Life changing errors made by a Superior Court Justice Ontario

[230] Defence suggested that the evidence does not sufficiently identify the accused to be associated with the pink iPhone and with the phone number 613-804—-. I respectfully disagree. I find that this was phone was used by the accused for the following reasons: one, the complainants observed the accused with the pink iPhone associated with 613-804—-; two, the pink iPhone was identified by M.M. and located 15 feet away from where the accused was seated before his arrest; neither the video shown nor any police witness or M.M. identified a person named Jamie being at the Marriot that day; and three, an analysis of the phone data shows that the accused sent and received messages from this phone. Some examples are set out below.
[231] The police did a search of the web history of the pink iPhone associated with phone 613- 804———. When they searched the word “escort”, they found received messages saying, “Hello Preston my name is Michelle” or sent messages saying, “Hello its Preston texting about the spa job touchtherapy.ca.” These pieces of evidence support a finding that this phone was used by the accused who commonly went by the name of Preston.

(Superior Court of Justice of Ontario)

also forgot that the Ottawa crown and Ottawa police told her that they couldn’t get into the pink iPhone to analyze it’s data.

-No mention that Officer F said the pink iPhone was with MM.

- no mention that there were times the phones travelled in different directions at the same time

Superior Court of Justice of Ontario

https://m.youtube.com/@systemicracism5094