A Revolution is the Solution
From the Hartford Courant:
'Amero's case became a hot issue for bloggers throughout the country, many of whom sharply criticized the guilty verdict. Strackbein criticized the bloggers today, saying they tried to "improperly influence" the court.'
That moron judge still accepts no responsibility. GAH!
Well, ultimately the judge can go jump. the move to a retrial speaks volumes anyway. plus, if it hadn't been for those "angry bloggers" making such a stink about this to attract some attention in the first place julie amero could likely have slid into obscurity with nobody caring.
after all, once attention was drawn to the case all the bloggers closest to the case shut right up and have remained silent till now anyway.
I'd say that alone is pretty impressive. I've been bursting to make some more noise on this one but held fire for the good of the case.
improperly influence the Court :-P well some of us did try im given to understand that some state Officials had to change thier Email addresses a number of times...
Seems they where getting Emails from Hackistan 
"Strackbein criticized the bloggers today, saying they tried to "improperly influence" the court."
Gaack - which just goes to show how UTTERLY FUCKING CLUELESS these people are about the internet and computers in general.
"And I would've got away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling bloggers"
Ruh-Roh !!!
"...I think this is needed sooner rather than later."
damn right. too many people are increasingly more forceful with their bullshit pertaning to why they can happily dump all over your computer.
i only wish more people took as hardline a stance as you on issues like this. fuck em all.
hey, thanks. i first heard about this case after you did your "julie amero myspace extravaganza" urging people to get involved and i most certainly did. if it wasnt for people like you getting the word out, who knows how many people who otherwise would have done something about this would have remained entirely oblivious until it was too late.
keep up the good fight!
It's time to start casting the characters for the inevitable movie based on the unfortunate Julie Amero affair.
For starters, we have the hapless Julie, an on-call substitute teacher:
Julie-Anne Dreyfuss. - I don't know - cool name, I guess....
The conniving little monsters students that undoubtedly relished the opportunity to torture their sub - after all, that's what everyone does to substitutes, right?
Take your pick - they're pretty much all evil at that age. Hell, maybe as part of her probation, Paris H. will act like one, pro-bono.
Scott Fain, the take-no-responsibility principal of the school where Julie taught:
John Lovitz (She's guilty! Yeah, that's it!)
Pam Aubin - Superintendent Norwich Public Schools:
Lily Tomlin - "We're the school board. We don't have to care!"
The no-clue school network administrator:
Francis Pharcellus Church (Yes, Virginia, 'trial versions' do expire)
Mark Lounsbury, the 'off-the-edge' police officer who investigated the crime:
Bobcat Goldthwiat - enough said.
Julie's defence lawyer, who for various reasons, seemed unable to mount a suitable defence.
1st nomination: Phil Hartman's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, aka Cirroc, who 'speaks in a highly articulate
and smoothly self-assured manner to a jury or an audience about how things in the modern world "frighten and confuse" him.' Wikipedia
There's no doubt that personal computers would completely confound him.
2nd nomination: Hyperchicken (Futurama). "I'm just a simple country lawyer". From Wikipedia:
"The hyperchicken is a parody of many incompetent attorneys from many movies such as My Cousin Vinny and indeed the Hyperchicken's complete and total lack of legal skill bears similarity to Lionel Hutz from Groening's other series The Simpsons."
3rd nomination: Lional Hutz. Hat tip to Groening and Hartman.
Prosecutor David J Smith: - Nasty bastard with no regard for the well-being of others during the pursuit of career advancement
Larry Hagman - Just take up where JR Ewing left off....
Superior Court Judge Hillary B. "Let's get this done before quitting time" Strackbein:
Uh, just find anyone with their head WAY up their arse, and you're done.
The jurors:
We'll have to 'IMCB' the list of folks who played the yokels on Deliverance - they'll do just fine.
Cue banjo music: 'deer neer neer - neer neer- neer neer- neer neer'.
The bloggers:
As yourselves. Marvelous job - just be sure to wash up and comb your hair.....
What happened to Mark "your goose is cooked" Lounsbury, last seen shouting abuse at Nancy Willard before picking up his spade and resuming digging.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/s...x/
lounsbury.doc
Four independent forensic examinations proved his evidence wrong, and the judge called it "false".
FreewheelinFrank
I like it just the right mix Of nutter loon total dickhead and Psycho
And what do they say about Movies its all in the casting :-P
oops Sorry Rob wrong name on Post by me
oops - I think I meant to say "Julia Louis-Dreyfus" and "IMDb".
Something weird is going on with Mark Lounsbury.
Reading lounsbury.doc from the link supplied by FreewheelinFrank inspired me to do some searching to find out the latest on that guy - did he learn anything from his experiences? Was he sacked? Reassigned?
Anyway, the top two hits for Mark Lounsbury as per Google Blog search are gone - apparently deleted:
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/20...s-and-villains/
and
http://lizditz.typepad.com/
i_spe..._amero_her.html
Both reference the email exchange.
Methinks I'll be archiving my copy of the email exchange...
The Google cache of the Odd Time Signatures is still available:
"Lounsbury isn’t the only villain, but he’s certainly the one who sealed Julie Amero’s fate in court."
"Mark Lounsbury is a fascinating character, if you’re reading a horror novel. If it’s real life, he’s downright frightening."
"Here’s a guy on the public payroll who believes with every fiber of his being that Julie Amero is an evil, perverted porn grabber who has now caused him to be the scapegoat in the outcome to this case."
Sadly the Lounsbury line is still being pushed elsewhere:
"While the corrected technical analysis shows that the porn almost certainly started with the spyware/popups in the morning, it does not disprove the children's testimony that Amero was intentionally surfing porn later in the day."
"Its good that's she's getting a second trial where the correct information about spyware/popups is presented, but chances are good that she will still be found guilty."
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/20...ero-part-
2.html
I'm pretty sure I read all of the students testimony from the transcripts, yet I don't remember any of them testifying that Julie was intentionally surfing for porn: this was the claim made by the prosecution on the basis of a few web sites named and Lounsbury's evidence, yet I've seen this story repeated elsewhere. Where is it coming from?
If I was being cynical, I'd suggest that somebody was doing some damage limitation by putting round the story that the children testified that Julie was intentionally surfing for porn. There is nothing in the transcripts that I can see that could not be interpreted as somebody trying to deal with a "pornado". A person new to computers would assume that pop-ups could be closed by clicking the red 'x'. Knowing that more would appear simply reappear later, pop-ups and pop-unders, would only be possible with knowledge of adware/spyware or with hindsight. The children's evidence can be interpreted as them seeing somebody at a computer plagued by pop-ups and trying to deal with it. There seem to be a number of people who have got the idea that their evidence confirms Julie's guilt, even before it is re-examined in the light of Lounsbury's deliberate surfing evidence being found "erroneous". Why is that? I think we should be told.
I believe you're right, FreewheelinFrank. Someone's creating some spin here in a feeble attempt to shift the focus away from the flawed participants in this flawed process. I guess they're counting on folks not to delve into the trial transcripts and other available facts of the matter.
I also noticed on the Norwich Bulletin's comments pages that certain commenters ('Mr.T' and 'Larry') seem to be attempting the same spin.
Much rebuttal has already been served.
Look closely at the emails of Mark Lounsbury and then MrT's comments. I swear they are one in the same.
Commenting by HaloScan
