width=”562″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>

CoinGeek's Kurt Wuckert Jr. is back with another special edition of the livestream breaking down what happened on day seven of the Granath v Wright trial. This was the final day during which Dr. Wright's side made their closing arguments.

Remember, we're all humans

Wuckert has repeatedly called on both sides of this case to see the humanity in each other. He opens by speaking about how, during the Kleiman v Wright trial in Miami, he'd see the families of people on the other side, shake hands with them, and keep them up to date on how their loved ones were doing. He asks us to remember that, whether we support Dr. Wright or Hodlonaut, we deal with human beings above all else.

On this note, Wuckert commends Granath's legal team and says he thinks they did a great job whatever the outcome.

In Dr. Wright's closing remarks

Wuckert begins by noting that the plaintiff's team got some time in the morning to finish their closing arguments. He says they droned on, getting called out by the judge at one point as to whether or not there was a point to be made. On the whole, he says that the plaintiff doubled down, claiming that the social consensus is that Dr. Wright is a fraud, a liar, a scammer, and a thief.

On the flip side, Dr. Wright's defense was centered on the notion he's one of the greatest living experts in the fields of IT, cybersecurity, and cyber forensics. He's consulted giant corporations, the police, and the Australian government, leading mega projects of great complexity. Whereas the plaintiff referenced blogs, tweets, and Wikipedia, Dr. Wright's defense relied on witnesses at the top of their industries.

Two different approaches—What will victory look like?

Wuckert reminds us that the defendant has an advantage in any civil trial. That's because it's incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove their claim of her. If they do so, damages are determined by the court.

On the flip side, the defendant only has to cast doubt on the integrity of the plaintiff's claim. In Wuckert's opinion, Dr. Wright achieved this; there's no solid proof he is a fraud, as Granath claims. Furthermore, it looks very much like Granath was the ringleader of a lynch mob with the sole purpose of hunting and harassing Dr. Wright.

Dr. Wright's attorney, Halvor Manshaus, even argued that this was a hate crime. He also referenced many case laws, again arguing that journalism and the freedom to express views in the public interest come with responsibilities. He even showed how journalists had been arrested for breaches of this principle.

Painting Granath as an extremist overall, Wuckert notes how Wright's team even presented tweets of him questioning the official holocaust numbers and praising the merits of middle eastern dictatorships.

Speaking of when the verdict could be handed down, the judge made it clear that it wouldn't be within 14 days as it usually would. She spoke of November 8 as a possible date without committing to it.

Who will win Granath v Wright?

Wuckert says he doesn't have a prediction as to who will win this case, per se, but he's leaning toward Dr. Wright.

He doesn't like how Granath's side only had two sources of information—BTC and the internet. I found Dr. Wright's expert witness testimony much more credible.

Questions and Answers

Q. What's the most interesting piece of new evidence you saw to support Dr. Wright being Satoshi?

Wuckert found some of the witnesses most compelling. These were people Dr. Wright worked with during the era Bitcoin would have been created. They were executives at major companies and were serious and credible witnesses. Many of them specifically said that he talked about digital cash, fixing payments, token systems, etc., long before Bitcoin came out.

Q. Didn't the judge say that she would not rule on whether CSW was Satoshi but that the trial would decide if it was defamation?

Essentially, yes, Wuckert says. Once again, the opposing legal team didn't want to go all the way there on that question.

Q. Did Dr. Wright produce any new documentary evidence at all?

Wuckert says that he did not and that the point of this trial was to depart from that. Since he presented it in both the Kleiman and McCormack trials, the point this time was to rely on witness testimony.

Q. Wouldn't Joseph Von Perling have been a good witness?

Wuckert reminds viewers that JVP claims Dr. Wright introduced himself as Satoshi Nakamoto long before Bitcoin's creation. Wuckert agrees he would have been a good witness, but he hasn't been heard from publicly in many years.

Q. Granath's lawyers said all of CSW's evidence had been manipulated. How true is this statement?

Wuckert reminds us that Dr. Wright submitted 1.9 million documents. He also reminds us that nobody knows who created these documents or when.

Q. Where do CSW cases go from here?

Wuckert says there are several major ones, but none this year, as far as he's aware. Next year will be Wright v Granath, then the Bitcoin developers will appeal, and finally, COPA will arrive last.

Q. Who is Robert McGregor? Why was he not invited to back up CSW's story?

Wuckert says this is a good question. He knows Dr. Wright doesn't like Robert McGregor. He knows he was involved in the early days but he has since dropped out of the limelight.

Watch Granath vs Wright Satoshi Norway Trial Coverage Livestream Recaps on the CoinGeek YouTube channel.

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeek's Bitcoin for Beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoin—as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto—and blockchain.



Source link

Skip to content