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.
This means two things: most people will be easy to fool with a court ruling and the more people get to understand how Bitcoin works, the less credibility Craig will have overall and the more of a fraud he will be known as.
The case is unusual because both sides are agreeing on a fact that is widely disputed and is very likely not true.
The article says that the defense (Wright) has said the evidence will show that Wright created bitcoin on his own. This is a very interesting legal strategy because if Wright were to make the Kleiman family prove that Wright had anything to do with bitcoin's creation, the case would fall on its face, and would potentially reach the point of being frivolous, as I don't believe there is credible evidence to support Wright having anything to do with bitcoin's creation.
He does no seem to get that he will be in a situation similar to OJ's, where being told and ruled as innocent does not make you innocent and this will even haunt you your entire life. Craig has already messed up his "facts" and "evidence" of being Satoshi WAY too many times. Besides his ego blowing up once a favorable ruling occurs, there is nothing he'll gain for it in the long run.
Wright has credibility to gain in this case.
There is obviously a reason why Wright has subjected himself to scrutiny in claiming he is satoshi, and the public humiliation and ridicule when he publishes "proof" that a knowledgeable person might believe shows that he is fraudulent. Assuming Wright never makes any money from any coin that satoshi mined, Wright could likely make far more money by leveraging his skills and knowledge than he is currently (what I believe to be) by pretending to be satoshi. It is possible Wright intends to try to securitize and/or collateralize satoshi's bitcoin without giving the buyer/lender any actual access to the private keys of the underlying coin. This would obviously be dangerous for the buyer/lender that would be highly likely to result in them loosing all their money.
WSJ should be ashamed for writing an article like this. Attempting to get as many clicks as possible or not, they are giving Craig credibility which is a shame.
The author is not part of the bitcoin/crypto community (that I am aware of). I understand he has a long history of reporting on various markets, most recently reporting on bitcoin/crypto markets for the past ~6 years.