Move over Heard Vs. Depp, Wright Vs. McCormack is here to command the world’s attention. On one corner, the only man who has the gall to claim he’s Satoshi Nakamoto, Dr. Craig Wright. On the other, host and creator of the What Bitcoin Did podcast, Peter McCormack. The setting is London. According to McCormack’s tweets, Dr. Wright is a fraud. The accusation is libel.
Related Reading | Bitcoin Developers Score Victory Against Craig Wright, Court Dismisses Legal Case
Allegedly, McCormack damaged Wright’s career dramatically with fifteen tweets and a podcast appearance. Reportedly, McCormack doesn’t deny the defamatory nature of his tweets and will not try to prove his statements were true. Trying to demonstrate that could cost millions. He will go the cheaper route and try to prove that Dr. Wright did not suffer any damage for being qualified as “a fraud.”
Twitter Reports On Wright Vs. McCormack
To get a feel of what’s going on in the British courts, let’s quote some pseudonymous Twitter-reporters. Take their opinions with a grain of salt, but everything else seems to be prime-grade information. For example, to give more detail to our intro, “The defense doesn’t dispute the tweets are defamatory. They accept they cannot use truth defense (it was dropped a year ago), but claim there are serious questions about the credibility of the Claimant.”
The defence don’t dispute the tweets are defamatory.
They accept they cannot use truth defence (it was dropped a year ago), but claim there are serious questions about the credibility of the Claimant and the court needs to be aware of these for context & to reach a just decision
— Kershi
JD
∞/21m (@btckershi) May 23, 2022
The Claimant is Dr. Wright, and in his team’s opening statement, they explained. “This is a libel claim of tweets to 5500 followers in this jurisdiction and words he spoke on a podcast with HoTep Jesus. Although McCormack deleted the analytics, using comparisons it’s estimated that impressions for each tweet is between low hundreds to high tens of thousands.”
This is a libel claim of tweets to 5500 followers in this jurisdiction and words he spoke on a podcast with HoTep Jesus. Although McCormack deleted the analytics, using comparisons it's estimated that impressions for each tweet is between low hundreds to high tens of thousands.
— Kershi
That doesn’t sound that bad, however, Dr. Wright expanded his explanation later on. “I was developing my academic career, and with my lawyers we identified specific instances of serious harm, which include withdrawal of speaking engagements and publication of my research.”
3) That Wright's argument itself has now moderated in form calls into contention that the publications caused harm. This is based on his evidence that papers authored by him were rejected and conference invitations were withdrawn.
— Kershi
However, the defense claims that Dr. Wright’s speaking engagements were canceled for other reasons altogether. “This is based on his evidence that papers authored by him were rejected and conference invitations were withdrawn.” Apparently, McCormack’s team produced testimony by a number of people that proves that Dr. Wright’s papers were just rejected. Repeatedly. Sometimes by blind juries.
BSV price chart on Bitfinex | Source: BSV/USD on TradingView.com
A Cat Court Reporter Chips In
To add color to the report, let’s give the mic to a cat. Please notice that this is a burner account created just for the Wright Vs. McCormack trial, and make of that what you will. According to the cat, “Wright said that he did not mind people saying they didn’t believe he was Satoshi Nakamoto. He objects when people say he is a “fraud”, or if they use the “Faketoshi” moniker.”
4/ Wright said that he did not mind people saying they didn't believe he was Satoshi Nakamoto. He objects when people say he is a "fraud", or if they use the "Faketoshi" moniker, I mean monkier.
— PatMcCat (@Pat_McCat) May 23, 2022
The cat also recognized the accuser’s good intentions. “Wright was asked why his case on serious harm (academic rows, tension at his daughter’s school, etc) was not pleaded properly. His explanation was that he didn’t want to involve third parties unnecessarily. He also wanted to limit McCormack’s exposure to damages. Magnanimous.”
8/ Wright was asked why his case on serious harm (academic rows, tension at his daughter's school, etc) were not pleaded properly. His explanation was that he didn't want to involve third parties unecessarily. He also wanted to limit McCormack's exposure to damages. Magnanimus.
— PatMcCat (@Pat_McCat) May 23, 2022
Coingeek Reports On Wright Vs. McCormack
To provide a counterpoint, let’s quote the BitcoinSV-backed publication Coingeek, which highlighted Dr. Wright’s testimony to his own lawyers.
Related Reading | Why Self Proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto Craig Wright Must Pay $100M In Damages
“Before leaving the stand, Dr. Wright’s own lawyer asked some follow-up questions in closing and appeared to use McCormack’s own line of questioning against him. Echoing Evans’ earlier focus, he asked Dr. Wright how it feels to have negative feedback to his professional submissions discussed in open court: “Not terribly good,” he replied. How does Dr. Wright feel about being accused of giving false evidence? “Horrible—part of being autistic is that we’re terrible liars.”
McCormack v Wright Day 1: Satoshi Nakamoto on the standhttps://t.co/htzRHt0sB6
— CoinGeek (@RealCoinGeek) May 23, 2022
Before the day’s end, Peter McCormack took the stand. He will be questioned tomorrow.
Featured Image: McCormack's screenshot from this video | Charts by TradingView