State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice?

Changing Log Entries from Prosecution Expert Witness

Mike Conwell — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:34:00 GMT

Comments in the newest blog put forward supposedly by Det Mark Lounsbury, Norwich PD, include items that he says were in the firewall log. But a commenter called him out (rudely, mind you) about inconsistencies in the firewall log entries so he changed them!!

Well part of the magic of the internet, is it's difficult to tell when changes have been made to a blog posting, unless the author uses good form to point it out. I've got a historical copy of the site and used a handy tool to let you see the differences in the firewall logs from January 30th post (L), to the Feb 2nd (R) revision:

L1	Oct 19 10:39:18.250 cofirewall httpd[282]: 121 Statistics: duration=4.51 id=WDPwC sent=497 rcvd=26500 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3629 dstif=Vpn5 dst=38.113.198.192/80 op=GET arg=http://www.orgasm-mystery.com/oral-sex-technique.htm result="200 OK" proto=http rule=2
R1	Oct 19 10:39:18.250 cofirewall httpd[282]: 121 Statistics: duration=4.51 id=WDPwC sent=497 rcvd=26500 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3629 dstif=Vpn5 dst=38.113.198.192/80 op=GET arg=http://www.orgasm-mystery.com/oral-sex-technique.htm result="200 OK" proto=http rule=2
L3	Oct 19 10:39:22.033 cofirewall httpd[77]: 121 Statistics: duration=0.16 iDPyr sent=337 rcvd=25233 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3668 dstif=Vpn5 dstd=WDNMH sent=416 rcvd=144 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3666 dstif=Vpn5
	dst=38.113.198.192/80 op=GET arg=http://www.orgasm-mystery.com/images/eb3_42.gif result="304 Not Modified" proto=http rule 594
R3	Oct 19 10:39:22.033 cofirewall httpd[77]: 121 Statistics: duration=0.16 id=WDNMH sent=416 rcvd=144 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3666 dstif=Vpn5 dst=38.113.198.192/80 op=GET arg=http://www.orgasm-mystery.com/images/eb3_42.gif result="304 Not Modified" proto=http rule=2
L5=R5	Oct 19 10:39:52.594 cofirewall httpd[282]: 121 Statistics: duration=0.55 id=WDPyr sent=337 rcvd=25233 srcif=Vpn6 src=10.2.19.252/3668 dstif=Vpn5 dst=66.28.207.155/80 op=GET arg=http://www.cheatinglesbians.com/t2/pps=mystery/tour1.htm result="200 OK" proto=http rule=2

ABC News Radio Coverage

Mike Conwell — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:58:00 GMT

The first five minutes of a longer interview. If I can find more audio, I'll post it in an update below. This is Julie in her own words giving a narrative of what the initial days were like in 2004 when this whole case began.

Good Morning America coverage Jan 27, 2009.

Mike Conwell — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:48:00 GMT

Click on the picture above for a video or go here:

Teacher: Wrong Computer Click Ruined My Life
by Imaeyen Ibanga
Jan 27, 2009

But for 18 months prosecutors pondered whether they should retry the former educator. They dropped the felony charges, but in November 2008 Amero pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. She can never work in a classroom again.
She said the plea bargain was the result of not wanting to spend more time in a courtroom because the entire ordeal had taken a serious toll on her health.
"They got a pound of flesh," said Amero, who remains unemployed and says she's unable to get work thanks to the ordeal. "The doctors all agreed that I would not make it through another trial."
Amero said the stress of the trial caused a miscarriage and prompted breathing troubles.

Read the full article here:

Note: It's apparent that at least one of the ages cited for Julie Amero is incorrect in the written story. I would correct those, but I know better then to state a woman's age, so just wanted to make you aware of the discrepancies. --Mike

Good Morning America to cover Julie Amero story!!

Mike Conwell — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:22:00 GMT

Word is that the Julie Amero story will be covered on the Tuesday morning, January 27th edition of Good Morning America on ABC. Grab a bagel and some coffee and settle in to see how they do. Set the TIVO! program the DVR. And here's a hint as to what you may see. The Norwich area police never fail to disappoint.

