Pop Up Controversy: Arguments continue in Julie Amero porn case

Connecticut- It’s a 4-year-old old case that won’t go away.

Former substitute teacher Julie Amero’s recent appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America” has renewed debate in a criminal case that generated a firestorm of protests and cries of injustice and left reputations battered in its wake.

Amero was convicted by a jury in 2007 on multiple counts of risk of injury to a minor after police alleged she was surfing pornographic Web sites in class at Kelly Middle School. The incident occurred Oct. 27, 2004.

Amero always has claimed she was the victim of an uncontrollable storm of pornographic pop-ups, because she was not computer savvy and simply did not know what to do to get them off the screen and to keep her students from seeing the images.

She was facing possible jail time when a public outcry and work by a group of computer programmers helped call into question the state’s evidence. A new trial was ordered.

In the end, Amero settled the case by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, paying a $100 fine and agreeing not to teach in the state ever again.

Case closed? Not quite.

Both sides argued at her Nov. 21 sentencing that they were prepared to move forward with a new trial.

Defense attorney William Dow said the only reason Amero acquiesced was because she was “unable to withstand the rigors of a trial, both emotionally and physically.”

Assistant State’s Attorney David Smith, vilified by bloggers and newspaper columnists for his prosecution in the case, said the state was prepared for a retrial, this time with new evidence that indicates Amero was not as computer illiterate as she claimed.

According to transcripts from the November sentencing, Smith said the state turned up evidence that Amero had taken computer programming classes and had, at one time, been employed at a casino to research patrons’ accounts and activities by computer.

He also contended that one of Amero’s students remembered an incident similar to the one in 2004 that had happened a year earlier, in which Amero was viewing questionable material. Smith said some of the information was learned too close to trial to become part of the evidence.

Judge Robert E. Young, recognizing the contentiousness of the case, told both attorneys to stand down.

“It is very apparent that both of you are more than willing to go forward with this matter and that you both think you have a very strong case,” Young said. “I’m hoping that we’re not opening some old wounds and scratching at scabs that are best left alone.”

But the old wounds were reopened with Amero’s latest television appearance.

In her “Good Morning, America” interview, Amero said the state got what it wanted, “a pound of flesh.”

“I ended up in the hospital twice. The doctors agreed I would never make it through another trial,” Amero said in the interview.

Smith, able to comment for the first time since the sentencing, said he not only was criticized about the case, but received death threats.

“The state is required to go where the evidence points,” he said. “The information we had, including statements from the children and employees at the school, led to our decision to go forward.”

One outcome of the case was criticism by computer bloggers and programmers of the testimony of Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, who examined the classroom computer and contended the pornography was not inadvertent.

Lounsbury says the publicity in the case has overshadowed the actual evidence.

“Nobody was out to get Julie Amero,” he contended.

He said, “There is a certain amount of truth to every story.”

Although there was evidence of pop-ups, they were intermittent, he said, and they don’t account for several hours of Internet surfing, which included non-pornographic sites that day.

“To this day, I’ve never actually seen evidence produced by the defense team to show her innocence,” Lounsbury said.

Sunbelt Software CEO Alex Eckelberry, who helped lead the team of computer programmers in a technical examination of the case, has said erroneous statements made at trial could have led to the initial guilty conviction.

“We made our findings available to the defense team,” Eckelberry said by e-mail this week. “As to what they did with it, I don’t have any idea.”

Amero could not be reached for comment. Despite repeated attempts, she has never made a statement to The Norwich Bulletin.