claim the LA Times, quoting the captain, speaking for his deputies, a few days after the story broke and the significance has sunk in.
I'm just saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this is not good enough.
Indeed, it is far from enough. No respectable media organization would have published such a tenuous story.
It's nice to have apparent confirmation from the police, but what are they confirming? They are confirming that the quotes were accurate. But Dorian Nakamoto has already confirmed that he was quoted accurately. He said that he misunderstood her and she apparently misunderstood him, and that seems entirely possible.
Her entire story relies on the confused 'admission' from Dorian Nakamoto during a few minutes interaction. She effectively ignores evidence that does not support her claim, such as the inexplicably huge difference in public writing styles of D Nakamoto and S Nakamoto.
What this new revelation does show, if you read the full reports of it, is that the reporter prompted the critical quote from the police officer, which opens her story, by first feeding him the suggestion that this old man was the creator of Bitcoin.
If this posting does not get removed by the OP (as has previous articles about this) or is reported by members (as I suspect may have been done previously to others) - it's interesting to me that now the news item itself has become a news item - quite meta. Controversy about the controversy.
I'd suggest that however tasteless and insensitive journalism could be (and I think that they have been here) that we guard against censoring ourselves on this internet forum.
