Yes, this is an atrocious article.

It makes no sense as presented.

The first thing the records should have shown was the full messaging history which would not have contained any of the incriminating messages.

But even if the messages no longer existed, there was no actual evidence. Truly, what on earth did the defense argue? How on earth was the jury convinced he was guilty?

Everything important about this story is missing from the article.

Edit: from another article, it seems like the conviction was made by a trial judge, and didn't even involve a jury: https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/halifax/appeal-court-qu...

A single judge just decided that "his guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available". Scary. I like a lot of things about Canada, but I'm somewhat horrified at the idea that you can be sent to prison without a jury trial.

> The first thing the records should have shown was the full messaging history which would not have contained any of the incriminating messages.

I think the point is that the message history would show incriminating messages.

He'd have been saying "this isn't me", but somehow no one noticed it was the wrong username.

For all but minor offences in Canada, you have the right to a jury trial. Here, the accused elected to be tried by a judge. Most people do.

[flagged]