The highly disputed COPA vs. Wright trial took a dramatic turn today as Craig Wright faced allegations of tampering with crucial evidence to support his assertion of being Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Reporting through the court's live stream, CryptoSlate tuned in to hear Wright’s testimony, likely his final appearance in court.

The day's proceedings centered on emails purportedly exchanged between Wright and his former legal firm, Ontier LLP. These emails are crucial in validating or disproving Wright’s longstanding claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto.

Represented by Mr. Hough, COPA argued that modifications to SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records for several domains controlled by Wright suspiciously coincided with Feb. 29, 2024, the same day Wright submitted new evidence. This timing raised doubts about the authenticity of the submitted materials.

COPA directed its focus on a December 2019 email thread between Wright and Ontier regarding MYOB accounting software. While Wright acknowledged the conversation as authentic, he claimed that parts of the email were missing.

Of significance, Wright’s wife forwarded a version of the same email thread to his current lawyers in February 2024. COPA pointed out that this email contained an nChain logo with a timestamp of Feb. 18, 2024 – a date that contradicts the original email from 2019. Wright disputed this, suggesting Google manipulates email timestamps.

After initially denying, Wright eventually admitted under cross-examination that the “Ramona email” sent by his wife was not authentic. This admission came after Ontier LLP confirmed the tampered email following their investigation.

During erratic testimony, Bitmex Research reporters captured Wright's statement:

“Hough: Is it your position that the spoofer, happened to do it on the same morning that your wife sent the real version, by coincidence?

CSW: Unfortunately, yes.”

In his defense, Wright alleged that an almost identical but spoofed email was sent to Ontier on Feb. 24, 2024. He presented vague technical arguments about email headers and malleable timestamps, contending that dates cannot be trusted.

When questioned by the judge about specifics on the spoofing allegation, Wright claimed it was a straightforward act and suggested multiple individuals could be suspects. However, the judge pressed for clarity on Wright’s accusations.

Wright's witness statement spent considerable time discussing an email later declared fake. This contradiction, along with inconsistencies regarding the nChain logo and the timing of SPF record changes, significantly undermined Wright’s credibility.

Ultimately, Wright claims that a spoofed email was sent to discredit his claim, implying sabotage rather than admitting responsibility for the forged data.

After lunch, expert witness Mr. Madden reiterated, “There are no such indicators of a spoof. The layout of this header is typical to standard infrastructure.”

A central aspect of Wright’s defense is his assertion that, despite being the alleged genius creator of Bitcoin, he has been repeatedly hacked by multiple parties, which has led to his discrediting.