Porn Popup Teacher Cleared

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
In case you missed it, the teacher that was in hot water over pornographic popups in the classroom was cleared by a higher court.

Then Wednesday Judge Hillary B. Strack-bein delivered a major surprise. She overturned the jury's conviction, citing new evidence presented belatedly by the state that suggested jurors received erroneous information. It was computer geeks who helped Ms. Amero.
Click to expand...
 
The next question now isn't whether or not she should sue -- I'm sure she will -- but who to sue....
 
She's not out of deep water yet, its simply remanded for a new trial. With all the attention on the incompetence of the prosecutor however, I'd be shocked if they proceeded with another trial.

Geeks ftw
 
I doubt that they'll throw her back in: the (new) evidence showed that not only was she was right (in declaring her innocence), but the police department mishandled the investigation.
 
tiraides said:
I doubt that they'll throw her back in: the (new) evidence showed that not only was she was right (in declaring her innocence), but the police department mishandled the investigation.
Click to expand...

You never know. Granted she's off for now, but no one can say they won't continue to pursue it.
 
It never did a thorough investigation of the computer in question until after she was convicted.
Click to expand...

That's just mind-bottling...


(Chazz Michael Michaels ftw)
 
The prosecutor in this case seemed hellbent on prosecuting this person. Given that they obtained a guilty verdict initially, politics and ego may keep them from admitting error. I've seen it many times...in the face of a lot of contradictory evidence, many prosecutors choose to lumber forward with what many of us would view as unjust or unwinnable cases.

Here's hoping they cut their losses, admit they were wrong, and let this woman be.

And unless there was malicious withholding of evidence or willful concealment, teacher is out of luck as far as suing either the school or the prosecution, for different reasons as to each, but she's probably out of luck. What she does have is the vindication. Sure sucks to be her :(
 
I think they should start prosecuting police who mishandle cases. They should not only lose there job but spend time in jail for doing what they do to people .
 
Wow a combination of a very poor police department and DA and sadly a jury that must have been completely computer illiterate.:mad:

Even given the stacked set up how does a jury honestly convict this teacher. Even though the requirement for guilty in this case is not beyond reasonable doubt the DA still has to establish motive or responsibility. Did the jury really think she would do this on purpose or knew enough about computers to solve the problem?

The irony of course is by 7th grade, many if not most of those kids had already visited and consumed pornographic content on their home computers.
 
It is good to see that she was cleared of all charges as she did not install this crap.
 
Luthorcrow said:
Wow a combination of a very poor police department and DA and sadly a jury that must have been completely computer illiterate.:mad:

Even given the stacked set up how does a jury honestly convict this teacher. Even though the requirement for guilty in this case is not beyond reasonable doubt the DA still has to establish motive or responsibility. Did the jury really think she would do this on purpose or knew enough about computers to solve the problem?

The irony of course is by 7th grade, many if not most of those kids had already visited and consumed pornographic content on their home computers.
Click to expand...

This was a criminal prosecution. The standard was, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Another reason why lawyers (prosecutors and defense, they are all the same) are the scum of the earth.

This countries legal system will always be broken until they start putting lawyers in prison for lying and intentionally defrauding a jury and judge to win their clients case. But nope, they are actually ENCOURAGED to do so and will infact face penalties if they dont defraud to the best of their ability.

And of course the american law system will continue to do nothing to people who have sites that distribute and create porn malware. Theyre just a good old fashionned american business trying to pay taxes after all.
 
idividebyzero said:
Another reason why lawyers (prosecutors and defense, they are all the same) are the scum of the earth.

This countries legal system will always be broken until they start putting lawyers in prison for lying and intentionally defrauding a jury and judge to win their clients case. But nope, they are actually ENCOURAGED to do so and will infact face penalties if they dont defraud to the best of their ability.

And of course the american law system will continue to do nothing to people who have sites that distribute and create porn malware. Theyre just a good old fashionned american business trying to pay taxes after all.
Click to expand...

Nice little rant, but nothing of the kind happened here.
 
She could not stop the pop-ups, and she had been told not to shut the computer down, and did as directed.
Click to expand...

So if she was directed by someone else not to shut down or turn off the monitors or do at least SOMETHING to play damage control....why the hell is SHE in the hotseat?
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
So if she was directed by someone else not to shut down or turn off the monitors or do at least SOMETHING to play damage control....why the hell is SHE in the hotseat?
Click to expand...

Just like anything, just being told to do or not do something does not take the responsibility off of you. The person making the ultimate decision is you and thus, you are to be held accountable and so should the person directing you to do it.

I just do not get it, NO ONE on the jury had ever dealt with pop-ups? This would be open shut not-guilty if they did.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
So if she was directed by someone else not to shut down or turn off the monitors or do at least SOMETHING to play damage control....why the hell is SHE in the hotseat?
Click to expand...

Because she is the one that brought it to everyones attention there. So therefor it's her fault in their eyes.
 
