regardless of whether PoM ever posted an image of his ID on any other site(s) (which he may well have, as I'm sure we can certainly all recall that he posted what were allegedly a bunch of his passports) or how someone else may have gotten the image to transmit, even messaging an image of an ID card should be inadmissible in court, as it does not legitimately prove a culprits identity, unless if it was recorded on a video like skype showing his face to go with the card. If you show someone your ID, they are supposed to see your face and be sure it matches up.
it seems to me that they would need to further prove the alleged identity by other means, such as maybe an IP, if that would even be enough, as it still may not prove that he was the actual user at the time and IP location, but I don't recall even seeing an IP on the logs was there? do you think they would have that? if not, I don't see how the logs can reasonably be considered as proof of valid identity.
hell, spoofing and mimicking other online posters wording and such for fun and sport used to be quite a regular occurrence on these sites, and I vividly recall a most excellent rendition by the nick of Mongooses™. so this seems to me as a very weak link in their case, so if that's all they've got is some fool in a chat message claiming to be PoM, to prove that Mr Clark was the actual user of the variety jones handle, he should certainly go free by Christmas... eh.
