aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Amero transcripts

The Norwich Bulletin has posted the full 346 page transcript from the Julie Amero trial. The Bulleting concludes it confirms Amero’s conviction was based not on how the pornography got on the computer on Oct. 19, 2004, but on her allowing several Kelly Middle School students to see the pornography and not doing enough to prevent them from seeing it.”

I haven’t read it. Apparently this commenter has:

From the trail transcipts posted here.

The Principal Scott “Police on Speed Dial” Fain was asked what did he do after meeting with Ms Amero on Oct 21 this from the transcript here.

Q.Did you have her back in again?

A. She came back in the following day after we spoke on the phone

Q. And you discussed the matter again on that day?

A. Yes

Q. And that the day you told her she would not be coming back to your school?

A. That’s Correct.

Now for the good part. Scott “Speed Dial” Fain cares about your childrens well being their morals...so much so that this was his REAL course of action from the transcipt.

Q. MR FAIN ISN’T IT TRUE YOU WERE SENDING HER TO ANOTHER SCHOOL TO TEACH?

A. I’M SORRY?

Q. ISN’T IT TRUE YOU WERE SENDING HER TO ANOTHER SCHOOL TO TEACH?

A. MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN DO YOU MEAN?

Q. AFTER THE 19TH

A. YES

So this is what you have. A Principal who may think that he has a teacher who is accessing porn in the classroom and his answer is to “SEND HER TO ANOTHER SCHOOL SYSTEM???????”

So what we have so far from these transcripts is testimony that :

The same websites were visited the DAY AFTER this happened and Ms Amero was no where near the computer.

Principal Fien according to his testimony visited the computer on the 20th

The principal thought that this was so HORRIBLE that he felt comfortable letting Ms Amero teach somewhere else.

Maybe someone should have asked the Principle where he was on both days?

For all the others who have not gotten our attention, the plea I’ve appended to all of my Amero posts:

WE NEED A COMPUTER FORENSICS INNOCENCE PROJECT; a Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld of the computer forensics world. We need experts who believe in the presumption of innocence and are willing to spend the time it takes to dig through logs, registry entries and hard drives to find exculpatory material when present. This is hardly the first case of its kind and, unfortunately, it’s not likely be the last. Prosecutors who look for - and presume - guilt do selective searches for data supporting guilt; those accused rarely have the resources to pay computer forensics experts to counter that selective evidence.

UPDATE: here is an improved version of the transcript, “a collaborative project driven by advocates promoting justice for Julie “