The "real" Satoshi Nakamoto coming forward after all this time just to say he isn't Dorian Nakamoto seems kind of suspicious to me. It's not like Dorian Nakamoto is the first person to have been accused of being Satoshi.
It's highly ironic that the media paints cryptocurrency as tools for a coldhearted clique that only cares for their own material wealth, yet they're the ones cruelly exposing someone who has done them no wrong and (in the case of the Newsweek journalist) refusing to apologize. What happened to kindness and respect?
Also a few desperate out of work in heavy debt old IT workers might do something stupid.
But I would be mostly worried about the mob. Italian and Russian mafia is reputed to create a large part of their wealth today by online scams and phishing, so they will have people that are fully aware of Bitcoin. And have no qualms visiting people or their relatives to chop off a few fingers.
After all I don't think the Silk Road and its compatriots was run by innocent people...
Most moderately or even extremely wealthy people are obscure. One of the wealthiest people I've worked for had a saying: "it's good to be wealthy but not famous." He dressed like a slob, drove a generic Japanese car, lived in a moderate house but in Los Altos (i.e., given the money he went for a safer location as opposed to a gigantic house), and so forth... He never once talked about finance issues despite being involved in angel investments, exits, etc... Most importantly, you'd never see his name in a press release much less in a newspaper story (except once I think, where he was referred to as an engineer as opposed to his actual title).
However, Dorian Nakomoto's situation is far worse in that he's perceived as wealthy, but actually isn't: so he can't afford security, lawyers, a gated house (remember, he went through foreclosure -- he can barely afford a house at all!), and so on forth... He's sixty five years old, his mother is 90. He can't run, he's post-stroke so he likely won't be able defend himself even with a firearm. He also has much more at stake than others: he can't simply hand the home invaders or extortionists the money if, e.g., one of his relatives is kidnapped. Is this so hard to understand? Do you personally hate bitcoin so much that you're willing to be an apologist for endangerment of someone who isn't even involved in bitcoin?
The criminals don't think "Bitcoin, the neat crypto-currency, let's hack his network and steal his private keys if we can!". Criminals think "wow, this guy has something that can be exchanged for $400mm, let's hold a clothes iron to his (or his mother's!) feet until he gives it to us!".