Fuzzy Thoughts

Since the last action on this case was 20 days ago, I’ve decided that this will be the last post about the case until something new has happened. So what does this mean? It means that I won’t be writing about the rest of the testimony, even though it may mean that I don’t get some of the traffic that I would get if I did write about it.

On June 6, 2007, Judge Hillary B. Strackbein vacated the jury’s guilty verdict, and ordered a new trial. In her decision, she stated acknowledged the computer forensic examination conducted by the State Crime Lab that was conducted after the trial, and that the defense team showed that there was a possibility of “erroneous” facts were presented to the jury by the State’s “expert” witness (Lounsbury himself has said he isn’t an expert), and that the jury may have relied on that misinformation in reaching their decision.

The Judge criticized bloggers, saying that they tried to “improperly influence” the court. I’m sure that influencing the court was not the main reason that many people wrote about this case. At least in my case, I wrote about to inform the public about this, due to the fact that many people do not use an updated anti-virus, don’t use a firewall, and often times may not install security updates, or any updates at all.

David Smith, the Assistant State’s Attorney that prosecuted the case said the State would take no position on the motion for a new trial, meaning it is unlikely that there will not be a new trial. Hopefully the State will decide not to try the case again, knowing that the outcome will be the correct one this time around.