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.
> 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
> 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.
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.