Here's the initial story with some links to more extensive info:
Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut, has been convicted of impairing the morals of a child and risking injury to a minor by exposing as many as ten seventh-grade students to porn sites.
It's a short story: On October, 19, 2004, Amero was a substitute teacher for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School. A few students were crowded around a PC; some were giggling. She investigated and saw the kids looking at a barrage of graphic, hard-core pornographic pop-ups.
The prosecution contended that she had used the computer to visit porn sites.
The defense said that wasn't true and argued that the machine was infested with spyware and malware, and that opening the browser caused the computer to go into an endless loop of pop-ups leading to porn sites.
Amero maintains her innocence. She refused offers of a plea bargain and now faces an astounding 40 years in prison (her sentencing is on March 2).
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12867 ... =nl_sbxcol
http://eset.com/threat-center/blog/?p=42
A juror's comments (additional comments are by the columnist):
"I was on the jury and yes we did find her guilty.
"But everything seems to be misquoted by the papers and reporters involved. The bottom line was that it didn't make a difference who or how the porn sites showed up on the computer."
[According to the trial transcript, Amero testified that she made every attempt to keep the children from seeing the images. In fact, a number of children testified that she had attempted to block them from seeing the screen. Also, another substitute teacher testified that Julie had asked for help in the teachers lounge.]
"The fact that a teacher in a public school system did absolutely nothing to keep it away from the children is what was wrong. Yes, we were told that she was given no permissions to turn off the computer. She also said she was not allowed to use any other school equipment.
"If a 40-year-old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?"
[At the trial Amero testified that she didn't, in fact, know how to turn a computer on or off.]
"If you and your wife were watching an xxx rated movie the you put into the dvd player, powered it up and hit play, and then went into the other room for a snack, and your child or grandchild entered the room, would you expect your wife to stop the dvd or just let it play because she didn't start it. No, you would be upset as all get out.
"Even giving Julie the benefit of doubt, not knowing enough about a computer to be able to turn it off. Some paper and tape would have covered the screen or a coat or sweater. It was October after all.
"Finally she was pronounced guilty because she made no effort to hide or stop the porno, not just because she loaded the porno onto the machine. Going to the history pages it was obvious that the paged were clicked on they were not the result of pop-ups.
[Actually, the defense expert at the trial testified that the sites visited were from pop-ups.]
"Each web page visited showed where links were clicked on and followed to other pages. Pop ups go to sites without change ink colors, as in used links.
[That's incorrect. Pop-ups show as a changed type color, just like a normal site visit.]
http://blogs.pcworld.com/tipsandtweaks/ ... 03741.html
I just don't believe this woman used a school computer to surf hardcore porn and then deliberately exposed children to it. This link has info on helping her:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/tipsandtweaks/ ... 03746.html
