carreyrou

Seems fairly clear that Carreyrou was going to conclude that Back is Satoshi, come hell or high water.

John Carreyrou who worked there brought Theranos down, despite Rupert Murdoch being heavily invested in the firm.

Not necessarily for its revelations, but for the fact that John Carreyrou and the NYT decided to publish it at all.

Does Carreyrou give reasons for eliminating Hal Finney from being (part or all of) Satoshi?

Maggie Haberman, John Carreyrou and Ronan Farrow are powerful people, and they don't need anonymity.

John Carreyrou sifted through hundreds of pages of court filings for this article [1].

If Mr Carreyrou is such a good writer then he should be embarrassed to publish trash: > In keeping with this belief, Mr.

Occam's Razor suggests that the reason that such irrelevant observations were included is because Carreyrou doesn't know anything at all about the subject.

So this reporter Carreyrou is walking someone through similar quotes, and that person responds with why they may have made the statement, but Carreyrou's conclusion is that they were talking about the Satoshi quote and not their own?

John Carreyrou is the guy who broke the Theranos story!

Bad Blood by John Carreyrou - Theranos scandal.

Regardless of whether Carreyrou is right, Mr.

As for his focus on Musk, I feel the same way about that as I did about Carreyrou’s “obsession” with Elizabeth Holmes.

John Carreyrou's book "Bad blood" is extremely good.

She then chilled out John Carreyrou and The Wall Street Journal financially and legally for trying to expose her deception The only reason she was not convinced for patient fraud was a weak jury deciding the patients were "one-step removed" from Holmes as CEO.

Carreyrou's articles and eventual book are built largely off of the deep investigative work done by Dr.

Back might be Satoshi, but there's nowhere near enough evidence in Carreyrou's article to reach that conclusion.

For example, the Theranos scandal was blown open by the WSJ's John Carreyrou.