Applying the various razors, I find that the hypothesis that would need to be refuted first is that Reid wrote the posts, they were archived as written, unalter

Applying the various razors, I find that the hypothesis that would need to be refuted first is that Reid wrote the posts, they were archived as written, unaltered since then, and she simply does not wish to take responsibility for their contents now. Who had motive to alter the posts in question? Who had the opportunity? When could it have happened? What method did they use to do so? If Reid's team cannot plausibly answer those questions, we are still examining the simplest hypothesis, and have seen no plausible evidence that it should be refuted. If we are to believe that those posts were written by someone else posing as Reid, would that suspicion not apply equally to everything appearing on her blog now? In which case, the solution has always been to sign the post using public-private asymmetric cryptography and to employ a public timestamp server to verify the time of publication.