If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping? No. The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained.
I think you're using phrases that you shouldn't be. Here I sit on the jury, my yard was wet this morning from the phenomenon known as "morning dew". It did not rain yet my yard is wet. I now reasonably doubt your whole case.
When you're making accusations such as the ones in this thread/topic you better come harder than that.
Ok bad analogy lol. Replace with snow.
The fact alone that a scenario exists where it did not snow does not make it impossible to come to a reasonable and reliable conclusion that it snowed.
The question should be how likely it is that the scenario of it not snowing happened. This logic is used in court rooms every day. Judges sometimes use a similar analogy to explain the concept to jurors.
In Ogs case, I suggest taking into consideration all evidence (blockchain, forum archives, pirates court documents, Ogs actions) and then coming to a conclusion of how likely it is you think he stole the
BTC144 rather than just dismissing the whole thing because a scenario exists where he didn't steal the money.
I believe the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the
BTC144. I also think it's worth noting that the evidence shows it is likely he stole much more. The only burden I have is to be honest.