Outrageous Miscarriage of Justice in CT

But I'm not through yet with the coverage.  Has anyone here got a feel for this Amero person?  Any word from her?

Is there any action Amero did take besides turning one student's head?  I guess she didn't know you could power off the screen and she was told not to power down the computer.  Did she call anyone?  Was this a bolted down unit?  Could she have covered the screen with a sweater?  Any court transcripts available?

Plus, anyone who doesn't know that a history and cookie files contains a lot of non-clicked non-navigated-to info should be fired.  The network admins, fired, the other teachers who say it happens all the time, fired. 

I can't think of another object a person could bring into a classroom that is as unpredictable as a wide open internet enabled computer. 

I can't think of another object a person could bring into a classroom that is as unpredictable as a wide open internet enabled computer.

The commenter who said that is a computer technie kind of guy.  He knows of what he speaks.

Let's suppose that a sewer pipe broke while she was on bathroom monitor duty. Would she be taken to court to find out why she didn't pick up the mop in the bathroom?  Would she be given 40 years for not convincing the maintenance people to come right away?

What if she opened the window because the room was hot and a bee flew in and stung a kid. Would she be sentenced with second degree murder if he had an allergic reaction and she ran to get the school nurse (if there was one) or call 911 instead of not realizing she should make sure he didn't need something done to keep open an airway?

I mean, imho there's way too much focus on her and what a perfect person would do. People and technology have weird relationships.  Her focus was on "technology gone wild".  The second she walked out of that room, the coat, sweater, or chastity belt would have been removed from that computer instantly by the curious kids in the room.

Why was she in this situation to begin with?  And has anyone interviewed the kids to see if any actual damage was done, or is it presumed they wake up screaming?

Even if we took the case that this woman is guilty of leaving the screen uncovered, and that's a crime, I think the extent to which the sentence outweighs the crime could be demonstrated by surfing for the numbers of years to which others are sentenced for far more serious crimes.

Here's a famous case for comparison.

I have pretty much sworn off the local news because it has become a really bad joke, particularly WFSB-3.  I tend to watch WTNH-8, but more or less peruse the news with my ears.  The same goes for the Norwich Bulletin, which I have long called the Norwich Fishwrapper, because that is all it is good for.  I only scan the headlines online because I refuse to spend the 50 cents for it because it is so bad.  The benefit to me is after two days I have saved a whole dollar and I can purchase my Powerball ticket with my savings!

I really haven't been out and about to hear what the locals are saying, but after reading the commentary from computer experts, I am still not surprised at the outcome.  One thing that I did learn because of this diary is that Ms. Amero was pregnant and it doesn't really make sense that she would be checking out porn, especially with a room full of kids.

I know this much, when I was subbing at Norwich Free Academy, I was not given any login or password to access their network, nor did I even think to inquire about getting one; I am just a mere sub, here one day and gone the next.  Was she given an assigned login and password?  The more I read about this case, the less I know.

Inquiring minds want to  know why people in Texas are extremely upset, and it's take THEIR upset to get folks in CT on the case.

What are we missing here?

She's a sub; she did what she was told.  She was also a total computer novice.

I spent two years as a technology trainer for teachers, and I can tell you that many teachers are shockingly uncomfortable with technology.  That's changing now as districts adopt standards for technology training for teachers and as our teaching force generally gets younger. 

But I can easily imagine a person who is not computer savvy getting completely flustered and panicking when she got caught in an endless pop-up loop.  She kept trying to click the red "x"'s, which anyone who is experienced knows will just spawn more popup windows.  And I met PLENTY of teachers who didn't know the difference between the monitor off switch and the power off switch for the CPU.  This was not HER computer; she was just a sub.

Besides that, she asked other teachers for help.  She ran to the teachers lounge.  They told her it was no big deal.  She asked for an administrator to come to her room and no one came.  She told the assistant principal at the end of the day and he said it was no big deal.

I think you're absolutely right that this is related to the parade of sensational stories about predatory teachers, especially the stories about the women teachers who supposedly prey on middle school students.  We're talking about a handful of women in the entire nation of over a million teachers, yet coverage makes it sound like kids all over are at risk of getting fondled when they hand in their homework.  It's crazy.

To believe that Julie Amero deserves to go to jail for exposing her students to pornography takes some work.

You have to accept that a pregnant substitute teacher decided that the right moment to start surfing porn was the Tuesday morning in 2004 when she sat before a classroom of seventh-graders at Kelly Middle School in Norwich.

You have to believe a police officer with relatively little computer detective training instead of programming experts around the world.

You must also believe that the Internet security of the Norwich schools could be penetrated by a part-time teacher described as computer illiterate.

No, this borders on the unbelievable, including the performance of her lawyer during a two-day trial earlier this month.

For me, the technological echoes of this case remind me both of the Lieberman accusations of website hacking, the Krayeske case and the questions about selection of and vetting of the "database of dangerous people" (some who are, some not so much). 

It's not enough to get a "computer geek" to testify -- do lawyers have a means of vetting who they get asexperts to look at a case?  Do they understand how to uncover evidence that's meaningful?  Do citizens accused understand how to find a lawyer who will not glaze at the technical aspects of a case? And is there any special qualification or background lawyers need to hear such cases?

