Something a lot of people don't actually know about this case is that Julie Amero was actually pregnant when this all started, and lost the baby not long after. Well, there's a surprise.
If this thing started to swing even a little bit in the direction of Amero's favour, I could see all kinds of crazy manslaughter charges waving frantically in the distance.
"Networks at work, keeping people calm" - never has that line seemed so appropriate.
I'm sure I'll pile in on Danny Boy in good time, but for now, strike him down with common sense my brethren! In the meantime, I'll go dig out some more iniquities of the selfish and evil men's tyranny for us to rip apart and stamp all over. I might not be able to do very much about the court case itself, but I can certainly make an awful lot of people wish they'd never written about this and that's what counts.
I keep seeing articles on Julie Amero and honestly, every time I read about it, I want to buy a plane ticket, fly into Norwich and start randomly punching people in the face.
WHAT. A. CROCK.
I think it was this piece here that did it - when I got to the part about that completely clueless guy saying something like OMFG WHY DIDN'T SHE IMMEDIATELY JUMP UP AND THROW A COAT OVER IT, it was time to start twitching and gnashing my teeth furiously.
Have these people ever actually SEEN a computer, let alone someone faced with a bunch of unexpected porn popups? Here's a newsflash, the usual reaction is to SIT THERE AND LOOK SHOCKED.
I can imagine this would be amplified by about a thousand when sitting with a bunch of kids. In fact, according to this writeup (about page fifty, I think) she tried pushing some kids away from the screen - as stated by ONE OF THE KIDS - but God forbid anyone listens to one of the people actually being morally corrupted by Julie OMFG PORN YAY Amero.
What an absolute disgrace. Norwich, Connecticut - you are without a doubt THE biggest laughing stock around with regards anything to do with technology at this moment in time. Hear that? It's the sound of people laughing at you and poking you with sticks, to make sure such a technologically retarded place actually exists. May all your broadband connections wither and die, your dial up modems burn to the ground and your goats be abducted by aliens.
I tried posting a message on your local website, but guess what - the registration / login feature doesn't work properly.
Why am I not surprised?
/ Edit - Wow, fifty attempts later and I'm finally on their forum and kicking off.
Now hear this!
I am encouraging - nay, demanding - a security expert BUMRUSH on that site. Show your support for Julie Amero, people.
"Luckily, it seems as if the spyware-made-me-do-it defense doesn't cut it in court." Link
Extremely lucky, considering nobody apparently bothered to scan for spyware on the PC in question. I am of course referring to the teacher convicted of, well, pretty much everything apart from Murder One (give it time, I'm sure they'll make that stick too) because some porno popups (probably caused by spyware) were viewed by school kids.
You do realise, I could probably wander into that school with a chainsaw, kill everybody and STILL get less than 40 years? Yet some kids see a bunch of porn popups and suddenly, a teacher is worse than Hitler. Awesome.
What a joke of a case. Judges falling asleep, nobody bothering to, you know, scan for spyware and about a zillion other examples of rampant stupidity. I suggest someone puts the PC in a fedex case, sends it over to me and lets someone who knows what they're doing have a look at it. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone already wiped it, or accidentally lost it in a cupboard somewhere.
Categories
Ruthlessly stolen (with permission, so you can't beat me up) from this post here. The people in this picture are (left to right) standing:
