I didn't mean to imply that Ken had something inauthentic, just that something feels "off" for a trial. But, then, I've never been involved in a trial, so this could be (or could have been) routine. And, as I mentioned, it could just be that I'm misreading it.
To be clear, in case someone else runs in that direction: Ken has no (and shouldn't have any) obligation, considering that the records are public and verifiable, to reveal who acquired the pages for him. Hopefully it'll be revealed what volume to check, for future researchers, but if his source wants to be anonymous, we have an actual, serious law protecting that source.
As for the Eisner issue...well, I was going to hold my tongue until other people passed this way first, but since you bring it up, I've never really idolized the man (like many later comic creators, I've always been annoyed at his fixation with being "taken seriously"), and so often wondered why his word was always taken as gospel over everybody else's in the industry. I remember a few places in "Men of Tomorrow," where Jones essentially says, "everybody has said otherwise, but Eisner contradicts them in an interview, so that's that." Heck, it's taken almost seventy years, well after his death, for someone to even check his story!
That's not to say that he would be a liar, but memory plays tricks, especially during traumatic events, and there may be multiple parts to the story (indeed, there's an appeal) where the man's "lie" could still turn out to just be "simplification."
And if not, well, Eisner is the proverbial Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