It makes you wonder how many teachers are in jail today for going to the old whitehouse.com site. I know it happenned at my school years ago and Ive heard from other people its happened at their school. The domain has finally been bought so its not porn anymore but it used to trick teachers constantly so Im sure there are atleast a few teachers serving a couple dozen years since nothing looks better in a prosecutors portfolio than putting innocent people behind bars.
 
Clearly the legal system has done a poor job keeping up with the times.It's not enough to be judged by your peers,a jury should at least be capable of understanding the technical workings of things like the Internet and computers.This sounds like a witch hunt to me,anyone with any experience with the net and the dirty tactics of some websites to draw in business could see how those pop-ups could appear without the teacher having anything to do with it.
 
Yeah, not to mention the efforts of nefarious Brats i the class.

Something lost on so many of the people in prosecution is the very RESON and PURPOSE for which they exist.

It is not to get CONVICTIONS and it is not to WIN. It may be an adversarial system, but the playing fild is not level. The Defense atty's job is simply this: get the client OFF, period.

The Prosecutor's job is to ACHIEVE JUSTICE. The duke rape case, this teacher BS, etc are all shining examples of why you do NOT appoint/elect "Liberty Univeristy" types or any other form of braindead moron, as a PROSECUTOR.

Low unto YOU... the defendent the jerkoff may screwup on, may very well be YOU.

So the actions of Nyphong at Duke, and the actions of this DA are not just incompetent, they are violations of thier oath of office and thier duty under the constitution.

Myself, I say take that DA and the police involved, give the same treatment they'd get under Saddam Hussien :p

Speaking of which, can you imagine what Stlin or Mao or Saddam would have done with Paris Hilton. Two thugs drag her ass into the street in bagdad make her kneel down, then shoot her in the back of the head in front of the 500 prickOrazzi's.
 
One has to wonder why they don't go after the makers of such popup crap, or are they just so technically backward that didn't even occur to them?

I swear our legal system is just becoming an anachronism in the Internet age.
 
Here is the part that gets me. She the teacher claimed popups. The DA said BS to that and feed the jury the same BS story. Yet the state did this:

"Perhaps the most alarming finding in Judge Strackbein's ruling Wednesday was the disclosure that a forensic examination of the classroom computer conducted by the state after Ms. Amero's conviction revealed that the pornographic images observed in the classroom that day were indeed from pop-ups."

I live right across the thames river from NewLondon. This teacher was rail roaded hands down. The court house is just a mere 5 miles from my house. I did keep up with this and there is alot more that isnt being published. The state did infact do a investigation and if all the DA would have listened to it there would have been no trial. He the DA wanted a qucik and dirty conviction, and when she was found guilty I thought back to how those 3 young men at Duke was rail roaded by a dirty DA.

In both cases I hope that they sue the crap out of the state and who ever else because now figure the odds of this teacher getting her teaching creditials back and getting hired by a school. Once you are trouted as being guilty you are judged by the media.

Nothing can ever replace what has been lost, you will always be thought of "hey she is the one who went to trial for porn at school" or what ever. She will always have that cloud over her head. Just like the Duke boys in NC.

I say its pay back time in both cases and hold everyone accountable for their actions. If it means some people gets fired then so be it. They had the proof and the hard evidence to show innocence. Yet they were sent to trial and or judged in the media. Sorry but rouge DA's and police needs to be dealed with in the very same harsh manner as these 2 were.
 
And did anyone find that a 40 year sentence for this little thing is fucking ridiculous? There are people who committed murders and get way less. I hate how this country misuse resources and blow little things like this up and down size the important things.
 
SentToSchool said:
And did anyone find that a 40 year sentence for this little thing is fucking ridiculous? There are people who committed murders and get way less. I hate how this country misuse resources and blow little things like this up and down size the important things.
Click to expand...

She was never sentenced. 40 years is just the maximum available for 4 felony counts that carry the possibility of 10 years each. Federal sentencing guidelines wouldn't have netted her that many years.

Theoretically she could have received 40 years, which would have been 4X10 years *consecutive*. No judge would consec a first offender for 4 counts max sentence. The other option is 4 ten year sentences *concurrent*, meaning ten years total.

Realistically, she would have done a year or so if convicted and been on probation.

Which would have been 100 times more than she deserved anyway, but just wanted to give some realistic perspective.
 
Everyone is crying "stupid American laws an judicial system" on this one, but didn't it happen in England?

:confused:
 
Regardless how it all unfolds in the end this whole thing is still showing america in a light that should make its people hang their head in shame, but won't I fear.
Oh and some of the comments here don't help with improving impressions either..
 
Hang our heads in shame? Ha, you go do that. People in other countries base all their impressions of Americans on what they see in the news. There is no hope in trying to change that, so why should we worry about it?

People who laugh at Americans when things like this happen are ignorant and senseless. They will never really know what Americans are like and how we live unless they visit the United States and make friends with Americans. Of course we all wish they had enough sense to know that the crap reported in the news does not in any way represent the average American. It would also be nice if they wouldn't judge us based on what our government does.
 