Worldwide Press Coverage coming in

Mike Conwell — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:23:00 GMT

TheRegister.UK November 24th, 2008

Local prosecutors refused to admit mistakes had been made in the case despite a wealth of evidence from computer security experts, even after the trial judge ordered a retrial. This bodes ill if something similar ever crops up again.

Wired.com November 24th, 2008

But if a soon-to-be released forensic report (.pdf) about her hard drive is accurate, Amero's guilty plea is hardly justice -- since the school computer had adware, the anti-virus software on the computer had been discontinued, and the technical testimony at her trial was amateurish and flawed.

Huffington Post November 24th, 2008

The truth is in fact, he ruined a woman's life over a computer virus. Prosecutor Michael Regan literally took Julie Amero's career from her, took her health, took her right to justice. All presumably to make an example of her, and a name for himself.

BREAKING: Charges Dropped and Julie Amero is free!!

Mike Conwell — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:57:00 GMT

Details are slim right now, but just received word that charges have been reduced to disorderly conduct with a $100.00 fine.

[Update] From Rick Green over at the Hartford Courant, Despite our desire to see her even fight the disorderly conduct charge, Amero and her attorneys agreed to a guilty plea on the lesser charge and to surrender her teachers license.

The State of Connecticut continued it's despicable behavior to the very end.

and I've removed this little ditty that was on the toolbar to the right, on this the 534th day since her first conviction was tossed out.

Days Held Hostage:
534 days since June 6 2007, and Julie Amero is still held hostage by the State of Connecticut

380 Days Later - What has changed?

Mike Conwell — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:03:00 GMT

Dawn and I were married days after and recently celebrated our first anniversary. America has selected Democratic and Republican nominees after what many feel has been the longest primary ever. Floods across the MidWest and a record year for tornadoes have revealed tales of terror and highlighted acts of tremendous courage. The widely discussed "Surge" in Iraq has come and now begins to ebb.

But for Julie Amero Volle and her husband, Wes, little has changed. 380 days after her conviction was overturned, the State of Connecticut has still failed to drop the erroneous charges against her. Julie still lives under the cloud of looming prosecution, and continues to suffer health and employment problems due to the stress.

Marking the anniversary of the Superior Court Decision, Rick Green writes:

There is no indication that state investigators are taking another look at the now discredited work done by the Norwich Police Department, which concluded that Amero was responsible for the storm of porn pop-up messages that took over her classroom computer on Oct. 19, 2004.

And the state's attorney can't be bothered

Michael Regan, state's attorney for the New London district, reminded me that there is a backlog of serious criminal cases in southeastern Connecticut. The Amero case "is not a high priority for us. We have other cases down here that are much more important."

And while Connecticut continues to suffer worldwide ridicule for their performance in this case, Julie Amero still lives with this tremendous weigh upon her shoulders.

I'll let the editorial in today's Hartford Courant close this article

By burying her case in paperwork, delaying decisions and denying her justice, prosecutors are treating Ms. Amero almost as if she were a Guantanamo detainee. It's past time to end the agony.

Great, Great News!!!

Mike Conwell — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:36:00 GMT

Julie Amero has been granted a motion for a new trial!!

Julie Amero's attorney filed a motion for a new trial, yesterday, to be ruled on at her sentencing hearing this morning at 10am EST. States Attorney, Dave Smith, did not contest the motion for the new trial.   It's my personal belief that there never will be a new trial, and we just need some kind of assurance from the State of Connecticut that charges will not be pursued.

This means that Julie's "Guilty Verdict" has been vacated.   When the world learned of her story, she had already been found guilty, and all that was left to do was sentencing.   Good or bad, the decision of a jury is very well protected in US Courts, and there was little to do in the way of offering new evidence to prove her innocence.   However, the Amero Defense Team was able to find enough faults in the conduct of the trial and testimony given, to prevent the sentencing from taking place.

Julie's story demonstrates the scariness of the internet. The pop-up porn storm that began the story.   The fear and lack of knowledge that resulted in charges being filed.   And some very real complacency in our court system that resulted in her being found guilty in a sloppy, sloppy trial.

