We've got someone saying he did reimburse someone who has nothing to gain from making that up (which, btw, should not be confused with considering Pirate "trustworthy"), and someone who's either avoiding the question or has poor writing skills.
Well, the discovered testimony of Pirate did trigger some of the additional investigation into the matter, I don't believe it is fair to assert that Pirate would not have anything to gain from lying, in the event that he was lying. Seems to me that Twitchy is asserting that there is strong evidence that stands largely on its own to corroborate aspects of Pirate's testimony, and if there is some kind of mistake or different explanation regarding that evidence then likely only OGNasty would be able to clarify that matter.
Surely beyond a reasonable doubt standards apply to criminal proceedings and clear and convincing evidence would apply to civil proceedings. Neither of those standards need to apply in the event that members were to decide to either remove OGNasty from their trust, or even to list him as untrustworthy, like nutildah has already mentioned in regards to his thinking on the matter. Each member would need to decide for themselves if they have gotten enough evidence to feel comfortable with their decision. Maybe just having a reasonable basis in light of the totality of the various alleged conduct and circumstances would be enough for some members to make such a decision?