Full transcript of Craig's first hearing has been released:
https://www.docdroid.net/5LZMLHb/06-28-19-ber-kleiman.pdfThere's a lot to go through, but some interesting points of note:
1. You've probably heard by now of the whole
Calibri font debacle -- Craig (supposedly) used a version of a font not created until 2015 in order to forge a document that was (supposedly) from 2012.
2. Craig vehemently
denies the existence of "public addresses" in an attempt to confuse the court. There are addresses. They are publicly known via the blockchain. To be willfully obtuse about accepting that this is a commonly used phrase suggests he is trying to cover something up.
3.
Theymos gets a shout out on page 15 (not sure he wants to say anything about that here, but it would be great if he did).
Between August and December of 2010, I pleaded, I said it was a bad idea with Martti and with M*** [(redacted)], and I finally left publicly as Satoshi in 2010 because they launched Silk Road. On top of that, they launched Hydro.
OK -- a couple problems here.
Silk Road wasn't launched until 2011, and Hydra wasn't launched until 2014. You guys... definitely should read pages 15-16.
Theymos is again mentioned on
page 141. Again, it would be great to know if Wright's statements had truth behind them or not:
Q: Were you the only one who had a copy of those keys?
A: No.
Q: Who else did?
A: Theymos.
Q: Who? I'm sorry?
A: M*** M**** [(redacted)], when he took over certain functions of Bitcoin, I didn't stop him, that including -- that included compromising some of my machines.
4. Pages 36 & 37: Craig tries to avoid having to answer (under oath) whether or not documents pertaining to the trust which he submitted were forgeries or not.
Q: Dr. Wright, are these documents forgeries?
A: Um, I don't know.
Q: Dr. Wright, you're testifying directly before this Court. You submitted these documents, you swore to their authenticity, and now you're saying you don't know if they're authentic, if they're not forgeries?
A: Um, all I can say is they are documents that were -- that look similar to ones that I've seen in the past that I haven't had any access to that are in company files that have been in my basement for year
(seems like the answer should be pretty simple, just my opinion...)
5.
Page 46: Craig gets flustered about answering a question regarding editing an email, throws documents on the ground, judge threatens to put him in handcuffs. Again, a "yes" or "no" answer would have sufficed.
6. Page 87 - 96: Craig says he created Tulip Trading in 2011, which is then shown to be an "aged shelf company" he purchased in 2014. From
page 96:
Q: Well, let me get this straight. A company you didn't buy until 2014 is listed as a beneficiary of a trust document you claimed was formed in 2012?
A: No. You have put documents I don't recognize.
Q: Documents you produced in discovery?
A: Yes, from other machines in my organization
7. The last interesting part is the prosecution
tries to introduce evidence of Craig saying he had more money than the entire country of Rwanda, which would mean more than $8 billion. Craig says, "I was angry at the time, and I was talking about the other. It didn't mean I could access or control it, and nor have I."
The point of introducing this was obviously to suggest that Craig indeed had access to Satoshi's Secret Stash... But, Craig denied it... Craig is in a way suggesting he is indeed not Satoshi. Funny what comes to light in court.
The last 30 pages or so are all procedural-related matters, suggesting the hearing will continue in early August, and may not wrap up until December.
Big takeaways:- Craig is seemingly making things more complicated than they need to be at every turn
- 90% of the defense's objections were overruled by the judge
- the prosecution did take a few big swings which were whiffs
- judge is highly competent at sussing out technobabble from pertinent information
The most damning evidence against Craig is #6, the whole "aged shelf company" factor. Craig doesn't seem to have a reasonable excuse to deny that he purchased a company named "Tulip Trading" in 2014, which is the basis for his whole "Tulip Trust" story, which I never believed 1% of for 1 second.
To be continued...