And what about the jury?  How in heck do juries understand highly technical cases like this (highly technical means I could not explain it -- if it's low tech, forgive me but I make my own point by example).

How do other nations deal with this?  Do we need a special court, a special set of guidelines or protocols, a particular legal specialty to which lawyers refer people in her situation?  It is EXACTLY like a witch hunt because both the accused and the accuser don't really understand the witchcraft that is computer and information technology.

It would appear that Julie Amero's case is a huge red flag about attending to the impact of high tech on our legal system.

Typically, on issues like this, judges will admit expert testimony to help both the judge and the jurors to understand the facts of the case.  I haven't seen the trial transcript but, from reading several articles, it appears to me that the judge did permit expert testimony but refused to allow the jury to see a live reenactment of what would have happened to the teacher's computer.  This reenactment would have been based on an exact copy of the computer's hard drive, as it existed on the date of the alleged crime, and would have been extremely enlightening.

I don't know the basis for the Court's refusal to allow this testimony, so I can't tell whether or not the judge is likely to be reversed on appeal.  However, in my opinion, this matter never should have reached either a judge or a jury.  I'm at a loss to understand why charges were filed in the first place.

A simpler case of meta-refresh redirects (look ma, no hands!) and a review of the history list for the browser should have been enough to shoot down the prosecution's story about volition and visited links.

That said, I don't know what kind of comms went among the expert, and the lawyers.  And it sounds like this expert did a lot of excellent work that hopefully can be introduced in a more careful appeal.

However, in my opinion, this matter never should have reached either a judge or a jury.  I'm at a loss to understand why charges were filed in the first place.

I suspect that a heck of a lot of the story resides in examining this carefully.  The boring, dry cornflakes details of how this school runs its computers, what the funding situation is, the influence of parents on the school and relationships between parents and administrators/school board -- that kind of info probably unravels why they didn't just make a policy to not use computers when subs were in the school, or to instantly upgrade their protective software, or something delimited, sane, and directly related to the problem.

It is this harsh overlay of hypermoralistic, punitive actions taken in the face of something that could have happened at home to somebody -- and probably has (Call the child protective services)-- that is so striking. 

If this action or lack thereof is a crime is worth 40 years,  then I would hope the righteous citizens of Norwich make sure that Norwich Public Schools' policies and protocols are not criminally derelict -- e.g. in not spelling out exactly what to do and how to do it, in making tech support available on call and panic buttons available in each and every classroom, and notifying each teacher that failure to comply will lead to prosecution and perhaps jail time.  If their own policies are lax in the face of this heinous crime, then one side or the other is out of step.  I for one think someone should investigate to make sure the school's policies reflect the seriousness they think this matter requires, and compare them to other more and less serious policies for consistency.

If there isn't any?  Well, clearly parents should be suing the school district for their callous, irresponsible attitudes and criminally negligent tech support and administrative laxity.

Hmm, guess you can guess what I think such research would reveal.

HOW CAN SHE APPEAL?  I read that it is not automatic, there needs to be grounds! 

Does a person have to trash the judge to make this happen, or can the technical evidence be enough to compel an appeal?

GP, I also thought about the union and the lack of support, but are subs covered by the union?

I am very sympathetic to parents' desires to create and ensure an environment for their kids that is wholesome and supports healthy development.  Having said that, I am considering the ways in which that laudable desire can be manipulated to create cover for some very ill advised, intolerant acts.  I am wondering if Norwich wanted this case pursued out of fear that they would be sued, as some have suggested.  If so, then maybe we need to recover some balance in the dialogue about how to raise healthy kids.

Of course we expect our teachers not to purposely bring porn into a classroom.  But can we expect our teachers to teach kindness, tolerance, and fairness by example if they have to live in fear of harsh,  judgmental, punitive and unfair treatment that is way out of proportion to the situation that has been described in the news outlets linked (or those I've read so far)? 

Just as showing obscene sexually explicit materials has limited learning value for kids (the first time you see it is a learning experience about the real world), there is also a learning value, and not a positive one, in showing kids that they live in a society wehre mistakes are dealt with harshly and out of proportion with their severity, or that justice doesn't really exist.  Is justice miscarried obscene?  I tend to find it so.

Our kids are watching this trial, we can be sure.  I hope that  those who have influence in the administration of justice keep that in mind. 

I know that from time to time we have visitors and commenters who have not yet graduated from high school.  I would most welcome their perspectives and comments on this matter. I think this is a story where providing your perspective would be  truly a public service and an education to adults who wish to be protective of you.

Do you feel protected by this outcome?  Are there other areas where you think more attention should be focused?  Are we misunderstanding the experience  by forgetting what it's like to be your age?

I hope you'll join in the discussion, young lurkers, wherever you are (and feel free to bring your friends, too!).

What I discovered was more than a little troubling. In June and July of 2004, before Julie's experience, the Griswold Middle School had an infestation of pornography that caused local authorities to seize a computer and hard drives. A student printed a nude image to take home in their backpack! Funny how no prosecution took place in those cases.

It is inexcusable that no action was taken to upgrade the protective software at that time (they had the summer to do it). And it explains why nobody thought much of Amero's experience at the time, essentially telling her "not to worry about it."

Source:  region 19 boe gazette; scroll for story.