News

Judge raps forensic expert for delaying child-porn cases

By Julie Manganis
Staff writer
Published: March 5, 2008

SWAMPSCOTT — A judge had stern words for a forensic computer expert who has delayed at least two child pornography cases by failing to complete his reports in a timely manner.

"If he can't do these jobs, he ought not take them," Salem Superior Court Judge Howard Whitehead said after learning that a second trial in as many weeks would have to be postponed because of delays by the defense expert, Thomas Workman.

Workman is a Taunton attorney who also advertises as an expert on computer forensics. He is the expert hired by the defense lawyers for both Thomas Scully, the former Beverly Public Library director accused of possessing child pornography, and Stephen Surette, a former Malden reading teacher who lives in Swampscott and is also facing child pornography charges.

Both men have had their trials delayed repeatedly while their lawyers waited for Workman's reports — and both were supposed to finally stand trial this month. Their trials have once again been delayed.

Aside from the delay, however, prosecutors and the judge questioned the quality of the report Workman prepared in the Surette case — a three-quarter page list of conclusions that prosecutor Jana DiNatale said included no basis for his conclusions.

"I want the basis for his opinions," said the prosecutor, who said the report did not include any details of what he may have found on the computer, how he found it or what led to his conclusions.

Workman's report refers to congressional testimony and other information and includes statements such as, "It is commonplace for a user to organize the material with folders which provide easy access to files on the computer," without saying how he knows this was the case with Surette's computer. He also suggests that Surette's computer contained a "peer to peer" file exchange software program, which is "known to download contraband pornography in response to requests for legal material," but does not say specifically which program was on the computer or whether it actually did download child pornography.

A copy of Workman's report on Scully's case was not available, but his lawyer said Workman believes the child porn files, roughly six to eight of them, were downloaded by a virus.

Defense lawyer David Twohig, who represents Surette, countered that he and his expert are not required by the rules of discovery to provide such details.

Whitehead disagreed, however, calling the prosecution's request for more material "reasonable" and ordering that it be provided by March 17. A status hearing in the case is set for March 28.

A message left for Workman yesterday was not returned.