Anyone who compiles information (evidence) should be making some kind of conclusions or recommendation (which seems to be what Twitchy had been attempting to do), but if the evidence is compiled well, any reader of the information that has been compiled would not have to agree with the conclusions or recommendations of the information compiler.  

In this case, it should be easy enough for any forum member to be able to separate Twitchy's compilation efforts from his conclusions/recommendations, no?

For example, if all of the evidence shows that OGNasty was paid back 84 BTC more than he paid out to pass through investors, then a reasonable inference could be reached that he pocketed such 84BTC that he was paid.  If there is no other evidence regarding what happened to that 84BTC, then what are we supposed to conclude happened to that 84BTC?  We cannot conclude that he paid that 84BTC to pass through investors unless we get further evidence of such additional payment(s), which seems to be absent in this case, so wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that OGNasty somehow took those BTC?

Sometimes accountings are needed from members who put themselves into positions of trust and holding the BTC of other members, especially if they are continuing in that line of business, and if they choose not to give a reasonable and perhaps credible accounting, then the most fair conclusion might be to go with the negative inferences that seems to establish a negative conclusion.  

There are common practice legal principles that deal with non-cooperating parties in these kinds of circumstances, and if all reasonable efforts have been taken to attempt to get persons with evidence to cooperate and they choose not to, then sometimes the most reasonable next step would be to draw a negative inference from their ongoing non-cooperation in providing evidence.  Several posters here have already asserted that OGNasty has not sufficiently cooperated or provided a reasonable and credible explanation regarding the current evidence.  Others have argued that OGNasty does not need to cooperate, which does seem to be the weaker position, especially for someone who had been serving as a fiduciary holder of BTC (and still regularly engages in such fiduciary holding of BTC practices through the forum, from my understanding).

Maybe it is true that 99% of the time, OGNasty pays back all of the funds that he holds on behalf of other members, but is that an acceptable practice if it were shown to be true? Anyone who does not get paid back in a particular case does not care if OGNasty pays back 99% of the time, s/he only would care that s/he did not get paid back in this particular instance, if that ends up being the most reasonably inferred facts of this particular case.