The fun little bit is that Nancy Willard has a website and books that deal with the issue of "cyberbullying", which she defines as:
Cyberbullying is being cruel to others by sending orCompare that definition to the e-mail she sent to Mark Lounsbury:
posting harmful material or engaging in other forms
of social aggression using the Internet or other digital
Mark,The thing about bullies is that they don't know that they are bullies. Nancy Willard certainly doesn't believe she is a cyberbully.
You did not present FACTS at trial. You are either totally stupid and naïve cop who should have never been given the keys to a $300,000 Internet safety van or you committed perjury.
I hope you find the strength to face the facts and to take responsibility for your words and actions, someday. I do believe that in the end you will be held accountable.
This case is a good example of why company management does not listen to technical experts. Technical experts are angry because they understand how spyware and popups can lead to porn arriving on people's machines. They believe that Mark Lounsbury was wrong about this fact.
However, the case didn't hinge on that point. What was far more important was the testimony from children saying they watched the teacher click on porn. 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.
Even that isn't the most important issue in the case. The biggest issue is that Amero did not prevent children from seeing the porn throughout the day. She didn't turn the computer off, she didn't even put a piece of paper in front of the monitor, stack books in front of it, put her purse in front, or do much of anything. Children viewed porn, she could have prevented it, but she didn't. (And that was against the law).
Corporate management doesn't listen to the technical staff for precisely this reason. The technical staff believes that everything hinges on the small technical details they are experts in. They refuse to confine their advice to the areas where they are competent ("porn first arrived due to standard spyware/popups"), but instead insist on advising in areas where they are not competent ("Julie Amero is innocent").
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. The students testified that Amero was more interested in watching the popups than noticing that the children were also seeing the same popups. Nothing on the disk drive would ever disprove the children's assertion that she was scrolling through porn-filled webpages (and letting the children watch her do it).