Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 17, 2019, 10:01:48 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 17, 2019, 09:21:13 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 17, 2019, 06:56:21 PM

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.

All the evidence does not show that. All the evidence shows is transfers were made, not to who, for what, or why. That is absolutely speculation. I took the liberty of putting the part where you yet again try to reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Well, perhaps I am saying that the burden of proof shifts, and perhaps that is a fair way of saying that if we conclude that the evidence establishes that OGNasty received BTC that should have been the property of others, and it appears that he did not distribute those to the others, then he has some kind of burden to describe or show what happened to those BTC.

Of course, you are saying that we do not know the who, what, or why, and that seems to be a bit of an overstatement regarding what the reasonable inferences seem to establish. Yeah, you can argue that they are not established enough, but maybe you are being unreasonable? Levels of reasonableness frequently vary, and that can be why jurors differ in their opinions, even after instructions regarding how to consider the evidence and which parties have which burdens to show what. We are not exactly a jury here, but similar principles apply, even if we might be having some disagreement about what are the standards or even the thresholds for the burdens.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 17, 2019, 09:21:13 PM

Interesting how we can't conclude he is innocent until proven otherwise,

Yes. We seem to agree on that.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 17, 2019, 09:21:13 PM

but for you to speculate and make conclusions based on speculation about what happened to those funds,

It is not called speculation, it is called reasonable inferences. Sure, we can disagree what reasonable inferences establish in this case or any other case.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 17, 2019, 09:21:13 PM

well that is perfectly acceptable to conclude isn't it?

Sometimes you conclude based on what you got. Sometimes you have direct evidence and other times you have indirect evidence.

With indirect evidence, you can still determine if you believe that it is enough to establish reasonable inferences of x or y, even if it might not be as solid of an evidentiary ground as direct evidence.

Don't try to act as if the only kind of relevant evidence is direct evidence. That is ridiculous. We have thousands of years of history in which indirect evidence and reasonable inferences is used (even justly so) when direct evidence cannot be obtained. People do not admit, frequently, when they did something wrong, but they still end up getting convicted (either criminally or civilly) on a regular basis, and justly so based on various kinds of indirect evidence and reasonable inferences. There are a variety of evidentiary standards including beyond a reasonable doubt (as Twitchy keeps mentioning), but this is not necessarily a criminal matter. There is also preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and depending on the kind of case will determine the evidentiary standards (sometimes established by common law and other times by statute).

I think frequently fiduciaries are going to be held to higher standards than regular people because they have a duty to those that they are entrusted with the funds. So frequently we hear about a reasonable person standard, but in the case of a fiduciary, the standard might be tailored to what would a reasonable fiduciary do. OGNasty likely knows enough about what he is doing in order to be held to the standards of reasonable fiduciary practices.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 17, 2019, 09:21:13 PM

You keep crying up and down that you aren't twisting around the burden of proof, but it you do it over and over in every reply.

I am just providing an opinion on these various facts and arguments as they are presented. I doubt that I am twisting anything because I don't have any beef against OGNasty or any alliance with Twitchy or any of the other supposed Nasty haters. Like I mentioned several times already, this Nasty-hater theme, just seems to be quite a bit of a distraction rather than really attempting to figure out what the newly established facts are/mean and/or inferences that can reasonably drawn from them.

Yet again you simply flip the burden of proof on its head and just pretend you haven't, but if you have its ok because "burden of proof shifts" according to you. It is not an overstatement at all. You nor anyone else have as any fucking clue whatsoever where those funds went. This is 100% a fact. Your speculation about what happened to it is not evidence, it is speculation.

You are right, I am being totally unreasonable expecting you to be able to prove your accusations of theft without relying completely upon speculation and using that to demand the burden of proof now be upon OGNasty. You have fun with your twisted semantic gymnastics, just be careful you don't sprain your brain bending over backwards to try to make all your rambling gibberish seem like it makes logical sense.