Sunbeltblog comments
And what a sorry read it is!
Where was CSI Gil Grissom with the science to defend the innocent victim from the prosecutor out for a conviction at the expense of the truth?
I guess this was real life: a bumbling defence lawyer... an incompetent forensic witness. Only the prosecutor bore any relation to the fition we see on TV. Truly ha had no regard for the truth, but was content to see ignorance, prejudice and assumption lead the jury to a guity verdict.
Neither of the two forensic witnesses were remotely competent. The prosecution witness was blatantly ignorant; the defence witness was tragically ill-prepared. (Although obviously technically qualified, his inexperience rendered him incompetent for the job- he had never presented a forensic examination in court before, and did online research to find out what was expected of him. He obviously had no idea of court procedures.)
The prosecution was allowed to drag Julie's name and reputation through the mud without challenge due the defences total lack of technical understanding. Not even the extraordinary nature of the depravity that would be required were the allegation made on an unfounded technological basis true ever challenged.
Example: Julie must have clicked on the links to get to the sites- false. She must have gone through the login screens to visit the sites- false (redirects don't require a login.) Porn was found so Julie must been surfing for porn- false, but there was porn, so here the jury is just left to assumption and prejudice. No examination of what sort of person Julie was and what porn sites were found.
Example: in the testimony of the class teacher, he says he found history of "a discussion board about lesbians." Yet the only other mention is from the prosecution mentions that Julie 'visited' cheatinglesbians[dot]com, a porno site for men: 'No Boys Allowed! Except You!'
Porn sites were found so this married, heterosexual, pregnant, middle aged woman must be a porn monster! And this is not challenged by the defence? The implication that she is a lesbian is not even touched on. The nature of the sites visited is never questioned: was it a porno site for men or a discussion board. A discussion board would presumably have member records which could be subpoenaed? No mention is made that teachers caught surfing for porn in schools are invariably men and don't do it in the classroom.
http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/
Amer...meroTragedy.pdf
Why no expert witness on this subject?
And Julie is also alleged to have visited a dating site. Reality check! A four month pregnant woman looking for a date?
Please tell me somebody is going to hire Julie a good lawyer for the appeal?
Alex, the "Full download" link from Bob Johnson seems to have expired.
However, before it disappeared, I ran the PDF document through an OCR program. The resultant textual version of the transcript may be a little more accessible (only ~350 Kb) and is definitely searchable. The text version can be downloaded here:
http://members.shaw.ca/dawailer/
..._Transcript.txt
For those who download this, please remember that optical recognition is not an exact science - there may be some minor errors present in this version, but I've tried to keep them to a minimum.
Commenting by HaloScan
