Although the articles seem to not mention it, it should probably be noted the author is a moderator on the Rybka forums so is most likely not coming from an exactly unbiased viewpoint.
Though buried as an aside in the fourth part of the piece, the author does mention that he is the moderator on the Rybka forums.
"In my capacity as Rybka forum moderator I have access to posting statistics."
Indeed, his moderator status leads to one of his core debunking arguments. Some Dr. Hyatt guy, apparently a key individual behind the accusations against Rybka, appeared to be making the attack a full-time job, shifting the arguments as needed to defend a guilty conclusion.
Though he doesn't say it, I suspect that noticing this was impetus for the author to seriously tackle a look at the charges from the defense perspective.
Not that there is anything wrong with either side picking a conclusion (guilty, not guilty) and then working hard to support it. However, part of the credence given the initial charge is that it resulted from an independent search for truth. This does not appear to have been the case. Instead, the charges were the prosecution half of an adversarial process. In these articles, now we see the defense.
Caveat: all I know about this matter is what I read in the four part article posted here.
