And that's pretty much the point. It's the article which is claiming "emails don't appear fake" and "it looks real".

Unless its proven that the mails are real, FB shouldn't be harassed over it. If they don't have the forensic to prove it real or otherwise, shouldn't FB be getting the benefit of doubt since the guy is a convicted felon, remain silent for years, suspiciously came up with new mails months after initial lawsuit, seems excited about FB(the site he is talking about) and then goes dormant for 7 years...

You often need to go through the discovery process to determine what is real and what isn't. To go through discovery, you need to file a suit.

Just because someone is a convicted felon doesn't mean they're not entitled to the same access to the judicial system as everyone else.

At the same time, that's a very prejudicial stance to take-- that anyone ever convicted of a crime is forever untrustworthy. Look at Tim Allen, he was a coke dealer going away for life who then turned state's witness, turned in all his accomplices and now he's in Toy Story trilogies.

I'm taking no stance until actual evidence comes forward or this goes to court and the emails in question can be examined and verified, if possible.