Space Ramblings

Prosecution Expert Perjury in Julie Amero Case

“Robert Hartz, the information services manager for Norwich Public Schools, and Mark Lounsbury, the computer crimes officer for the Norwich Police Department.

Hartz, for example, testified that his experience consisted of being “involved in computer science from the late ’60s, early ’70s working for some main frame manufacturers, such as IBM, Edwards Food Stores, CIGNA. I worked a little bit for CHUBB and I did some consulting work, and I’ve been involved with PCs since the early ’90s.”

Because there’s only one computer company on that list, what Hartz said was “I worked with IBM mainframes in the ’60s and ’70s, and I have used PCs for a while.”

He made no mention of any experience with HTML, websites, JavaScript, or anything else that would make him qualified to discuss the technical angle of what happened.

In fact, his testimony indicates he has less knowledge about PCs and websites than many people. For example, when asked, “Is it possible to be in an endless loop of pornography?” Hartz replied, “I’ve never seen that, so I would have to say probably not.”

Later he was asked, “Does spyware and adware generate pornography?” and he replied, “I’m not aware that they do.”

Both of his answers were hedged. And they were both wrong.

This isn’t a question of interpretation (“How likely would you be to get infected?”), it’s a question of fact. And the fact is that yes, you can get a never-ending loop of porn, and yes, spyware and adware most certainly can generate porn.

Ergo, Hartz gave the prosecutor, and more importantly the jury, incorrect factual information.”

USA Today – See Andrew Kantor’s excellent column taking apart the prosecution’s witnesses.

Get this the computer expert for the prosecution has never ever seen a spyware infection that produces endless pop ups which when you click on them generates yet more pop ups, including by tricking you into clicking on fake X’s to close the pop up, which actually generates another click. Seriously he’s never seen one.

This gives us two clear options. One Hartz just perjured himself on the stand and needs to be prosecuted for it. He’s given testimony on something that is blatantly false. It’s like an automotive expert testifying that he can never imaging a tire being punctured. It’s such an absurd statement that there is simply zero alternative but to view it as a clear and unambiguous lie.

Secondly he really is this incompetent and ignorant. Possibly his computer knowledge doesn’t date anywhere past the mid 80’s. In which case whoever hired him and paid him public money has been grossly negligent while Hartz himself has clearly misstated his credentials and needs to be removed from any duties until such a time as he can pass an exam demonstrating clear proficiency in computer security.

That simple.

Related posts:

Post Navigation

Custom Avatars For Comments
%d bloggers like this: