Filed under: News
Julie Amero sentencing postponed, Norwich "expert" speaks
Julie Amero, the substitute school teacher convicted of being an internet n00b in a classroom with a severely outdated and unmaintained computer has had a brief, non-permanent reprieve from her sentencing on four felony counts. The hearing to decide her fate, which could see her spending up to 40 years in prison, was postponed until March 29th. The Norwich-Bulletin does its typically biased job of updating events in the case, and reminds us, "forensic investigation of the computer used that day revealed she was actively surfing the sites nearly the entire school day." According to reports however, the Norwich Police's only "computer expert" Mark Lounsbury has little if any IT training, and relied primarily on his free "certification" on the ComputerCop Pro software, and the reports which it generates. The big issue: ComputerCop Pro is incapable of determining whether the URLs opened by Internet Explorer 5 were the result of human action, or of programmatic control through spyware or malware. Nevertheless, Amero was convicted on the back of testimony offered by Lounsbury.
Lounsbury has himself admitted to criminal activity in the past. In 2001 Detective Lounsbury admitted to drinking alcohol while driving a minor child in a police vehicle while involved in an underage drinking sting operation. He was never charged, and as far as searchable records show, the investigation essentially died a quiet death, leaving Detective Lousbury in his position as the chief investigator of computer crimes involving children for the Norwich Police Department.
Lounsbury has contacted PC World and stated that he has evidence he is unable to share with media until the sentancing phase of Amero's trial is complete. "I can provide you w/ the source code showing all the .htm and javascripting for each web page, images from those pages, date/time of creation, MD5 hashes, etc." Unfortunately, to hear a computer "expert" refer to ".htm" files as source code doesn't instill a great amount of confidence in his assessment. It's difficult for anyone with solid understanding of computers to see how MD5 hashes, used mostly to ensure a file remains unchanged from one sample to the next, could possibly have any bearing on Amero's guilt or innocence. It's likely that Lounsbury has a giant ball of nothing in his pocket, aside from some useless reports he feels must say something incriminating among all that gibberish he doesn't fully comprehend.
Lounsbury says he will share the "evidence" with PC World upon the completion of Amero's sentencing, "I'm thinking the world doesn't want to hear the truth. IGNORANCE IS BLISS. The lies are exciting, bringing up STRONG emotions. OMG, that poor person, victimized by the Evil Government and its minions."
OMG, ROFL. Touché Detective Lousbury.
See Also:
Porn pop-up teacher gets new attorney, PC World outs juror
Malware victim faces jailtime; Write Connecticut's Governor
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Focher said 8:34PM on 3-01-2007
Ummm, shouldn't the "evidence" have been presented during the trial?
I have yet to read an acceptable computing resource who concludes this is all bogus. Instead, the consensus is that this poor woman is being railroaded by the ineptitude of everyone around her. At the very best, she is 100% innocent and a total victim. At the very worst, there is so much reasonable doubt as to whether she did any of this stuff that I wonder how there wasn't at least one juror who held out.
Reply
toby said 9:01PM on 3-01-2007
"I can provide you w/ the source code showing all the .htm and javascripting for each web page..."
"Javascripting"??! Someone please tell this computer "expert" that it's not a verb...
Reply
streetleveltech said 11:34PM on 3-01-2007
If Det Lounsbury is considered qualified to speak as a expert on computers in a legal proceeding, I'm going to burn my IT degree and my certifications and take up ditch digging!
Reply
Phill said 8:08AM on 3-08-2007
Lounsbury:
“Unfortunately the truth in this matter is yet to be told to all those who were not located in the courtroom during the trial. Those in the courtroom saw and heard the truth”
What in the world are we going to hear? Did she actually encourage the kids to “oh, now, try this link here, that really has some cool porn”? Or, did she get up on the table and start doing a dance or something? The point is, what in the world did she do, or not do, that is worth 40 yrs in prison? I really can’t imagine that there is anything I would hear once the “facts” get out that would cause me to think “give her 40 years! She deserves 40 years!”
If only she would’ve actually had an “inappropriate relationship” with one of the kids, then she probably would’ve gotten less then 5.
How about we give 40 years to every dad who left a Playboy mag under the bed, or in a drawer or wherever, that was found by their kids (and shared with their friends)? How about we give 40 years to every parent who’s left an x-rated video around somewhere that that their kids (and their friends) found and watched. If this is so serious, why do we allow internet access in the first place, especially in schools?
I’ve got a lot of questions about what happened, (being a computer person that’s worked in a school system, and know how hard it is sometimes to get through the tie-wraps and other obstacles to actually turn a computer off), but, if detective Lounsbury insists that there’s more evidence to come, I’m willing to wait. But, 40 years? I’m sorry Lounsbury, I just don’t buy it.
Reply
Shanna said 5:58PM on 5-24-2007
As a professional i.t. tech with over seven years experience, I must admit I am appalled that Julie Amero is being convicted of a "crime" in this case. What happened was unfortunate but in *no way* unfathomable.
It sounds as if Lousbury is no more than a pseudo-geek spewing out big-sounding words to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. It is obvious to anyone with a smidgen of computer knowledge that he does not.
I will be watching this, hoping to see some justice done for poor Ms. Amero.
Reply