91 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

mizman: My father's a lawyer. Yes, some lawyers are assh**es (prosecutors and John Edwards type ambulance chasers), but the biggest problem is the legislature and the people who vote them in. They are, after all, the people who create these idiotic laws.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Here's mine. Tell me if it needs anything changed. Also, should I send this to all involved (as CC or BCC)? Should I send it using my SN or personal e-mail address?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------First, I'd like to say that your police investigate simple matters as well as those in any other state. This is sad, and it is the major reason why so many people are exonerated each year. Flimsy cases built on a lack of evidence somehow boggle the impressionable idiots chosen for jury duty. I propose juries are composed of experts in the field of the evidence and events, but that is for another letter.As a web designer - I've been doing it since high school and have been interviewing for a position in the field lately, as I left my job in hardware - I find the guilty verdict given (given, since it was not based on facts) to Julie Amero deplorable. If anyone should be convicted it should be those responsible for the actions of the IT department. Their failure to install and update adequate anti-malware and anti-viral programs as well as regularly run tests and update the hosts file is the reason pornographic pop-ups appeared. This type of computer hijacking is even common knowledge to the general public, since computers are more prevalent today then they were over 10 years ago. Why the computer forensic department of the police department didn't check for malware during the case is beyond me. I am willing to say that they did check, but the state attorney wanted a conviction so they either ignored it or removed it, as it is quite easy to remove with free programs or, if you have the knowledge, editing the computer's registry file (which you can do with a program as well, one being Hijack This!).And, hey, those kids probably look at porn at home all of the time, but we can't prove that. So I guess with the excellent team of state attorneys in your state we can convict them of "impairing the morals of a child" with themselves as both the victim and the perpetrator, as is the style in current times when dealing with those under the age of 18 who experience sexuality (strange, since they in general have been experiencing sexuality since 12 because of, you know, puberty). Your state's action of punishing a victim, and don't make a mistake by saying Ms. Amero isn't a victim at the hands of computer criminals, is deplorable.I would suggest that you make sure this woman gets an appeal, and that the case is dropped upon appeal. I will be investigating whether the ACLU has been aiding this person. If a conviction sticks I'm sure a nice punitive damage decision will come in a civil lawsuit. But it really isn't as if the state was using that money to actually investigate the evidence during a criminal trial.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

While i agree on your point, I can, may and will add a personal touch after I have it reviewed by like-minded peers who are knowledgeable of the subject. I appreciate your concern, but I think the flood of well-written letters may make people take notice. People send form letters all of the time. Have you ever been accepted to college?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

quit using digg as a personal soap box, douche. get a web page with seizure-inducing graphics like everyone else.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

i think a lack of a spyware search on the computer is clear grounds for a mistrial.since the governor can't do pardons directly, an appeal might be quicker than the bureaucracy of this Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

First, I am a critic of the criminal justice system and the bias it has to convict people rather than find the truth. Second, the hysteria surrounding "sex crimes" against children, puts the accused in the position of having to prove their innocence, rather than requiring the state to prove their guilt.That being said, cases like this are never as black and white as those who advocate a point of view would like us to believe. For instance, the perceptions are that there was no spyware search of the computer, there was no expert to testify for the defendant, the defendant did nothing to cause the images to appear on the computer and finally that it happened so fast, she could not stop it.In reality, there was a spyware search and she had an expert. He testified that there was a link that led to a mousetrapping porn site that could not be escaped from. The other evidence showed that there were sites visited that required clicks from the user to go to them. In addition, the images appeared on the computer for 2 hours - not a few seconds. Apparently the defense tried the theory that the students activated the sites. Later, the out of control adware defense came into play.I am not commenting on the defendant's guilt or innocence, just pointing out that there is conflicting evidence. Before you get too wound up about this, you should check out the facts and make a reasoned decision. Here are two articles that report on the case and have more details. For local press they are remarkably non-judgmental.<a class="user" href="http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070103/NEWS01/701030330/1002&quot;&gt;http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070103/NEWS01/701030330/1002&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a class="user" href="http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/NEWS01/701060312/1002/NEWS17&quot;&gt;http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/NEWS01/701060312/1002/NEWS17&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

It's easy to donate $5, $10, or even $20 bucks to her legal fund. We decent humans have to stand by each other when the f**ked up legal system goes apes**t on one of our own. $5 spent to take a stand and show solidarity is a bargain.

• Reply