Jonathan Warren, a developer of the P2P encrypted messaging tool Bitmessage, testified against Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist. Jonathan Warren’s testimony states that Wright’s documents on bitcoin creation were forged.
According to a court document issued on August 13, Warren gave testimony in a current lawsuit against Wright which was filed by the estate of David Kleiman. Kleiman was a cyber-security expert and he is believed to be one of the brainchildren behind blockchain technologies and Bitcoin (BTC).
Entry to Bitmessage
During court proceedings in a U.S. Southern District of Florida Court, Warren not only confirms his part in the development of Bitmessage but he also claims that Kleiman and Wright had full access to the peer-to-peer messaging software before it was scheduled to launch. These claims from Warren bring to light some sequential irregularities in a number of the files that were put forward as evidence to the court by Wright.
To give more detail, the documents allegedly faked by Wright include some forged Bitmessages, email communications, and faked contracts. These faked documents appeared to set in motion processes that would move Kleiman’s assets to be under Wright’s control.
Warren continues with his testimony, adding that printouts of the above communications that dated earlier than November 19, 2012, were probably forged. Warren continues to explain about the Bitmessage conversation between Kleiman and Wright, stating that: “It tells me that something has been faked. Either the date has been faked or the screenshot has been faked. […] Because Bitmessage wasn’t released at that time back in October of 2012.”
Wright’s Document Problems
As stated by trial lawyer Stephen Palley, in order to provide proof of a trust deed with his plaintiffs, Wright allegedly submitted faked court documents back in July. Palley alleges that Wright was unsuccessful in proving his case using files that Palley claims to be forged. This he claims is because the court documents have a number of sequential irregularities.
Just before all that, Wright said that he was unable to abide by a court order to put submit a list of all his early Bitcoin addresses, claiming that he might be unable to completely access the coins. This also happened in May when Wright was also unable to come forward with a list of all his public Bitcoin addresses following yet another order presented by the court.