I like how people think this is the news that is reported overseas. Most views etc I would say come from pop culture and entertainment media, movies, music etc.

You think this India is going to report this story when worse happens over there?
 
god damn, i can't believe how awesome our judicial system is these days. Lawyers are a dime a dozen yet they feed on the weak and innocent claiming bogus damages in expense to fill their wallets full of dirty money. How this came into court is beyond me, but im glad the teacher was cleared of porn charges since its a freaking pop-up. Hopefully the Judge will strike down any lawyer who picks up a parents suit against the teacher due to "damaging effects" to his/her child.
 
The state made its case against Ms. Amero based on false information and erroneous testimony. It never did a thorough investigation of the computer in question until after she was convicted. It nearly ignored the flood of experts who literally shouted that Ms. Amero was getting snookered.

Hell, the state did ignore the flood of experts. It took a judge to see reason.

The prosecuting attorney, and the lead detective in Norwich should have their buns served up on a platter for this one. Overzelous prosecution led to ignoring the facts, and the detective was not computer literate enough to make the testimony in court that he did and present it as gospel truth. He actually testified in court that they could prove she deliberately visited the websites in question, when they could not.

Hats off to the nationwide fury on the part of geeks to this one, and let's hope Ms. Amero gets a better deal this time.
 
You know pop up means pop up you don't control it.

I heard in recent news pop up are now being pushed to people through email, gif, fake sites, fake links, hacked sites, virus, worms, and so on.

You can't blame her for that. She can also have shut monitor down. Also kids early as 5years old probably already seen porn.

maybe the judge donn't really know what the internet is a pipe delivery your bits. Its funny how they can make laws base on stuff they don't even understand example in Canada a judge could not grasp the term internet, he probably didn't know what a bbs dialup was if the people had to show him the evolution of the internet.
 
Mega2 said:
You know pop up means pop up you don't control it.

I heard in recent news pop up are now being pushed to people through email, gif, fake sites, fake links, hacked sites, virus, worms, and so on.

You can't blame her for that. She can also have shut monitor down. Also kids early as 5years old probably already seen porn.

maybe the judge donn't really know what the internet is a pipe delivery your bits. Its funny how they can make laws base on stuff they don't even understand example in Canada a judge could not grasp the term internet, he probably didn't know what a bbs dialup was if the people had to show him the evolution of the internet.
Click to expand...

The judge didn't decide guilt or innocence. This was a jury trial.

The problem stems from several issues --

A) The school. Their machines were running Win98 (read: insecure), and their Antivirus and Internet filtering subscriptions had lapsed (poor planning). There was no anti-malware software, which I wouldn't consider a huge thing in Win2k/XP (where you can use Active Directory Group Policies to limit what the average user can install) but could be a big issue with Windows 98. Despite all of this, and despite the computer-illiterate substitute teacher being told by her primary teacher not to turn the machine off, the school held the teacher responsible. Either they were clueless, or needed a scapegoat. And their IT department looks highly incompetent.

B)The detective who investigated. This guy wasn't computer literate enough --most likely that wasn't his fault, he was probably assigned to this sort of thing because he had more experience than anyone else in the department, which made him the resident expert in an area where he was a few steps above the novices. From what has been printed, he just has a piece of software that sifts through a computer's Internet history. Somehow, the conclusion was made (erroneously, of course) that the teacher deliberately visited these sites and exposed them to the class. I can't see how they arrived at this conclusion, because there's no way to prove it in this particular situation (note: if the school had a comprehensive internet tracking system in place, they might have been able to make a case, but it's still unlikely, and if they'd had this, the filter would have been up and blocking).

C)The prosecuting attorney, who, despite what I can only believe to be a lack of computer knowledge (relying on others rather than discovering facts for himself), goes after the teacher. At least one witness for the plaintiff who could have proven crucial was not allowed.

I can't fault a jury for being somewhat computer illiterate --the problem truly is that they were asked to judge the case on evidence, and then they were given false evidence to judge upon. It's hard for me to fault a judge here either, although I'd like to know on what grounds the expert witness for the plaintiff wasn't allowed.
 
A jury can really only interpret the information they are given. I personally think the fault lies with the presentation of the information. Obviously no one explained to the jury that malicious software can infect a machine and make it do anything. Also you would think that no one bothered to explain that anyone can infect a machine, not just this teacher.
 
Fucking finally. If anyone in the country deserves to sue the hell out of the government, it's this lady.
 
I like how people think this is the news that is reported overseas. Most views etc I would say come from pop culture and entertainment media, movies, music etc.

You think this India is going to report this story when worse happens over there?
Click to expand...

A lot of stuff that is simply stupid or makes the United States look stupid is in the news in other countries. My roommate and best friend is Turkish and he reads a popular Turkish news website every day. About every other day there is something in there about America, and it's often something like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top