Pop up Porn teacher gets new trial and its about damn time !

Bloggers have helped to force a fresh trial in a case which saw a teacher accused of letting pupils see porn.

I saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you all should see it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6729905.stm

Its all about a substitute teacher (Julie Amero) who's computer in her substitute classroom (she had never been in before this one day or has been in since), went nuts and started popping up "PORN" windows and she didn't know how to stop it (and easily could have been you or me). She was proven at trial to be so unsophisticated with a computer she didn't really even know how to send an email and somehow was convicted anyway. The amazing thing is that the trail judge would not let her use a defense of "computer ineptitude" , and in reversing herself, she basically cites the reason as "judicial ineptitude", because they relied on a stupid cop who told them she had to have done it one purpose.

Essentially , the prosecutors "expert" witness, some cop in the area, threw a bunch of BullSh** at the jury and they believed him. The case was subject to strong criticism by many Bloggers, legal experts and security professionals. The computer security researchers carried out an unpaid forensic examination of the PC at the centre of the case and what they found led them to doubt the version of events put forward by the prosecution. This disparity led to Connecticut ordering new tests at a state forensics lab which backed the volunteers' findings and raised more questions about the reliability of the initial evidence. Local newspapers in Norwich, Connecticut, reported Judge Strackbein saying: "The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that faulty information." Ms Amero's supporters said the old PC lacked a firewall and security software which led many to suggest it had been taken over by Spyware programs that were showing the unwanted pop-ups. The defense lawyer for Ms Amero said that if the evidence found by its cadre of security researchers had been available at the initial trial, she would never have been accused of visiting pornographic sites.

The cop should be charged with perjury. They had the computer and didn't even scan it for Spyware, Adware or Malware or viruses or nothing else and did not even send it to the state crime lab for review. .

Finally the court in this case moves into the 1980's. What a bunch of numb nuts. Have none of these people used a computer lately?

This is what is called a "Rush to judgment", where the state and the prosecutors and the judge were basically looking for the first conviction of a new internet porn law aimed at protecting children.

Thank you Bloggers. You probably saved this woman from a 40 year prison sentence that never should have been prosecuted in the first place.