Wouldn't the prosecutor have had to prove criminal intent? That is, that Mrs. Amero intentionally placed the objectionable images herself, or had a computer expert do it for her?

Wouldn't a well trained software technician be able to tell if the teacher herself were responsible for adding the images?

I'd also like to know something more about Ms. Amero's background. Was it pristine or had she been a trouble maker? Had she ever been disciplined and, if so, for what? Was she previously respected by the School Board and her coworkers? Was she considered a good teacher or just mediocre? Had she shown any signs of mental instability?
Also, how long did it take for her to block the images from her students? I doubt that she just stood there dumbly for 15 minutes and watched the scenes with them.
It seems to be the assumption of the School Board and the State that "it happened on her watch, therefore she must be punished." I think there's more to it than that. If she had been a good teacher with an unblemished record, then my assumption would be that the Board was looking for a scapegoat in order to get out of an embarrassing situation and take the heat off themselves. Expedient but cowardly.
Besides, The Norwich Bulletin stated that “from August to October 2004, the district's filtering system didn't regularly add newly discovered pornographic sites to its restricted Web sites database.” The incident took place in October 2004.
It is the Constitutional right of every person in this country to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How could the jury be so certain on such flimsy evidence? How could a judge sentence a woman to forty years imprisonment on such a questionable verdict? Was the district afraid of being sued and sacrificed this woman’s life to the gods in exchange for their skins? Was the judge a member of the “moral majority” who was attempting to make an example?

It looks like the great state of Connecticut is about to burn a witch like its neighbor to the north.