Bitcoin · Forbes · Amityville
Plus: Eve seconds Sarah
the true crime that's worth your time
Netflix is hustling to get a show about “Bitcoin’s Bonnie and Clyde” in the can. Folks who follow crypto have likely had their eye on the Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan case: the pair appeared in court Monday, a hearing on their upcoming trial in charges related to a Hong Kong crypto exchange hack in 2016.
Lichtenstein and Morgan had long shared crypto advice online, the New York Times reports, as well as “advice, ideas and amateur rap videos.” From the NYT report on Monday’s bail hearing:
Investigators told the judge that they had found no evidence the couple was involved in the theft, but they presented a sprawling network of accounts through which they said the pair was working to launder the funds.
The confiscation of the Bitcoin that remained in Mr. Lichtenstein’s wallet on Feb. 1, worth roughly $3.6 billion at the time, was the Justice Department’s largest financial seizure ever, officials have said. The case has been seen as a watershed in the regulation and perhaps investigation of the murky and often illicit world of cryptocurrency.
The Times has a moderate-length recap of the events leading up to their arrest here, including an accessible explanation of the oft-inaccessible way cryptocurrency markets work. The coverage doesn’t do much to disabuse folks of the notion that people who are super into crypto are also super dorky. For example:
Almost immediately after the arrests, the hyperactive community that discusses cryptocurrency on social media and message boards began to pore over Ms. Morgan’s bizarre digital trail. Her videos — little-watched before she was charged — were suddenly being shared widely.
In one, apparently recorded at brunch, Ms. Morgan marvels at the size of her plate of pancakes, sneers, sticks out her tongue and wags her fingers before announcing that she is offering a commentary about consumerism and social media’s superficial nature.
The Bitfinex hacking was the stuff of legend, but Mr. Lichtenstein and Ms. Morgan hardly appeared to be suave, or subtle, digital cat burglars — or the tip of a grand conspiracy.
Sharing the pancake video, one typically irreverent Twitter account that comments on cutting-edge financial markets in an all-caps parody of the Incredible Hulk captured a widely expressed reaction to the revelation: “OK. THE HACKERS ARE NOT CIA. THEY ARE IDIOTS.”
In a press release, Netflix says that their alleged scheme was the “biggest criminal financial crime case in history.” Tech writer Nick Bilton will executive produce/presumably explain NFTs to the olds. Directing the series is Chris Smith, who also directed FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened. (Was that the slightly better one or the slightly worse one? I cannot recall.)
No release date for the series so far, but we’re at a good spot for a production to get to work: Morgan got supervised release in advance of a trial (which might not happen for years), while “Russian émigré and tech investor” Lichtenstein was denied bail as he “appeared to have significant motivation to flee, and might have resources to do so that investigators had overlooked.” — EB
One note from the Lichtenstein and Morgan case that had many folks howling was Morgan’s role as a Forbes contributor. That brings us to our next item on the agenda, a rundown from Nieman Journalism Lab founder Joshua Benton on the many, many scams and grafts that have appeared on Forbes’ pages.
Once a legit business magazine, albeit one that had its lips firmly placed on the butts of various billionaires, like so many mags that couldn’t figure out how to navigate the changing times (RIP, EW. RIP), Forbes moved to an early Huffington Post/Examiner.com-style model of user generated content in the late ’00s, with multitudes of content by people who write for free as “contributors,” often with shadowy agendas or as a way to get freebies. (See: any Forbes food or travel contributors, yikes.)
Even smart folks get taken in by this crap, as I’ve seen folks at my day job (populated by smart professional journalists) drop links from surprising contributor content into our Slack, then shamefacedly delete it when someone DMs them that this isn’t work from Forbes’ waning stable of professional journalists. Who, I can only assume, hate being lumped in with these randos.
And many of these randos are running scams of their own! Sure, there’s Morgan — while she seemed like a ding-dong on Forbes’ pages, she didn’t seem to be specifically enriching herself. Other schemes seem focused on swaying potential investors, driving sales of dubious products, and obscuring the fairly blemished reputations of problematic people.
Here’s Benton:
But right up there in the Confusing Magazine Transition Dept. would have to be Forbes, the magazine David Carr once called “a synonym for riches, success and a belief that business, left to its own devices, will create a better world.” (Of course, he wrote that a year and a half into the Great Recession, so the shine was already coming off.)
This was a magazine positioned for captains of industry, the sort of outlet that would proudly brand itself as “Forbes: Capitalist Tool” without ever thinking those words might mean something other than intended. Owner Malcolm Forbes “seemed to exemplify a kind of gleeful capitalism that relished the things that money could buy, from macho symbols like the 68 motorcycles he owned to an extensive collection of Faberge eggs.”
Of all the ways Forbes magazine might have evolved from there, Past Me would never have guessed “under-edited group blog that’s a soft mark for grifters.” Call it “Forbes: Scammer Tool.”
