However, I still think it is unwarranted to call it "theft" as if it has been proven that he took the money for his own personal benefit, when it has not. I know I used that word myself at first, but I'm not using it without proof now. (You can get a computer monitor very very cheaply, even free, if you don't mind it being a bit crappy, I know from experience.) The proof that he misused the funds against the will of the donors, regardless where the money went, is quite enough to charge him with, and is proven, so let's stick with that.

Well.. first I'll address you to the story of Robin Hood. Last time I checked, he wasn't stealing for his own benefit, but he was still a thief. 'course, I'm not suggesting that Todd's intentions were so noble -- his actions and words since suggest otherwise.

Monitor cheaply? He spent a bit over $200 on his shiny new flat panel LCD.. of course, he says that he had to *cough* borrow money to buy it.

Your last sentence is the kicker, though. Compare it to the first two, please? Misuse of funds against the will of those who said funds belong to is.. theft.