However, Julie's story also demonstrates the power of the internet.   When the story broke, folks all over the world were alarmed to hear of it and a support structure began to form. Composed of data forensics experts, computer folks, teachers, professors, lawyers, journalists and local folks, hundreds of hours were donated to performing forensics works, dozens of press interviews and radio appearances were given, and money was raised to aid in Julie's defense.

I'm going to write more about this. (at blog.state-v-amero.com) Will have more links on the web, but here's three quick stories. Check out www.TheDay.com for a great picture and the Courant for a link to video footage filmed outside the court house.

http://www.theday.com
http://www.courant.com (has link to Fox 61 video as well)
http://www.norwichbulletin.com

Sentencing Delayed, Part IV

Mike Conwell — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:41:00 GMT

Another delay occurred in the sentencing phase of the State v Julie Amero trial. The latest less than 24 hours before the May 18th hearing. I'm late in posting this notice (sorry), but the Groundhog Day aspect of this can lead to complacency.

Rick Green over at the Hartford Courant has lots to say about this:

"The state has not completed a full examination of all the issues which may affect its position at the sentence hearing."

Translation: We were wrong. We are trying to figure a CYA way out of this mess.

They still are. Amero's sentencing Thursday was delayed again until June 6 - the fourth postponement since March. She's still convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, facing a potential 40 years in jail.

Stay Tuned....

Sentencing Delayed, Part III

Mike Conwell — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:02:00 GMT

Bob Johnston at e-computer-security reports that upon calling the Norwich Supreme Court Clerk's office, he was notified that:

"The Julie Amero sentencing hearing has been rescheduled for May 18th in Norwich Superior Court."

Nuthin' yet from the media. There may not have been an official announcement yet, but that's the word.

Amero Sentencing Delayed!! [Part 2]

Mike Conwell — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:23:00 GMT

Just in from Connecticut. Sentencing for Julie Amero has once again been postponed. Originally set for March 2nd, it was postponed until this Thursday, March 29th.   It's now been bumped to April 26th.

This is good news for just about everybody.   But Julie Amero is still living in suspense as to what her fate will be. I just hope that she, being closer to the case than I, can see reasons for being more optimistic.

The publicity and work y'all are doing is really helping out. According to Rick Green's story from the Hartford Courant, prosecutor David Smith menaced Julie saying "you are going to spend 18 years in jail".    With all of the pressure generated by you the readers and the press, his recent hints were still for jail time, but substantially less.   While in some ways, the internet was responsible for getting Julie Amero into this mess, it's definitely the Internet (read y'all) that is coming to her rescue by coordinating resources and stirring up outrage around the world.

According to the Hartford Courant, a new State's Attorney is working on the case. We don't know yet if the malicious prosecutor David Smith is still involved or not. Whispers are that the State of Connecticut is trying to find the easiest way out of the jam they've gotten themselves into, without too many getting fired (and sued).

Hartford Courant: Norwich Teacher’s Sentencing Delayed

Hey Folks, it's easy! Drop the charges, pay a substantial, but not enormous penalty to Julie and her family and get back to prosecuting real criminals.   Any further delay just costs the State of Connecticut more money, and increases the ultimate penalty they will have to pay.

Hartford Courant Ad - An Open Letter to Kevin Kane

Mike Conwell — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:10:00 GMT

3/6/07 The following open letter to Connecticut's Chief State Attorney appears in today's printed version of the Hartford Courant on page four.

The Julie Amero case has created outrage in internet forums and among computer experts all over the country. Briefly, Julie Amero was seven months pregnant and acting as a substitute seventh grade teacher in Norwich, Connecticut. She left the classroom briefly, and while she was gone some of her students used the class computer to surf the web. When she returned a stream of pornographic pop-up ads began to appear. She panicked and tried to stop the pop-ups but did not turn off the computer because she had been firmly instructed not to do so. She was charged with exposing her students to pornography and convicted in January. She now faces up to forty (40) years in prison.

Many computer experts believe that the stream of obscene pop-up ads were caused by malicious spyware and adware programs which users seldom know have infected their computers until too late - after they have done their evil work. It is most troubling that the computer had no firewall protection - apparently because a vendor's bill went unpaid - and that the prosecution did not make a search for spyware.

An excellent suggestion has been offered by Mark Rasch, former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's cyber crime unit: "Find an independent investigator with no preconceived notions at all and find out what happened." We the undersigned computer science professors at Yale, UCONN, Wesleyan, Trinity, the University of Hartford, and the State Universities urge you to take up Mark Rasch's suggestion, and to delay sentencing Julie Amero until the investigator has filed his report.

Drew McDermott Yale
James Lipton Wesleyan
Ingrid Russell U Hartford
Sarah Tasneem ECSU
John Ridgway Trinity
Brian O'Connell CCSU
David Ahlgren Trinity
Stan Kurkovsky CCSU
Irena Pevac CCSU
Passent El-Kafrawy ECSU
Thomas J. Peters UCONN
Ralph Morelli Trinity
Chip Neville CCSU
Heidi Ellis Trinity
Todor Ivanov WCSU
Jian Lin ECSU
Kehan Gao ECSU
Rathika RiVarma CCSU
R. White CCSU
Neli Zlatareva CCSU
Dong-Guk Shin UCONN
G. Ganchev WCSU
Bradley Kjell CCSU
Huan-Yu Tu ECSU
John Mertens Trinity
Taikang Ning Trinity
Joan Calvert CCSU
Zdravko Markov CCSU

Ad payed for by the signatories

Tech.Blorge.com: Porn pop-ups could land grade school teacher behind bars

Mike Conwell — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:58:00 GMT

tech.Blorge.com
Tristoni McIntyre
March 2nd, 2007

In what can be associated with the string of “teacher abuses student” cases in the 90s, the new face of educational abuse has reared its ugly head in the classroom: pornographic pop-ups.

Read the Full Column Here

UK The Times: Internet porn pop-ups cost this teacher her job and her freedom

Mike Conwell — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:49:00 GMT

Internet porn pop-ups cost this teacher her job and her freedom
The Times
Tim Reid
March 3, 2007

In a case that has become a cause célãbre in the online world, where millions of rogue websites appear unsolicited on computer screens every day, Julie Amero is gathering a network of supporters who claim that she has been wrongly convicted over an incident she says has destroyed her life.

Read the Full Story Here:

WP: Buggy Justice in Connecticut

Mike Conwell — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:44:00 GMT

Washington Post - Technology
Rob Pegoraro
March 2, 2007

Ever gone to the wrong Web site by mistake, then thanked the deity of your choice that you were able to back out of there before any coworkers noticed? If you'd done that in a school in Norwich, Conn., you might be facing 40 years in jail.

No joke: Substitute elementary schoolteacher Julia Amero was convicted on Jan. 5 of four counts of "Risk of Injury to a Minor" for exposing a classroom of middle schoolers to pornographic images on her computer on Oct. 19, 2004. She faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in jail and was due to be sentenced today, but on Monday, Superior Court Judge Hillary Strackbein postponed her sentencing to March 29.

Read the Full Story Here

Hartford Courant: IT Pros Say It Ain't So

Mike Conwell — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:55:00 GMT

IT Pros Say It Ain't So

Hartford Courant
Rick Green
March 2, 2007

The angry geek gods of the computer world are besieging Norwich, shredding the credibility of a community on the verge of sending an apparently innocent woman to jail.
For this, every teacher in Connecticut should be thankful. Because if a Superior Court verdict in Norwich isn't tossed out and there's a computer with uncertain protection in your classroom, you'd better worry.

Read the Full Story Here:

Australian Coverage: The Sydney Morning Herald

Mike Conwell — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:39:00 GMT

Teacher faces jail over pop-up porn

The Sydney Morning Herald
Asher Moses
March 1, 2007

"The court opted to deny / prevent the defense from presenting evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by the state," Volle said. [Julie's Husband]

"The states assertion of a deliberate attempt to access pornographic web sites can only be deemed as persecution of a political nature."

Volle added that two independent forensic investigations had concluded that malicious code had caused the pop-ups, not a deliberate act by Amero.

In another blog post, the director of technical education at security software maker ESET, Randy Abrams, posed the question: "Can a legal system unversed in technology result in a fair trial."

