The third day of the Kleiman v Wright civil trial, where the fate of up to half of 1.1 million BTC currently priced at about $70 billion lies, has been largely uneventful, except for an error in plaintiff Ira Kleiman’s testimony and a missing email that has caused quite a stir in the courtroom.
The Bitcoin Logo
Ira Kleiman recounts a very clear memory of a conversation he had with his brother David Kleiman, who he is claiming to be a co-author of Craig S. Wright in the Bitcoin white paper, after Thanksgiving dinner with family in 2009.
According to Ira Kleiman, David Kleiman told him that he was working on “creating his own money” that would be “bigger than Facebook.” David Kleiman then took out a business card and drew a “B” with a line or two going through it similar to the dollar sign, showing Ira Kleiman the logo of the “digital money” they were working on at the time.
However, the Bitcoin logo that Ira Kleiman described his brother drawing in 2009 is actually the logo that Bitboy refined only in 2011. The logo that he should have described to match the timeline is the original “BC” logo, which is distinctly different from the one he supposedly recalled.
Ira Kleiman was caught off guard when confronted by this error in his testimony by Andres Rivero, the legal counsel for the defense. To cover up his mistake, Ira Kleiman unconvincingly said David Kleiman always consulted him about logo designs; and so, it was understandable to be confused.
But this is the last time that Ira Kleiman would ever see David Kleiman again until his death in 2013. In fact, their relationship can only be characterized as estranged. Ira Kleiman also admitted under oath that this is the only instance that David Kleiman mentioned Bitcoin to him. So the question now is, when did David Kleiman consult his brother about a 2011 logo that he had it mixed up with the one in 2009, and is there any evidence of this?
The Missing Email
On top of the Bitcoin logo blunder, Ira Kleiman made another, possibly huge, mistake during his testimony. Rivero asks him if he knows of anyone else, aside from Wright, who told him that David Kleiman could be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Ira Kleiman replies that there is indeed a friend who emailed him, and this email can confirm that David Kleiman is one of the persons behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This led to an explosion in questions as the purported email has not been admitted as evidence in the trial.
Counsels from both the plaintiff and the defense are blindsided by Ira Kleiman’s mention of this email. While Rivero immediately asks where this email is that he has not heard about, the plaintiff’s side claims that Kleiman is referring to a different email that has already been included in the evidence list.
If there is such an email, then the plaintiff would have violated discovery rules that compels full disclosure of all evidence. If Ira Kleiman is just mistaken, and he is actually referring to a different email, then the reliability of his entire testimony will be in bigger doubt, as it already is after he described the wrong Bitcoin logo.
However, if said email does not exist, then Ira Kleiman may have just committed perjury. The case of the missing email has warranted a 15-minute conference with Judge Beth Bloom first thing in the morning of Day 4 of the Kleiman v Wright trial.