Horner adds that he later met with talked to the computer forensics examiner for the state of Connecticut -- not Detective Mark Lounsbury, the prosecution's expert witness -- shortly before the June 2007 hearing during which Judge Hillary Strackbein set aside Amero's conviction and ordered a new trial. He writes:
I asked if he did the exam on Julie's case. He mentioned he did the exam. He had come to the same conclusion that both I and the defense team did....The bottom line: If the state used the forensic examiner and not Lounsbury it would have been readily apparent that Julie was not surfing for porn.
There's a lot more to this story. Why didn't the state forensic expert testify? Why wasn't Horner allowed to show all of his evidence? Are all the school districts and court systems in America as FUBAR'd as the ones in Norwich, Connecticut, seem to be? (Judging by the comments to my earlier stories on this case, the sad answer appears to be Yes, they are.)
Stay tuned for more news as this story continues to develop. And check out the interview with Julie Amero by Robert McMillan of IDG News. It's worth a read.
UPDATE: Horner writes in again to add this clarification:
The state forensic examiner was not asked to testify at the original trial. He was not involved at that point....It was after the conviction and when the new defense team presented their evidence that he got involved just before the June 2007 court appearance when the conviction was overturned.