This is a fair point and one which is undeniable. However, we need to consider that as soon as it was undeniable that he was a danger, he was removed by theymos correct?

The far larger problem now is that, even with undeniable evidence of financially high risk behaviors (multiple counts of)  or even undeniable SCAMMING, there is nothing to say and indeed there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate they are NOT removed, but further entrenched by those they selectively ALLOW to join DT..

The point that DT are now seen as Not essentially trustworthy I would agree with, but only by those that are familiar with meta board. Most hardly know anything about the trust system and take it at face value.
Furthermore we often hear that they give accurate ratings. I mean if they are not 100% trustworthy themselves but are on DT that opens up many vectors of abuse and that their inclusions will eventually entrench themselves to an extent where they are immune to being removed regardless of their actions. There is undeniable incentive to have unreliable trust ratings where DTs are caught out in financially dangerous behaviors.

It is solving one issue but creating a host of other issues including crushing free speech and removing all accountability for DT behaviors.

So to say it is an improvement is not something that really holds water. Crushing free speech is far more important than saving the very most greedy and very most stupid from themselves.  Anyone using the trust score metric at face value is still taking a huge risk and the glaring new issues and problems the new trust system opens far far far outweigh any real benefits.

I would say the most ironic thing about bitcointalk is that  " default trust" is full of undeniable scammers and scammer supporters and that they are able to give negative trust to those that whistle blow on their actions.  

If that is not ironic , nothing is.

You are right that that it would be hard to know whether it is the real person or whether they bought or hacked the account.
You are right that a good hoaxer that has access to the account could possibly pass as the real deal.
Their identity was (DOX) was only suspected - it was never established in a court or confirmed beyond doubt.

I have interviewed a few people on here for articles and for articles in progress. It is not an intense "investigative interview" and generally focuses on what people want to tell me. I try to get their perspective on what happened. Which potentially can be a "story" rather than the truth.  I try to get a balanced perspective by interviewing others involved.

In the crypto sphere articles are often unreliable. I try to get the technical perspectives correct and to get balance by telling multiple perspectives rather than just relying on a single interview. I'm more interested in finding out what actually happened (history) than apportioning blame or a hard hitting report.