About a month ago I wrote about the horrifying case in which substitute teacher Julie Amero was convicted for impairing the morals of a child because the computer in her classroom (which she was not responsible for maintaining) was infected with porn popups. Fortunately, the incompetence of the prosecutor, judge, jury, and police investigators also pissed off people a lot more influential than me, and things may change for the innocent teacher before her upcoming sentencing.

Since the incredible farce of the trial first came to light, the Norwich police department and Connecticut state attorney’s office have been deluged with calls, emails, letters, and tons of bad press for their staggering incompetence. Before the advent of the Internet and, in particular, blogs, no one outside of Norwich may have ever heard of this case. News of the innocent woman’s plight has, however, spread like an unquenchable wildfire, a symbol of what is wrong with the justice system in this country and a perfect opportunity for outraged citizens to step in and try to right a wrong. A number of actual computer security experts (unlike the police “experts” who testified at the trial), having never met Julie Amero, have taken up arms and assembled teams of lawyers, technicians, professors, and other experts who are pressing the courts to allow their independent forensic examination of the computer’s hard drive to be considered in the case. The prosecutor, the very one who so relentlessly pursued the notion that Amero intentionally visited porn sites in front of children, is now saying things “could very well change.”

You can check out the whole article if you don’t mind a long read (it’s well written and will introduce you to the whole case and to Julie Amero), or just read the last page for the latest developments.