Ars Technica reported on the trial of substitute teacher - rather, former substitute teacher Julie Amero, and Alex Eckelberry's attempt to save her from fraudulent charges and accusations.
To bottom line it, the case came about because Amero had porn popups ravage her classroom's computer, and didn't turn off the computer immediately, instead running to the teacher's lounge for help. Her lack of sense in leaving the computer running is overwhelming, I'm still surprised by this sort of lack of ability in today's world, but I can hardly fault her for it. Some teachers are simply from a different generation and haven't felt the need to learn even basic computer knowledge.
What makes me angry is the dubious testimony of the school's IT manager, and the misuse of information by the prosecution. The school's IT manager was by all accounts extremely lazy - outdated virus software, expired content filtering on the network, Windows 98 in the year 2004? Seriously?
And then to have the prosecution mislead a technically ignorant jury into a false conviction is just pathetic. Unfortunately, jury members are usually chosen, rather than dismissed, for their ignorance. Why can't the prosecution be expected then, to get their facts straight before sending an innocent women to the proverbial gallows? They were just doing their job, right? I've heard too many stories about teachers taking abuse at the hands of parents and their mindless, uninformed rage.
A tired, overstressed substitute teacher takes a fine to just get the trial over with, even though the conviction was overturned due to new evidence from Eckelberry, and a lazy IT worker doesn't get the bad attention and discrediting he deserves. Thanks, justice system.