Digital forgeries are hard

you realise it is possible to mail unsealed, open envelopes, right? doesn't seem that tricky...

They'll be made public. They're also good, though I think you'll agree ours are more interesting-- as our side found close to a strict superset of issues.

I think in particular the Lynch (one of Wright's expert) report on the LaTeX files is interesting because it took a different approach than Rosendahl -- so it wasn't as duplicative: Rosendahl tried using legacy tools against the files, Lynch used current tools the combination was particularly fatal to Wright because if only one approach had been used Wright would have claimed that the other approach would have produced results that supported his case.

(Rosendahls' report itself is a great work in its own right, in spite of being a LaTeX user for >20 years I learned quite a few things from it).

I wish we'd gotten access to Wright's 22 million lines of chatgpt traffic since September, that might have been particularly interesting! -- the abuse of LLM's in the case is itself something of public interest that sadly wasn't adequately ventilated in the trial because we weren't able to get the relevant records. But there were pretty good indications that Wright used ChatGPT directly to create forgeries, aid in the construction of other forgeries, and to pad out his witness statements in a bit of a volumetric attack.

The Bitcoin legal defense fund has tried to get out most of what it could lawfully put out, -- skipping a few things with privacy issues-- but once the trial started the priority shifted to managing the case.

The default openness of the US courts may well have been the real hero in all this: documents and statements made public in the kleiman case boxed wright in from every angle. Its important that materials from this case are made public because it may not, unfortunately, be the last we hear from wright. Even where the US case didn't make some things public, it make their existence public which in some cases enabled us to obtain them: e.g. we were able to get all of Gavin's communications with Satoshi which had previously been provided to Wright and whose existence Wright tried desperately and ultimately unsuccessfully to deny.

The UK court openness is less by default, but the parties have a substantial ability to publish things-- allowing the parties to get things much closer to US practices.

In my opinion, he's a conman, as in confidence man. His lies aren't high quality, but he tells them with great confidence, which sadly is appealing to many people. He can answer any accusation on the spot without hesitation. He's vague, so you kind of feel like what he just said contradicted something he said earlier, but most people's reaction is that they must have misunderstood him earlier. He's very good at technobabble; if you don't know that much about technical stuff, he can come off as highly knowledgeable. He will use emotion as necessary.

Over the eight years he's been at this, he has built up a cult following of people who worship the ground he walks on and will defend him ferociously at every opportunity.

Yes, he's a bad liar, but very few people can do what he does.

Imagine repeating the same day as a Hillary '16 campaign staffer over and over for eternity

You likely haven't witnessed him in person. For subjects he is expecting his lies are delivered with perfect fluidity and almost messianic confidence. He easily slips into raw belligerence that absolutely shuts down most people.

He is an expert at statements that brim with sound and fury but which signify nothing, and so although they covey some impression their content leaves nothing to falsify.

He immediately deceives many people. Some of his approach is polarizing, particularly the technobabbling-- people either fall hard for him or see right through him-- but generally a conman only needs to fool some people, not everyone.

The technobabbling even sometimes works on technical people, particularly when they go in pre-awed by him, they assume that misunderstandings are errors on their part.

Like if you met Knuth and asked him a question and he replied with a bunch of jargon you've barely heard about but it doesn't really sound right... you're not going to suddenly start thinking he's a big fake, right? you're going to assume you're the clueless one.