Wrongly accused man barely escapes erroneous child porn charges - presumed guilty by friends and colleagues

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2008-06-22 20:10

Story here. Excerpt:

'A child porn possession charge lodged against a Department of Industrial Accidents investigator fired for having smut on his state-issued laptop has been dismissed because experts concluded he was unwittingly spammed.

“The overall forensics of the laptop suggest that it had been compromised by a virus,” said Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley.

Nationally recognized computer forensic analyst Tami Loehrs told the Herald Michael Fiola’s ordeal was “one of the most horrific cases I’ve seen.”

“As soon as you mention child pornography, everybody’s senses go out the window,” she said.

Loehrs, who spent a month dissecting the computer for the defense, explained in a 30-page report that the laptop was running corrupted virus-protection software, and Fiola was hit by spammers and crackers bombarding its memory with images of incest and pre-teen porn not visible to the naked eye.

Two forensic examinations conducted by the state Attorney General’s Office for the prosecution concurred with that conclusion, Wark said.

Still, Fiola, 53, whose wife, Robin, described as “computer-illiterate,” wants his day in court. He intends to sue the DIA for “destroying our lives.”

“Our lives have been hell,” said Fiola, a former state park ranger now living in Rhode Island. “I hope to recover my reputation, but our friends all ran.”

DIA spokeswoman Linnea Walsh confirmed Fiola “was terminated,” but declined to say if any internal discipline has been meted out as a result of his name being cleared in court.

“We stand by our decision,” she said.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Check out the reader comments on the linked web site. Robin Fiola, the wife of the wrongly accused man, speaks out several times. It makes me angry to read about what this man and his wife have gone through. The government is simply incompetent and corrupt. Michael Fiola was lucky in the sense that he was able to "prove his innocence." How many thousands or millions of innocent people have not been so lucky?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by shawn on Mon, 2008-06-23 01:06

Couple questions here:
1) How many wives would have stood by their husband (that takes a depth of faith and devotion you just don't find anymore) in the face of such allegations?
2) Did the company not even perform a cursory investigation into the contents of the laptop PRIOR to issuing it to Mr FIola, much less after the contents were discovered?
3) Does the company not feel the least bit culpable for facilitating this mans trial by nightmare in the press?
4) Could they not have least offered to restitute the mans legal expenses incurred defending himself... at a minimum (given that in all probability the contents were installed onto the laptop as a VERY DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR INEFFECTIVE A/B SOFTWARE)?
and a comment:
Sounds like time for a massive lawsuit against DIA and any other agency who took the 'hang 'em first, then ask quesitons' tack.
I have a friend currently in jail for very nearly exactly the same thing, and I am personally convinced he was not and is not responsible for the pornography being on his computer for which he was convicted... for starters considering his then wife very clearly wanted out of the marriage (and her friend who 'consoled' her subsequent to the discovering of the pornography has since been complicit in a minimum of 4 other men facing such charges by which I mean this woman was a friend of the mens wives when the pornography was 'discovered' on their computers).
Gunner Retired

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Gunner Retired on Mon, 2008-06-23 02:25

Real companies REIMAGE all laptops before giving a new laptop to ANYONE! That's right, they wipe all the contents and install a fresh image.

After reading this I trust the state even less. They framed this innocent man with their incompetance.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by canaryguy on Mon, 2008-06-23 05:03

Hi...yup, I'm the wife. Robin Fiola. I appreciate the words of support expressed here. You raise some very good questions. No, the 'company' (the Dept of Industrial Accidents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) did NOT perform a cursory investigation. They failed to do a lot of things they should have; with disastrous consequences. The forensics report is available online somewhere...and explains that the machine Michael was given (after his was mysteriously stolen out of his car while parked at the front door of his office.) was used. The IT dept failed to change the Service Management System software from the previous user to Michael's name. So all virus scans tried to deliver reports to a name that didn't exist. Why didn't the IT dept notice that the machine wasn't communicating with their server based software? There are pages and pages of 'failure to deliver' notices. I can't figure out if it's just pure incompetence or something else. Also, early on in the case, right after charges were filed against him, our attorney asked the courts to compel the DIA to run virus tets to see if the machine was infected. They claim to have done so, and reported back, in court, that the machine "was clean." And yet, fifteen months later, the same forensics examiners admit the macine was so compromised that all charges had to be dropped.

Sound strange to you? 'Cause it does to me. I'm working on writing a book about this....our ordeal. It's difficult, because the past 2 years have been the most hellish of my 46 years on this earth, and even recalling the emotions is stressing me out.

But I digress. Thank you for your responsible coverage of our case. And I welcome comments and feedback. My email address is chip12762@hotmail.com.

Peace all,

Robin

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by thewife on Fri, 2008-06-27 16:00