|
|
|
|
|
|
by walrus01
4 days ago
|
|
|
The appeal has been completed and he's been acquitted. Note the past tense in how the CBC wrote this part: "The Wisconsin police identified Mr. Klayme as the offender using the incorrect username. His conviction rested on the internet username being attributed to him,” the appeal panel wrote. The Appeal Court decision said no evidence was found linking Klayme to the girl, the Kik conversations, or the intimate images. In addition to an acquittal entered on the charges, the sentence and ancillary orders against Klayme were vacated. |
|
|
> "This is not a situation where an acquittal is entered because the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of an offence or an error during the trial made the verdict unsafe," the appeal panel wrote.
That confused me – but I see now it's supposed to connect to the next paragraph (?!) – "it's not that there was procedural error, it's that he was completely innocent all along". (I do think it's written poorly, but I also haven't had a coffee yet..)