the burden of proof is on those who make the extremely unlikely claim that the person who painstakingly tried to hide his identity used his real name, communicates in native-level english on the Bitcoin forums and purposefully communicates in low-level English on all other internet forums.
From where I'm sitting the burden of proof is on those who claim he ever painstakingly tried to hide his identity. To me it looks like someone who doesn't like a lot of personal attention (something I can certainly relate to) creating something to scratch an intellectual itch and that thing grew far larger than he imagined, so he bowed out.
I see no proof that he is someone who was planning complete anonymity from the start, that seems to me like a bolted on rationalization from people confused by his partial disappearing act.
The newsweek article itself claims that Satoshi tried to hide his identity.
He never posted any personal information and used an anonymous japanese registration service for the bitcoin.org domain, payment in cash. An unlikely effort for somebody who doesn't care about anonymity.
The article quotes Gavin Andresen as saying "He went to great lengths to protect his anonymity.", but other than that doesn't offer anything to show that he actually was actively trying to hide his identity or was ever using a pseudonym.
If it helps a bit: Satoshi Nakamoto sent all emails over Tor, connected to Bitcointalk over Tor, and paid through the nose for bitcoin.org registrar & hosting services on Anonymousspeech.
Somehow you've mistaken life for a courtroom where we all need to meet the same standard of proof. I don't care what your burden of proof is, the preponderance of the evidence to me says that this is the guy. Now if Newsweek comes out and retracts the fairly unambiguous quotes we saw earlier I'm more than happy to change my views.
Does not make any sense at all.