This case is also an example of a local paper that got it horribly wrong and is complicite in having her convicted even before her trial.
The Norwich paper to this day; from what I have read via the Sunbelt Blog (http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/index.html) of whom Alex has been a prime mover for her defense, has continued in the witchhunt.
This is were the bloggers; specifically the sercurity bloggers have made the difference and is a big black mark again MSM journalism - big or small.
karoli
· 2 years ago
Steven,
No argument about the Norwich Bulletin's complicity. On the other hand, they DID publish trial transcripts (no national publication would have), and the Hartford Courant did step up pretty powerfully with a counterpoint.
Yes, the bloggers made the difference, but would we have even known about it without the reporting -- even the outrageous reporting -- of the local newspaper?
Steven Hodson
· 2 years ago
true enough on both points :)
Brandon Abell
· 2 years ago
It's time for the whole lot of these witch hunters to be Nifonged. The prosecuting attorney needs to be brought before the state bar for malicious prosecution. The judge and jury should be subject to public ridicule. The school district's employees who were negligent in this case, then assisted the prosecution to cover their own asses should be fired and prosecuted themselves if possible.
Accepting what has happened here as "the way things work" should absolutely not happen. The system is wonderful, it's the little greasy parts in the system that are malfunctioning.
Mike Conwell
· 2 years ago
I'm not happy at all about the content contained in Norwich Bulletin's coverage of the Julie Amero story, but it's their story, dated Jan 6, 2007 that not only let me know about the case, but woke me up and energized me to do something about it. Specifically:
[quote] But Smith countered Horner's testimony with that of Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes investigator. On a projected image of the list of Web sites visited while Amero was working, Lounsbury pointed out several highlighted links.
"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," Smith said. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did intend to access those Web sites."[/quote]
Had these two sentences not appeared in the story, I would have moved on to the next security alert, and not given Julie Amero a second thought.
NB's effort to get quotes from parties in the trial, and relay them to the world, is what we're losing in our consolidation of the media. You have only to look at the Fox TV coverage of the case to see where the journalism(?) is headed. A commentary by three heavily made up barbie dolls playing point/counterpoint with little or no research done into the story. One puts on the prosecutor's hat, the other a defense hat.
Anyway, since then I've called the NB a rag, and have raged against them in blogs, but ultimately, they're doing their jobs. Even if it's poorly.
All Comments
This case is also an example of a local paper that got it horribly wrong and is complicite in having her convicted even before her trial.
The Norwich paper to this day; from what I have read via the Sunbelt Blog (http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/index.html) of whom Alex has been a prime mover for her defense, has continued in the witchhunt.
This is were the bloggers; specifically the sercurity bloggers have made the difference and is a big black mark again MSM journalism - big or small.
No argument about the Norwich Bulletin's complicity. On the other hand, they DID publish trial transcripts (no national publication would have), and the Hartford Courant did step up pretty powerfully with a counterpoint.
Yes, the bloggers made the difference, but would we have even known about it without the reporting -- even the outrageous reporting -- of the local newspaper?
Accepting what has happened here as "the way things work" should absolutely not happen. The system is wonderful, it's the little greasy parts in the system that are malfunctioning.
[quote]
But Smith countered Horner's testimony with that of Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes investigator. On a projected
image of the list of Web sites visited while Amero was working, Lounsbury pointed out several highlighted links.
"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," Smith said. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did intend to access those Web sites."[/quote]
Had these two sentences not appeared in the story, I would have moved on to the next security alert, and not given Julie Amero a second thought.
NB's effort to get quotes from parties in the trial, and relay them to the world, is what we're losing in our consolidation of the media. You have only to look at the Fox TV coverage of the case to see where the journalism(?) is headed. A commentary by three heavily made up barbie dolls playing point/counterpoint with little or no research done into the story. One puts on the prosecutor's hat, the other a defense hat.
Anyway, since then I've called the NB a rag, and have raged against them in blogs, but ultimately, they're doing their jobs. Even if it's poorly.
Take care y'all
Mike