Disappointing journalism really from somewhere like the WSJ. You would expect them to do some basic fact checking.
Bitcoin has shown itself to be very difficult to cover by the MSM. I don't know how many times articles have said that the mining process is a bunch of computers trying to "solve a complex mathematical problem" -- mining can be more accurately described as trying to brute force the solution to a mathematical problem. Journalists tend to find a single "expert" to use as the basis for a statement in their article and will just roll with it.
Still, in terms of the court case itself, I've been ignoring known criminal CSW for a while now, but I'm pretty sure the judges in this case have said repeatedly that they are not there to decide whether or not known fraudster CSW (+/- anyone else) is Satoshi. Regardless, only an idiot would conclude that the identity of Satoshi would be proven in a court. If you want to prove you are Satoshi, you first sign a message from the relevant private key. If you can do that, then we can examine your behavior, your knowledge, your writings, your actions, etc., to see if they are in keeping with those of Satoshi. Known identity thief CSW has failed miserably, completely, and repeatedly on both counts.
Anyone in the bitcoin/crypto world knows that a court saying that a particular person is satoshi does not actually mean that is true. Most people are not in the crypto world.
I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to hear evidence that will possibly change my mind. However, I very strongly doubt that any evidence will ever emerge that CSW is satoshi. The only way I can see myself even considering changing my mind would be if CSW lost the case and actually transferred a half-million bitcoin, on-chain to the Kleiman family. I think it is unlikely any of this will happen, but if it does, I would still look at the situation with a skeptical eye.
If Ira Kleiman had proof her brother was half of Satoshi she would have made that public already, but I have a feeling the claim actually targets whatever partnerships those two had and whatever came out of that 2011 break-up. So rather than focusing on the identity, they are focusing on the money, if they prove CSW was indeed Kleiman's partner then it doesn't matter if CSW has access to those coins or not, he will have to pay up, doesn't matter if he can't access his bitcoin stash, he's going to sell a lot of BSV for that.
Here is how I view the situation from Ira Kleiman's point of view. Her brother was likely associated with CSW around the time that bitcoin was created, and there may be some evidence they were in business together around that time. From the looks of it, Kleiman may have had the technical expertise necessary to create bitcoin (there are a decent number of people who meet this criterion, so this does not prove Kleiman is satoshi). Then, a few years after her brother dies, CSW starts claiming to be satoshi.
If CSW loses the case and has to pay 500k bitcoin to the Kleiman family, he will be unable to do so. Selling his BSV will be insufficient to even come close.