On 19 Oct 2004, Julie Amero was working as a substitute teacher at Kelly Middle School in Norwich CT. The regular classroom teacher had been there earlier that morning to log on to the computer for Julie, who didn't have her own account. Julie, a computer-phobe, scarcely needed the instructions that she was given to not log off of or shut down the computer; she didn't know how. Julie briefly left the room before class began; when she returned, the regular teacher was gone and the children were browsing the Web on the computer. Pop-up adverts featuring adult products had begun appearing. When Julie tried to close the pop-ups, more appeared. Julie did the only thing that she knew how to do to prevent the children from seeing the offensive adverts -- she turned the monitor aside and didn't allow the children to approach her desk and come within view of the computer.
Julie didn't know that adware had infected the computer days before she arrived on the job. Nor did she know that this had happened because the school had allowed its computer security contract to lapse over six months earlier and that the computer had not received an update of its security software in over three months. She DID know that she needed to get rid of the pop-up adverts, so she went for help during a break. No one would come back to the classroom with her to see about the problem and she was told to not worry about the situation. Nevertheless, Julie was worried.
Her concern was well-founded. Days later, she was arrested for child endangerment. Law enforcement examined the computer's hard drive and, predictably, found that the Web browser's history was full of URLs that led to pornographic and adult-oriented Web sites. The information that the prosecution presented did NOT reveal who was sitting in front of the computer when the Web sites were on-screen; browser histories do not log whether a user typed in a Web address or clicked a link to access a Web site or whether an automated script caused a Web page to appear on its own without any user intervention. Most incredibly, in its examination of the computer, the prosecution did not check whether the computer was infected with adware, the sort of software that would've caused unwanted pop-up adverts to appear. This is the technological equivalent of arresting someone who happened to be standing in the parking lot of a bank that had been robbed without examining the building for signs of forced entry or dusting for fingerprints!
Based partly on this evidence, Julie was convicted of four felony counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child and faces sentencing on 26 April of up to forty (yes, 40, 4-0) years in prison.
I cannot find the words to describe this turn of events. Travesty, perversion of justice, sham, outrageous -- none of them seem to be the bon mot that captures the depth of outrage and disbelief that I feel. How could the prosecution have been so careless or so malicious? What were her defense attorneys thinking? How did the prosecution get away with what appears to be such a sloppy and incomplete investigation? I am reminded of Tom Robinson's trial in To Kill a Mockingbird and I have to wonder -- where is Julie's Atticus Finch? :J
References...
- Windows Secrets, 22 Feb 2007 - This is where I first learned of this case; includes some discussion of the botched investigation.
- Julie Amero in Wikipedia
- The Julie Amero Defese Fund Blog Teacher Faces Jail Over Pornography on Class Computer, The New York Times, 14 Feb 2007 - Has a detailed synopsis of events.
No comments:
Post a Comment