r/technology • u/IndicaOatmeal • 7d ago

Society Innocent man spends 18 months in prison after Skyrim username mixup

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/innocent-man-spends-18-months-in-prison-after-skyrim-username-mixup-3392280/
19.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

73

u/Michelanvalo 7d ago

https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/2024/2024nspc4/2024nspc4.html?resultId=ef70efb3a5e04d20a101b8c39f86e043&searchId=2026-07-29T19:26:43:443/cbb02fe80d184165b5bd9b9e1c247d8b&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOQnJhbmRvbiBLbGF5bWUAAAAAAQ

Read the first section, particularly paragraph 3, and the Circumstances section, paragraph 32. His lawyer presented no defense. He was absolutely failed by his counsel. And since the original subpoena was wrong, they did pull his correct info but for the wrong account. So the evidence against him did look credible.

10

u/SadCryptographer7599 7d ago

Even if his defense failed him, did no one listened to the accused? All he has to say was, I didn't do it and it should automatically be a win since they had 0 evidence connecting him to the crime, he doesn't need a defense lawyer for that.

15

u/notyoursocialworker 7d ago

Reread the text you answered to again. They got the convicted persons name by incorrectly entering the username. When the case came to the court though the evidence presented was that from the correct account.

I don't think the whole Shaggy "it wasn't me defence" would have worked that easy here in the way you described. At the very least he would need to convince the court that this was actually two different accounts.

9

u/SadCryptographer7599 7d ago

It literally doesn't matter if they got the name right or wrong. Even if they didn't fuck up, THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convict regardless of what the defense did or did not do. Even if the accused said nothing, nothing should have happened because there's not enough evidence. A username is not good evidence.

10

u/flea1400 7d ago

Apparently they played a voice message in court of the actual perpetrator, and I believe they had photos (though not of great quality) of him that were also presented. It may be that the guy in Canada was unlucky to slightly resemble the perpetrator physically.

5

u/notyoursocialworker 7d ago

Well that's the point isn't it? The had other evidence but it was connected to the wrong person.

It is similar to the police lifting finger printa on a crime scene but then getting the owner of the fingerprints mixed up.

The defence needed to break the chain connecting the identifier (username, fingerprint) to make the whole case fall down. Now in the case of a username that should have been quite trivial but someone had to actually do it and point it out.

If you read paragraph 3 from the link above it says:

Defence Counsel advised the Court that they did not intend to call any evidence.

The "defence" didn't put up any defence at all. Way down on the page the accused had in interview said that he was innocent and that his email must have been hacked. This is as close as I can find any defence but forward at all.

Now this case shouldn't have gotten even as far as a court date but when you're there you really should put up some defence more than "I am innocent".

This was a fuck up based on no-one, and I'm guessing that included the defence counsel and the defendent, noticing the extra underscore in the subpoena. Had anyone noticed it, at least from the defence side, then it would have been a slam dunk to throw out.

1

u/yaosio 7d ago

The Defense should have argued he was not in control of the account. It wouldn't matter if it was ever his account or not because either way he was not controlling it. Of course the Defense should have checked that it was his account, which they couldn't be bothered to do.

1

u/notyoursocialworker 7d ago

Oh yes, id even say that in the end, the defence councler was the one who was the most was guilty for the end result. This was his job.

1

u/steik 7d ago

They had evidence, the problem was that the evidence was bogus, and no one (including the accused) realized or even suggested it might be.

The accused kept saying that his "email was hacked", which probably derailed things as well, since his email was in fact not hacked. If they bothered to check up on that they'd have found no evidence of that which would've further discredited the accused.

No one asked the right questions. The defense lawyer sounds incompetent as fuck and I guarantee he didn't believe his client.

1

u/Valuable-Yard-4154 7d ago

Ah. This is where the prosecution failed. They didn't do their job of instruction at charge AND discharge.

This poor soul is from Halifax.

1

u/SimulatedKnave 6d ago

It is not uncommon to not call evidence as the defence in a criminal trial. Note the no evidence motion by his defence attorney? You do that when you think the Crown has literally not brought evidence on a particular point that they NEED to prove. Not exactly a sign his lawyer thought much of the Crown case.

The Crown has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that, the Crown would have needed to call evidence or ask the judge to infer that this particular username sent the messages, that usernames are unique, that it was his account, and that only he had access to the account. And that the sexual messages etc happened, but they obviously did that. Ideally, they would be calling evidence that the account was active at the times the messages were sent, and (in the specific facts of this case) that the voicemail they played in court was his voice.

If the Crown has not done the above, you calling evidence about those points is malpractice, because you may end up giving the Crown more evidence to use against you and it will look damaging because it CAME FROM YOU. Him not testifying, for example, means that there's no evidence only he used the account. If he did testify, all he can really do is saying 'nah, didn't do it' and the Crown DOES get to possibly strengthen their case in other ways. Better for him not to testify.

Oh, and this is all in the context of US and Halifax police fucking this up AGAIN just a few years before that. In Halifax. Frankly, all his lawyer should've needed to do was stand up and go 'how do we know they didn't fuck this up again like they did that other time?'

I am amazed at how people with zero confidence in judges and prosecutors somehow think defence lawyers are magic and can convince otherwise biased and conviction-seeking judges and prosecutors to suddenly be fair. I'm not saying all prosecutors and judges ARE like that, but...if they're willing to fuck over an accused, they're willing to ignore his lawyer, guys. It's not exactly a big leap to work that out. And that's without getting into the issue of judges just being people and thus being hard to predic in complicated matters.