The local paper in Norwich has published my opinion piece on the Amero case.
When I first read of the case, my reaction was how illogical it all sounded: A middle-aged, substitute female teacher accessing porn on a classroom computer, in front of her students on one particular day? It made no sense.
Then I read on to find out the forensic examination of the computer clearly showed this machine was an old, poorly maintained system, riddled with spyware, without adequate protections in place, and it all became clear. Amero is the victim, not the perpetrator.
They did edit it a bit and it’s actually an earlier draft of the final, but the major gist of the storey is there. You can read the editorial piece here.
Note that the data I presented in the editorial came from Julie’s own testimony at the trial, information from the expet witness, along with actual forensic evidence (which I have reviewed parts of), and information from the defense. A later draft that I sent to the paper made my sources more clear (the edit did not make the final publication). The forensic evidence and expert testimony showed clearly that after a visit to Crayola.com, someone went to a site about hair styles which loaded a javascript that spawned popups. You can argue whatever you want, but it physically impossible to say that Julie “clicked on those links” from the physical evidence.
There’s so much more emerging on this case. I will likely interview Julie Amero and the expert witness this weekend, so watch this space for more.
Alex Eckelberry