Talk:Connecticut v. Amero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
High traffic

On June 7, 2007, Connecticut v. Amero was linked from BBC News Online, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Fair use image[edit]

I wonder if this image could be added under a fair use rationale:

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070213/070213_teacherporn_hmed_12p.h2.jpg

Image shows Amero w/ husband Wes Volle, cf. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134607/

What do people think? 86.56.48.12 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The images of her themselves are not in question and, I assume, merely for decoration purposes. See counterexample # 8 to the Wikipedia Fair Use Policy. In theory, it would not be terribly difficult for someone to find a free image of her (find her, take a picture) which makes a fair use argument that much more difficult. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Open Letter to Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane[edit]

On March 6, 2007 a $2,400 ad was put in the Hartford Courant in the form of an open letter to the chief state's attorney.[1] Because it was an ad it wasn't posted on the courant's website (www.hartfordcourant.com) and although it was reported on NBC30 and WTNH I've been completely unable to find the text of this letter signed by 28 professors anywhere on the internet. A link to the letter (or scan of the page from the newspaper) would be appreciated. As best I can gather the gist of the ad is these experts are requesting the verdict either be set aside or that an independent investigator be called in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.169.185 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Found; provided--Elvey (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

I tagged this for natability and it was removed by LittleOldMe who left the following note on my talk page, copied and replied here:

(note by LittleOldMe)

I am puzzled as to why you tagged this article for lack of notability.

There are six references (pared down to the most relevant) that clearly prove notability.

In fact, Julie Amero's case is so notable that she has made the national news in Ireland. LittleOldMe 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply)

That something makes it to national news is a hint but not a proof of notability. Here in Portugal we have daily reports on the main football team's practice sessions. That doesn't make the sessions notable, not even worthy of including a note on the team's article. (note: obviously the team itself is "proven" notable by this, given that even such trivia is reported on national news)

Court cases have many reasons to be notable: they showed some flaw in the law, caused new law to be passed or old law to be revoked, established jurisprudence, etc., etc.. The current article shows nothing more than it has been in the news, with no assertion of importance other than to those involved. That's why I tagged, and will do it once more, for notability.

By the way, I suggest the article be moved to "Trial of Julie Amero", or some other more appropriated title as the subject of the article is the trial, not the the person.

Thank you. Enjoy! - Nabla 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is cutting edge law. The Portuguese football team's practice is not cutting edge law, or even law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.108 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Sides[edit]

All stories like this have two sides. Is there any particular reason why the side of the school district and prosecuting authorities, no matter how weak, is not expressed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.53.131 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


What is the side of the school district? Further investigations just painted a worsening picture for them, and there is a lot more evidence that has not been widely publised that showed the incompetencies of the various officials. For instance, the forensics evidence referenced shows that that the school not only was running out of date web blocking software, but that the anti-virus software was out of life, not being updated, and was a trial copy. There was no proper chain of custody for any of the computer evidence. The defence lawer was underwhelming. The prosecution technical expert was not qualified. The judge was in a hurry to get the case over with. A lot of people were trying to cover their asses here. 86.152.106.126 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Alex 20 Jan 2011

Problem with Intro[edit]

The intro states that the case is notable for covering DNS hijacking. While that may be true the real notability/notoriety is for prosecutorial and police misconduct/incompetence and the technical incompetence of the school district resulting in the criminal prosecution of what was essentially a third party to the criminal conduct. The school district's ISO (assuming they had one) should have been fired/prosecuted before a sub teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Connecticut v. Amero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Connecticut v. Amero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut v. Amero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)