LMAO! Like its really her fault that some kids used the PC and it got infected with *ware. Are these prosecutors really so naive to think that these kids don't know all about sex and haven't already used their parent's PCs to look stuff up? As I understand it, seventh-grade pupils will be about 13 and by that age, I'm damn sure I was well-versed in the intricacies of sexual matter, if not well-practiced. The fact of the matter is that the kids probably know 100% more than the teacher does about PCs and its conceivable that they deliberately browsed porn to get her in trouble.
I really hope she doesnt get punished for this because it is not her fault, as former youth worker turn your head for a few minutes while the kids are on the internet for legitimate reasons and they WILL start looking for things like porn. If the computer didnt have up to date security to prevent spyware then you cant blame the lady for a poorly maintained computer. This does highlight a big problem with spyware which i personaly hate but it is much easier to prosecute an innocetn lady than actualy recognise the real issue in this story.
I wouldn't say so. To me it sounds like plain old fashoined ignorance, who would assume that porn would appear on the screen as part of a PCs operation? This was an accident that could have happened to anyone.
yeah i remeber when i was at school and we had to research about the whitehouse. this was back in 2000 and well the first thing some people including me typed into the address bar as it looked obvious dont want to say the link but yeah the"name".com and oh bare breasts all over the place. nothing came of it.
I do believe it was an accident but it could have been prevented if the was sufficient protection and the teacher had some training but it is not there fault in all a accident but one that could have been prevented.
Am i the only one who seriously doubts that the childern would suffer any premanent damage from this? Hell, when I was 13 I found out the best bit about the internet, naked women
They just learned this sooner than most so in theory, they should be thanking the teacher for educating them...
Of course this response is from my admitted ignorance of the case beyond the details mentioned above but: How the He** was she convicted? The "evidence" sounds rather incomplete. As stated by others: she could / should have turned off the monitor, or at least covered it if she was too afraid to shut off anything. Still, I'd recommend an appeal + sue for court costs & work missed.
Sounds like she was convicted through ignorance, not evidence. Still, the two words sound similar, so they must be the same, right...?
Like someone said on the last thread on this topic, "I think this is the first time someone has been framed by a computer."
Well done to those kids for causing uneccessary trouble for a substitute teacher. The case should have been thrown it out when students had been found browsing on the computer themsevles (Something they SHOULDN'T have been doing in the first place). And yet they are the innocent ones. The teacher sent an email, the students did the browsing; how the heck could the teacher have pulled those popups if she wasn't the one browsing in the first place? Not to mention the evidence proved it was the student's fault, and yet those students played innocent, more than likely at the behest of their own parents who would never want to imagine their children as possible of doing anything wrong.
Someone somewhere should loose there job over even allowing this teacher to be harassed like this. It was obviously not her fault or intention.
Behind bars for 40 years? Wtf is wrong with the world today,in the school i study that wont even be discussed.
I've got to say, pretty much everything about this case demonstrates what's so miserably wrong with our justice system.
As said before, this could happen to anybody using the internet, the internet is a powerful tool, as well as a very powerful weapon. Sam
An interesting bit here, seems a member of the jury got a totally different impression, compared to the trial transcripts, of what actually happened. Most people half-listen and then fill in the gaps with their own opinion. Proof is any Digg thread. She deserves firing. But not banging up.
This is kind of an old thread, but I just stumbled across this on MSNC. Apparently the powers that be have granted Julie Amero a new trial. According to the article, numerous computer "experts" and bloggers made a complaint loud enough to get the judge's attention. Turns out one of the prosecution's best witnesses, the Norwich police detective (and supposed computer expert), gave "erroneous" testimony. What gets me is that the defense had computer experts who were ready to testify that the computer was riddled with pop-ups. As soon as the prosecution objected, the defense evidence was barred. At least the prosecution isn't objecting this time, and Amero will likely go free. Of course, now she'll have the stigma of being "that lady that was on trial for porn" instead of "the lady that really did nothing wrong." -monkey
