in order to convict someone of lying under oath, the prosecution needs to prove the statement is false.
Fortunately, in service of Wright's big fraud Wright commits lots of smaller frauds, and some of those are provable to a very high degree. In the Florida federal case wright was already judicially found to have fabricated evidence and committed perjury. Unfortunately, so far the only direct consequence is a few hundred grand in penalties and some adverse inferences.
If CSW has been found guilty of perjury, or a judge has fined him for making false statements, this is good for Cøbra because anyone who has a history of being punished for perjury is going to have little credibility in the courtroom.
At this point I also wouldn't bet that that his core fraud couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt-- the primary challenging blocking that is just the lack of criminal investigation powers. Keep in mind: even though there is so much evidence of his fraud out there, he ultimately published almost all of it himself-- his discovery was self-produced! We haven't even started to see the kind of stuff that will get exposed by a real investigation, where he can't stuff the record with forgeries produced on the spot or hide things he doesn't like. If this crap is what he wants the world to see, consider what he doesn't want the world to see? Consider what testimony might become available when his supporters are facing the risk of criminal prosecution and jail time themselves?
I have honestly not closely followed most CSW cases, and haven't spent more than a half dozen hours (over the many years he has spent litigating various cases) reviewing related court documents. My experience is that CSW likes to take advantage of the lack of technical expertise by lawyers and judges, and will respond in a way that may not answer the question directly, but the answer looks favorable to him; the lawyers may not pickup on the difference between the question and answer because of the lack of technical expertise. This is more obvious to those who have at least intermediate expertise in how cryptography works and how bitcoin works.
I believe the above is why CSW is so willing to allow so much evidence of potential fraud to be out there, as it is obvious to experts, but not so obvious to those who may impose consequences for fraud. You may be right though, it is possible there is more bad stuff that CSW is hiding.
Somehow people get mixed up about what proof means in a criminal context: We convict people of murder all the time, yet none are ever proved guilty in a strong mathematical sense. Instead, we have the body, the motive, the fingerprint covered murder weapon, maybe a video recording, even when there there is a confession that isn't a mathematical-sense proof-- false confessions are common... Secret government agents could always have planted the evidence, drugged the witnesses, and faked the video. But enough of it and no reasonable doubt remains. The standard of proof isn't absolutely no doubt, we don't require that anything but guilt be a logical impossibility.
You are correct, I should have been more clear in my previous post that it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that CSW lied under oath in order for him to be found guilty of perjury. People have been convicted of murder without a body, murder weapon, or a video.
I believe it would be difficult to prove someone guilty of perjury for claiming to be a particular anonymous person that is only known by their forum handle/alias without bringing that person forward.
When CSW first claimed to be satoshi, he provided evidence he was satoshi to Gavin Anderson, only that the evidence provided was deceptive and did not actually point to CSW potentially being satoshi (had CSW attempted to gain anything of value out of the meeting, it would likely have been fraud). While this interaction makes me believe that CSW is not satoshi, I don't believe it proves this. CSW could argue in court that he no longer has access to cryptographic keys that would prove satoshi's identity.