Julie Amero was convicted for FOUR charges, including Risk of Injury to a Child that could have resulted in a 40-year sentence. Testimony from experts was admitted as evidence that contributed to the case against Julie Amero.
Learners should form pairs and exchange summaries of the case.
An important aspect of the case was establishing alternative explanations for the malicious behaviour observed on the system and its source, specifically the significant number of unrelenting pornography "pop-ups". The expectation is that learners should:
Spend no more than 20 minutes considering what expert evidence was used, if any, to establish alternative explanations for the malicious behaviour observed on the system and its source.
Spend no more than 10 minutes to formulate a position whether there could be grounds for appeal based on this expert evidence.
Spend no more than 10 minutes to expand consideration of grounds formulated in Step 2 by considering alternative explanations or positions that would undermine the expert evidence.
Generate a supporting summary of no more than 100 words that confirms the adopted position and areas for further scrutiny.
Learners in considering the case should consider the following specific factors raised when considering expert evidence:
Mousetrapping. The discussion around the malicious activity of endless pop-ups of pornography material being displayed on the system.
Spyware and malware. The consideration of spyware and malware being present on the system and testimony.
Quality of testimony. The expert testimony given and admitted into the court, if it was opinion, speculation or knowledge.