Julie Amero and her husband Wes Volle were interviewed today by Connecticut TV Station WTNH. The purpose of the interview was not to talk about her case, but to get the word out about the actions of Detective Mark Lounsbury, whose blog I linked to yesterday.
Here’s the interview (thank you, WTNH for making it embeddable):
I did note that he has removed the photo of himself with the assault rifle, an image I found profoundly threatening and disturbing whether it was there in 2006 or not.
What was striking to me about the interview with Lounsbury was how smoothly he was able to craft a reason for writing what he has. Read through the blog post — it drips with sarcasm, defensiveness, and a real need to trash Amero for his own self-aggrandizement. Yet, when he is in front of the camera, he appears calm, smooth, perfectly reasonable.
Have you ever known someone like this? Someone who seethes with anger and whose intensity is nearly overwhelming until they are in public? In the public persona, they appear calm, cool, and perfectly collected, sending the message that everyone around them overreacts.
I’m also disturbed by the comments, where Det. Lounsbury says he will “fix the log error”. Nothing on those logs should be “fixed” at all. They are what they are, and it’s worth noting that the computer clock may have been off on its internal clock, so times may be completely irrelevant anyway. However, it seems clear that he is altering log entries to bolster his “internet case” against Julie. Where I come from, that’s called a lie, plain and simple.
Never one to give up, he insists she admitted guilt, which she certainly did not. She was bent into a position of having to give up a pound of flesh in exchange for the spectre of another trial, and agreed to a trumped up idiotic plea to make things go away. I wish she hadn’t but I understand why she did.
Does it blow anyone’s mind that the man is an active detective with the Norwich Police Department and writes this stuff? It sure does mine.
One final note before I lay this to rest. There is no way for anyone, no matter how experienced, to tell from logs whether links were clicked or pages were scrolled or malware loaded a bunch of inappropriate web sites. No way at all. This man is tossing a pack of nonsense out to make himself look like a hero at the expense of a woman who has lost nearly everything.
Where I come from that’s called bullying. And it’s wrong.