Read the Full Story Here

NPR Coverage of Julie Amero

Mike Conwell — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:10:00 GMT

NPR featured a story about Julie this morning on Morning Edition (heard by millions across the country). In the meantime, here's the story on their website:

Listen to the NPR article here:
--
Arvin Meyer

Good News! Sorta... Sentencing Postponed

Mike Conwell — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:30:00 GMT

According to the Norwich Bulletin article:

...Her sentencing will take place March 29 in Norwich Superior Court, where she faces 40 years in prison.

Attorney John F. Cocheo, who represented Amero at trial, requested the postponement to allow time for a new attorney and consultant to familiarize themselves with the case.

In his letter to the court, Cocheo said attorney William Dow has become involved in the case, along with sentencing consultant Clinton Roberts....

Read the Full Story Here

Would have liked David Smith or the Judge to drop the charges and throw the case out.

Nancy Willard: The Julie Amero Tragedy

Mike Conwell — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:01:00 GMT

The Julie Amero Tragedy

The tragic case of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher who was convicted of "impairing the morals of minor" because pornographic images were visible on a computer in her classroom has riveted the attention of many in the education and computer security community. A new report, written by Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D., Director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, has just been released. This report presents a comprehensive review of the materials related to the case. Among the findings:

* The situation described by Amero is consistent with what is called a "porn trap" or "mouse trap." When this occurs, the browser is no longer under the control of the user and porn images will simply keep popping up until the computer is turned off.

* Amero had been specifically told not to turn off the computer and probably did not know how. So she turned the computer so that students could not see the images. She could not lock the door when she left the room to get help because she did not have a key.

* Amero went to get help at a break and described the pop-up situation.
People who are intentionally accessing inappropriate material do not try to get help. She told the assistant principal after school and described the situation to the principal, Scott Fain, the following day. The school reported the incident to the police just over a week later. Fain did not tell the investigating officer what he knew of Amero¹s activities on that day or her report to him the following day. He withheld information that would have allowed the officer to determine that Amero¹s access was not intentional.

* The computer had inadequate security and the browser would not block pop-ups. The district's content filter license had lapsed due to lack of payment. The technology director, Hartz, did not evaluate whether any malware was on the computer or the pattern of sites that appeared in the history log to determine whether the access was intentional or accidental.
Hartz also did not tell the investigating officer that the content filter license had lapsed.

* The police computer crimes expert also did not determine whether there was any malware on the computer. He also testified in court that Amero had to intentionally access the sites for them to appear on the logs. This is totally inaccurate.

* Amero's response to this situation was far from reckless. Of the approximately 60 students who were in the classroom only10 saw anything. Of those, 6 specifically stated that they tried to look at the computer after being told of the situation by another student. Many students reported that Amero took specific efforts to block their view when she became aware that they were trying to see.

* The situation did not impair the morals of the students. Eight students reported seeing mild erotica. The two students who reported seeing people engaged in sex also reported that there were a bunch of little pictures on the screen. One was a distance from the screen and the other reported that the teacher did not notice him, so he must not have been very close.

* A recent study found that 42% of young people between the ages of 10 and
17 have viewed online pornography, one-third intentionally, two-thirds accidentally. Nine percent of these incidents reportedly occurred at school.
There is no research evidence regarding the impact of such viewing.

The full report is available on the Center for Responsible Internet Use web site at http://csriu.org. Also available on this site are Willard's recent presentation notes addressing cyber-secure schools and cyberbullying. These presentation notes outline the concerns associated with youth online activity and strategies recommended for schools to address such concerns.

Nancy E. Willard has degrees in special education and law. She taught ³at risk² children, practiced computer law, and was an educational technology consultant before focusing her professional attention on issues of youth risk online and effective Internet use management in schools. Nancy frequently conducts workshops for educators. She is expanding her use of Internet technologies to deliver ³virtual² presentations and classes. She is the author of two books: Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress (Research
Press) and Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Use the Internet Safety and Responsibly (Jossey-Bass).

For more information contact: Nancy Willard at nwillard (at) csriu.org.

--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use http://csriu.org http://cyberbully.org nwillard(at)csriu.org

Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. New edition, published by Research Press.

Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly. Jossey-Bass (March 16, 2007)