established relates to the weight to be assigned to the evidence.
And that issue is left to the trier of fact to decide.
 At first blush, as the respondent contends, the conclusion
of the trial judge could be seen as a determination of the weight
to be assigned to this evidence. But even if it were to be characterized in this way, it is equally flawed. This is so because the trial
judge’s conclusion that the text messages had no probative value
was inextricably intertwined with his insistence on direct evidence, a particular species of proof, to establish authentication. In
the absence of any such requirement, his conclusion on the
weight to be assigned to the text messages cannot stand.
Ground #2: Misapprehension of evidence
 The second ground of appeal alleges that the trial judge
misapprehended evidence relating to the text messages and pho-
tographs upon which the complainants were cross-examined.
The background facts
 Trial counsel for the appellant C.B. cross-examined G.D.
on a photograph alleged to been taken around 8: 30 p.m. in the
basement of the appellant C.B.’s home. According to G.D.’s testi-
mony about the assault on her, the time stamp on the photo
would have been after the assault had been committed. As with
the text messages, the document on which the cross-examination
was based was a photograph of a photo located on the cellphone
provided by the appellant C.B.’s mother to a private investigator
retained by defence counsel.
 In cross-examination, G.D. identified the individuals
depicted in the photograph including herself, D.P., and the appellant C.B. She agreed with the suggestion that the photo had been
taken with the participants on the couch in the basement of the
appellant C.B.’s home. The copy of the photograph, removed from
the report of the private investigator, was filed as a lettered exhibit.
The report, without this photograph, was filed as an exhibit during
the defence case.
The positions of trial counsel
 At trial, defence counsel contended that the photograph of
the principals on the couch, taken after the alleged assault on
G.D., was an item of real evidence that tended to impeach the
reliability of G.D.’s account and support the position that the
“spanking” was part of “horsing around” among friends.
 The trial Crown assailed the evidence “extracted” from the
cellphone. Its origins and the integrity of its contents had not
been established. It only emerged about ten days before the