We think that the graphing, and analysis, that we did, shows its substantially easier to trace these things than we'd have a priori thought possible.
Then you had thought wrong and that is YOUR problem and not the problem of Bitcoin. Bitcoin members always stated the nature of Bitcoin and how under certain circumstances the transactions could be linked to the person. There is absolutely nothing new on what you are saying. It had all been said by the Bitcoin community already. You only have to see the reaction on the forums about your original blog post. The reaction was: so what? this was alredy known. The problem is that you are claiming the Bitcoin community was saying the contrary and its very dishonest from your part.
And the biggest problem is that I went to your blog post to point exactly this to you in a nice and educated way, but you keep going around with the same dishonest claims, so you are clearly doing it on purpose. If you are acting on good faith you should stop your claims that the Bitcoin community has publicited anything different. What you are saying is nothing special or new. It was well known.
We aren't in the business of exposing thefts, so we didn't go down that road as far as we could.
Why not? If you really can prove it as you claim why not do it?