So now they are going to reopen the “Pagano Porn Incident”?

Must have something to do with why every reporter chasing down the Julie Amero story is suddenly ringing up for details. The Julie Amero story is a simple one. A substitute teacher was in the classroom when the computer she was using was overtaken by pornographic images, otherwise known as porn pop-ups. Some children saw what was going on, told their parents, and lickety split the police arrested Ms. Amero under the newly created Sec. 53-21 of the Connecticut General Statutes, which says basically, a person who knowingly permits a child under 16 to be placed in a situation that’s likely to impair the child’s morals is guilty of violating the law.

Ms. Amero was convicted and is awaiting sentencing, which according to the statute can be 40 years. There is a huge outcry in the technology community about this story. Here’s a link to the Washington Post story.

I’ve been writing about the Amero story since mid January.

The Norwalk incident has many of the same elements. A computer. Some Porn. A 14 year old child. But whereas the Norwich police department immediately questioned Julie Amero, it seems, after a read of the Hour story, that the Norwalk Police Department never get around to questioning “Todd”.

From The Hour:

Police released a copy of its investigative report to The Hour, which has been conducting its own investigation since the allegations were brought to its attention in November 2006.

“The man who investigated this is a bulldog when it comes to tracking down child predators,” said Police Chief Harry Rilling. “I have complete confidence in my officers that they followed through on this allegation.”

Really? According to the statute this was an simple case. Did an adult knowingly place a 14 year old in a situation likely to impair their morals? “Todd” certainly did. Where’s the interrogation of Todd. Especially after ….

The police report shows that former city clerk, Pam Stark, contacted police with the allegations “because City Hall was concerned with how to handle it.”

Stark said she had advised the owner, who is Alan Pagano, of the allegations.

Police said upon receiving the complaint, they contacted the mother who verified the story but said she did not want to file a formal complaint or wished to be involved in any police investigation.

So what happened after the mother complained on July 25, 2005 about the incident to City Hall? Was there a meeting between any public official and the mother over whether to file a police report or not? If there wasn’t, why not? A crime had been committed. This was not an inadvertent act, “Todd” is alleged to have said explicit things to the poor kid.

Now here’s where the story gets all squirrely for me. You have an allegation. A minor is involved. An adult is identified as having done a criminal act. So the Norwalk Police Department naturally starts their investigation by contacting ….

Police moved forward with its investigation by attempting to contact Pagano and learned he was not available to the following day. Police then contacted Pagano’s father-in-law, Stuart Wells, who is the husband of Galen Wells, the Democratic Committee chairwoman.

The computer in question belonged to the Wells, who had loaned it to the business.

After talking with police, Stuart Wells removed the computer from the premises “to prevent anyone from tampering with it.”

Wells brought the computer to the police station where he consented to have the hard drive scanned for any illegal sexually images.

Police said they used a forensic “Image Scan 2,” a software that would not only find images that may have been overwritten with other data but also reveal whether anyone had attempted to delete any of the images.

“They did find numerous sexually explicit images,” Rilling said. “None of the images were illegal. But it did confirm the possibility that explicit photos may have been shown to the minor.”

Ok, they followed a totally bizarre chain of custody, haven’t gotten around to interviewing the alleged perpetrator and confirm that there’s porn on that computer. Sec. 53-21, you have been met. Yet the Squirrelyness of the case continues.

The mother said she was told by police that based on what they had, “they couldn’t follow up with the complaint and no charges would be filed.”

“I thought nobody cared,” she said. “My grandmother told me something was wrong, that police were supposed to investigate this.”

But Rilling said despite the sexually explicit images, officers could not move the investigation forward because the mother refused to have officers “interview her son.”

He said as the only person in the room with the manager, police needed to speak with him to find out exactly what happened.

“We had no complaining witness,” Rilling said.

I’d like to know why “Todd” wasn’t questioned. I’d like to know if the mother met with anyone at City Hall other than the person who wrote the incident report, and when.

As they say in the news biz, stay tuned for further details.

Source: The Hour, Police react to rumors in alleged coverup, By JAMES WALKER, March 29, 2007.