[jknz]

There is some evidence of some kind of takeover though. Searching for site:http://instagram.com/danny in google, the first result is the following:

    Danny (@danny) • Instagram photos and videos
    www.instagram.com › danny
    8690 Followers, 134 Following, 100 Posts - See Instagram 
    photos and videos from Danny (@danny)

This is still in Google's cache. The current instagram profile is very different.

[heyoni]

That’s...not evidence of a facebook employee being implicated. It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands!

[jknz]

The victim is a real person with a PhD thesis that anyone can read.

Why would someone jeopardize his reputation by using his real name on some kind of staging of a fake account swap? I kindly disagree with your second sentence.

[otterley]

> It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands!

Do you honestly believe a jury of average people would agree with this proposition? It seems contrary to common sense.

Keep in mind that there is a significant difference between what meets the relevancy bar in court, and what is logically probative. See, e.g., https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401

[diab0lic]

> That’s...not evidence of a facebook employee being implicated.

The account messaged and said a facebook employee was involved. It isn't proof, it isn't strong evidence, but it is evidence and an implication that a facebook employee was involved.

> It’s actually not even evidence that the account even swapped hands!

Similarly the change in account usage pattern isn't proof but it is evidence.