Benton goes deep on the ways scammers use Forbes, ultimately arguing that Medium, of all places, is a safer ecosystem for those who want to avoid grifters simply because “Medium as a brand conveys no special prestige.” So, yay for Medium, I guess? The whole piece is worth a read, or at least a bookmark for when someone you work with drops a Forbes Contributor link into Slack like it’s real news. — EB
Epix is looking at Amityville. The cable channel announced its upcoming development slate last week, as Variety reports, and while most of its planned content is fictional, one outlier stood out.
In four parts, “The Making of a Haunting: The Amityville Murders” covers the true history behind the scary stories told in the book and film series “The Amityville Horror.” Executive producers include Lesley Chilcott, Blaine Duncan, Brooklyn Hudson, Amanda Raymond, Rhett Bachner and Brien Meagher. B17 Entertainment produces.
The timing on this is interesting: Ronald DeFeo Jr., the man who killed his mom, dad, brothers and sisters in the Long Island home we all know, died on March 12, 2021, which arguably leaves the field open for a lot of extrapolation that might have inspired lawsuits while he was alive.
If you listen to the You’re Wrong About podcast, you now know more than you ever wanted to about exactly how full of bull The Amityville Horror was, not just the movies but Jay Anson’s 1977 book. Over the course of three episodes they dismantle the alleged haunting, demons, whatever that these products claim infected the house — thus elevating a tragic mass family shooting to the stuff of legend.
The DeFeo case is actually pretty simple: Ronald killed his whole family, briefly claimed he didn’t, then admitted he did. His defense claimed that he was mentally ill at the time of the shootings, but the claims didn’t fly, and he was sentenced to six consecutive 25-year sentences. Whenever he was up for parole, the board said no, and he died in prison at age 69.
So, what’s Epix going to do to get four episodes of television out of that? I think it’s safe to say that there is not any new evidence to be found in this case, as this story is picked over more thoroughly than a mid-century estate sale at 5 PM on a Sunday. I feel worried that the only way to fluff things to four episodes is to bring in the nonsense spawned by George and Kathy Lutz, the central figures in the book and movies.
I feel confident in saying “nonsense” (“she types, thinking as she does, ‘this is how certain doomed characters are introduced in horror movies’”) as even Christopher Quaratino, George Lutz’s stepson and former Ocean Drive resident, says the book and movies were bunk. Speaking with the Seattle Times in 2005:
“He’s a professional showman, in my opinion,” Quaratino said of Lutz, whom he said he clashed with many times before leaving home at 16. “I just feel as though we’re being exploited.”
To be fair, Quaratino also claimed that “he did have run-ins with the paranormal” while in the house, with the most remarkable moment being when he saw “a presence ‘as definite as a shadow’ in the shape of a man that moved toward him and then dissipated.” But, also:
Lutz sued his former stepson in Nevada district court in 2003 over what Quaratino said are allegations of trademark infringement and fraud relating to a future Amityville movie planned by Lutz. The case is open; a counterclaim filed by Quaratino was dismissed in January.
So, a lot of family drama to unpack there. Or not, if you think that this, like the DeFeo family slaying itself, is largely a tragedy between toxic and dangerous family members and not the work of paranormal. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to be the Epix angle, though. — EB
Just a quick note that Sarah is right about everything, and I shouldn’t ever question her. Her review of Inventing Anna was a recommendation of the Netflix series as a fun romp, but I wasn’t sure, y’all.
She suggested that that fun part might counteract the irritation some folks (like me) have when faced with shows about annoying tech bros (I own a store in San Francisco near a very very buzzy restaurant, so I have to interact with looky-loo tech bros and their double-parked Teslas on the regular) or fuckup journalists (my day job is being a non-fuckup journalist). I just didn’t know if that was possible.
So I turned it on yesterday while I was doing the dishes, and gobbled down the first two episodes like it was nothing. Then my husband came over, we watched the shows we watch together (last week’s Drag Race, last week’s The Amazing Race), he went home, and I watched two more. Sarah is right, it’s so fun!
I’m skipping links like these until I’m done, since I’m essentially enjoying this show like it’s total fiction at the moment, but can’t wait to parse out the truth from the dramatic after I’m done:
Seen ‘Inventing Anna’? Here’s What It Gets Right (and Wrong) [NYT]
13 wild details from 'Inventing Anna' — and whether they really happened or not [Insider]
But Sarah’s right, the show is just really fun, and funny, and strange. It’s a low-lift treat, but it won’t leave you feeling gross or bloated afterwards. It’s popcorn with exactly the right amount of butter. — EB
Wednesday on Best Evidence: True-crime crossovers!
What is this thing? This should help. Follow Best Evidence @bestevidencefyi on Twitter and Instagram. You can also call or text us any time at 919-75-CRIME.