The guy has put a lot of work in. I got asked about it and I don't want any lack of response to be a suggestion it has lots of great points.
I think he genuinely does believe City are fcked. But so what? I read enough to know a lot of it was sound reading of the emails presented - much of that reading wouldn't be disputed by City. The emails say what the emails say. But I am not spending the time going through 25 long posts and responding line by line. The fundamental misunderstanding is how these trials work, the documents that will likely be available (lots), the importance of witness evidence, the submissions of the defence barristers etc.
It is not Nick Harris. Most likely a young American lawyer or law student.