Sunbeltblog comments
I want to thank you, Alex, and all the folks at Sunbelt for doing such a good job of covering Julie's story. The Sunbelt blog coverage was fast, accurate, and technically savvy. You guys were the "go to" spot for seeing developments on this case covered sensibly. My hat's off to you. And wow, what a breath of fresh air to see a security-related court decision actually make sense! Congrats all around on today's victory.
Alex: I also wanted to thank you for helping to get coverage as well. Network Performance Daily will continue to cover the story as it develops - here's hoping there's not much more to it.
For the locals in and around Norwich, thank you is not enough. It is has been a pleasure to see how a group of people can come together to prove and support the innocence of one person not for monetary gain but for principal. As a mom, grandmother and one who uses a computer daily for her work, I knew from the beginning what happened, as it happened to me at home on my own computer during the same time frame. With the help of my youngest son who is presently in college studying for a degree in software engineering I am as safe as can be with the never ending continuation of those who create malware, adware, viruses and trojans. Everyone I talked to and bumped into I made sure they new the real deal here. This is a case that I hope can make a difference in the courts regarding the technical issues involved in computer crimes and forensics. I hope, when this is over, that there is a story told....it is an important and albiet a scary one for a common computer user. On behalf of all those who helped her and supported her, thank you seems like just small words.......
Good news indeed. Justice will be served and while we may have won this battle...the war isn't over.
I just stumbled on this story from Wired's link and I just wanted to say how moved I am. To see so many people whose personal lives would never have been affected by Julie's convictions, go to such lengths to ensure that this wrong is righted is both motivating and inspiring.
Thank You.
Good work!
Very well done.
Will the retrial be on the same charges? Will Julie again be accused of deliberate porn surfing? I think one of the experts in the video said that this accusation had been proved false by four sets of forensic evidence. The evidence presented by the prosecution had now been admitted to be wrong. Making the same accusation of wilful exposure of the children to porn would be a farce.
Will Julie be tried on the basis that she didn't do enough to protect the kids, which has always been the argument of those who continued to insist on her guilt despite the spyware evidence? (Norwich Bulletin: boo!) Can we assume that if she does stand in the dock accused of not doing enough, she will have some company this time? The person responsible for the lapsed security on the computer for one would seem to me to be deserving of accompanying Julie in the dock in the new trial.
The Harford Courant (cheers!) reported that:
"Smith said state would take no position on Dow's motion for a new trial, making it unlikely she will be tried again."
http://www.courant.com/news/loca...-headlines-
home
Any confirmation on this?
Alex says:
"Right now, because the case *is* [my emphasis] going to a new trial, I still can’t discuss much of the case publicly."
Courtant.com says "Smith said state would take no position on Dow's motion for a new trial, making it unlikely she will be tried again."
So, who is right?
Fantastic news! Great work by everyone involved.
It's too bad the judge seemed to think that bloggers had tried to improperly influence the court. She needs to review a little American history and learn the meaning of "We the People."
To clarify: most of my questions were rhetorical, except for the last one, which I presume Alex can answer.
Any news on what the state intend to do, Alex?
FreewhilinFrank: No idea what the state intends to do at this juncture.
FreewhllinFrank and SamSpade:
"Right now, because the case *is* [my emphasis] going to a new trial, I still can’t discuss much of the case publicly."
Courtant.com says "Smith said state would take no position on Dow's motion for a new trial, making it unlikely she will be tried again."
So, who is right?
Actually, Smith said he would take no position on the MOTION -- not the TRIAL. One must continue on the assumption that the State will bring a new trial.
Good work, Alex - I know how time consuming this has been for you and the people who have supported Ms Amero. It is wonderful to see that people will stand up and fight back.
Catherine
Ogman got it right - We The People. I don't know anything about this judge whether or not she is a fair jurist or not. I do recall reading she "fell asleep" during the trial at some point. At this point, I'm not a big fan of hers.
I believe the prosecutor or the judge can dismiss the charges if they don't feel they have a case????
Hi Sheep. Face the facts and the truth. GUILTY. Want more?
http://julie-amero-alex-eckelber...y.blogspot.com/
Just the facts.
p.s. Alex, this is not over till the fat lady sings. 
Commenting by HaloScan
