This four-year case began in October 2004 with what appear a glitch in software during a class of seventh-graders at the Kelly Middle School in Norwich, CT . Amero was teaching her middle school students when the class computer starting spewing out porn site links. Parents complained. Instead of looking at the sufficiency of their firewalls, the school called the police. There was never any proof that the school had serious anti-malware protections on Amero’s computer. Amero had been instructed never to shut it off.
However, Prosecutor David Smith and Norwich, Conn. police detective Mike Lounsbury ran a perfunctory test and then pushed hard for conviction for creating a risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. It was a high profile case and Smith and Lounsbury never seemed to question this initial conclusion that Amero must have intentionally accessed the sites.
They would not back down on that view despite an array of computer experts who denounced their test and theory as ridiculous. Sunbelt Software CEO Alex Eckelberry weighed in on Amero’s side.
YetJan. 5, 2007, a Norwich jury found Amero guilty of four felony counts of “injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children” and faced a maximum of forty years in prison. This conviction was all but guaranteed when Smith succeeded in barring the defense from presenting expert testimony on how pop-ups work. (He argued that he was unaware that the defense might present a malware defense, which would seem the only obvious defense in the case. Defense counsel may have messed up on this point, but the denial of virtually all such evidence was fatal blow). This left the trial to the prosecution’s expert. You guessed it; Lounsbury. So Herb Horner of the consulting firm Contemporary Computing Consultants and a lifetime IT expert (as well as other experts) were largely barred while the prosecutor relied on a detective who took a two-week course on computer security.
With the judge’s ruling, Smith was able to shape the case according to his highly questionable knowledge of how computers and software work: At one point, he stated in court: “When you link on a link, again, links are Javascripted, you click on a link, it changes color…”
Eckelberry spoke to Smith to try to get him to see reason, but observed: “I talked to David Smith. I think he really believes that [Amero] is a lesbian. Lounsbury really does; in his world, she was sitting there fondling herself in front of the students.” Amero is married and was pregnant at the time after years of trying to have a baby, which she lost after her arrest in a miscarriage.
Experts found that the machine was running an anti-virus program that had been discontinued by the company about six months earlier. In addition, the clock on the machine was incorrectly set, so there was not way to determining critical events beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eventually, Judge Hillary Strackbein this morning granted a motion for a new trial for Julie Amero based on the flawed evidence related to the computer-related testimony. Smith still pushed for punishment, however.
The eventual settlement is obviously much better than forty years. However, the good people of Norwich need to look closely at the people who they are hiring to investigate and prosecute citizens. Indeed, there is room to examine the school officials who converted this into a criminal case without proper investigation. Putting aside the money and time that Smith wasted on this case, there is an obvious lack of judgment and safeguards in this prosecution office.
Everyone in authority seems to have failed in this case. First there were the school officials who maintained antiquated computer software and then treated this routine glitch as a criminal matter. Second, there is the investigator Lounsbury who seemed all too eager to conclude that this was a teacher lacking morals rather than a computer lacking a firewall. Then there was Smith who seemed caught up in a high-profile case with the prospect of a high-profile victory. Then there was the judge who allowed the prosecution to deny basic evidence to the jury. Norwich has a lot to be worried about — the least of which is what its teachers are viewing on their computers.
For the expert testimony, click here.
For the full story, click here.