> Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially more evidence of the "hack".

It is very possible that this is just an article with limited info and not much has been released publicly because of privacy/security concerns.

Exactly. A screenshot is not convincing enough as they can 'inspect element' this 'hack'.

Simply show me a video logging into the account in real time with the given password and the 'hacker' can eliminate this skepticism.

Quite funny how people can quickly believe this stuff on the internet without thinking again, especially from...

BBC online news... sigh.

Hmmm, yeah. From the linked article,

    Mr Gevers had told officers he had substantially 
    more evidence of the "hack".

An earlier article gives a little more detail, but nothing substantial. From https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55019858 --

    He did not post any tweets or change any settings, but 
    said he took screenshots of some parts of the 
    president's account.

If he has screenshots of private messages, etc, that would certainly prove he had access... but only if Trump or somebody with legit access to Trump's account was able and willing to verify them.

Of course, I don't blame this researcher for lacking more concrete proof. He could easily have proved his access by changing something in Trump's account, sending a tweet/DM, etc. But by doing so he likely would have brought some serious legal issues down onto himself.

By that logic anyone could impersonate anything. Dutch prosecutors have accepted it, the bbc are a reputable organisation, it almost certainly happened.