Judges generally do not evaluate the quality of evidence. Unless the defense challenges, it's assumed that the prosecutions claims are founded in fact. It doesn't matter if the prosecution alleges you did six impossible things before breakfast unless the defense disputes these allegations.

▲

jojobas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A judge that has no reasonable doubt with this sort of evidence has no business being a judge.

We don't know what defense did in this trial but not picking up on the username mismatch and the assumed non-challenge of the evidence is telling as well.

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In an adversarial system (which the US and Canada and UK are), the judge is not supposed to challenge evidence unless it's glaringly, obviously adrift from reality. That's the job of the defense lawyer. In civil law systems the roles of the judge and prosecutor are combined and responsility for bad decisions is distributed differently.

	▲	jojobas 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The prosecution must still present evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. "Something something IP address" sort of evidence that the article describes doesn't seem to cut it.

▲

irishcoffee 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I am curious if you’ve ever met a judge. Every single one I’ve known was a giant, arrogant, jackass. They aren’t actually (generally) interested in being good at their job, they just like the idea.