Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.
I hadn't made any conclusions until yesterday. If you'd have read the thread you would've known that I was open about the fact that I could be wrong.
Right now (as of yesterday) there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Og stole
BTC144 and I don't need Pirates statement about paying out OgNasty in full to prove it. (There is evidence that he took more, but it's not strong enough (yet).)
We have pirates ledger for every transaction.
We have ogs thread archived.
We have both Pirates and OgNastys wallets indexed on wallet explorer.
We have the block chain.
Og was receiving weekly interest payments from Pirate, and making monthly payments to his pass through investors.
The last interest payment Og sent to his investors was on August 2, 2012.
On August 6 Og received an interested payment of
BTC66.8
On August 13 Og received an interested payment of
BTC39.2
On August 17 He received a withdraw for
BTC38
On Sept 2 he paid out the insurance he had been collecting to 4 investors.
BTC9.92,
BTC4.59,
BTC22.95 and
BTC27.54
We know that was the insurance because Og posted on the same day 'reserves have been paid, pirate has defaulted', and they total
BTC65, the same amount Og listed as the 'current reserves' on August 2.
You'll find transaction ids to all of these in the thread if you decide to bother looking into it.