If you treat the "proof" falling apart under scrutiny as evidence that he is Satoshi, then to remain consistent you must treat a strong proof which holds up under scrutiny as evidence against him being Satoshi.
To be clear, I don't believe my tin-foil conspiracy is true, and honestly it doesn't matter one bit to me if Craig Wright is the inventor of Bitcoin.
That said, I never said that his "absence of evidence that he is Satoshi" is actually "evidence that he is Satoshi". In fact, no one has provided any real evidence either that he is or is not Satoshi.
Again, assuming that the real Satoshi wishes to remain anonymous, but is on the verge of discovery anyway, he may have a difficult time "proving" that he isn't Satoshi, so his next best bet might be to sidestep proof entirely and instead play a kind of mind game to throw off the investigation. So conservation of expected evidence doesn't factor in, because he hasn't "proven" anything one way or the other, he's basically gambled that internet ridicule will achieve a desired goal.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence