So to start out, I have been suspicious of Rysto from day 1. It wasn't much then but it's grew a lot on days 2 and 3.
To start with Day 1: Rysto leads the vote on Moody, he is again very sure of his argumentation and quick to hammer, but this is minor compared to the rest. I voice some suspicions of him.
Day 2: Rysto doesn't vote for cruciality. He doesn't outright defend cruciality, he justs says after Tanya and I attack cruciality that he has nothing to say. Remember that later he argues the attack on cruciality was really just an argument that said Rysto and cruciality were linked (see above). So if he honestly sees the argument as an attack on him too, then it's very strange he doesn't try to defend himself here (the more likely case is that the argument about it being solely an attack by linking arose later as a convenient fiction with which to attack Jayhsu). I see this as trying not to be associated with defending cruciality while not being willing to give any momentum to the movement to lynch cruciality. In light of the first part of my Day 3 argument below this is even more implicating.
The other thing he did Day 2 was vote for me. This is after cruciality votes for Tanya, which we can see as another distancing tactic. Rysto later argues Tanya is innocent, which makes perfect sense if he wants to appear separate from cruciality (though he does defend cruciality a bit, first by misrepresenting the argument as a link only, which is weaker I believe than my argument against cruciality, and second by saying he doesn't see why cruciality would've made this contradiction if he was scum, the answer to that is clear, he was caught and tried to lie his way out). But lets look at his argument against me (I realize people probably trust I'm innocent at this point and so I don't need to really defend myself, but I'm more interested in using his argument as a reason to vote for him). (http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=26430&p=836581#p835450).
He says that I'm disingenuous because while I vote for Moody, I say that if Moody turns out innocent then the suspicion will turn to Rysto. He accuses me of "Perfect Information Syndrome", saying that I know Moody is innocent and thus am trying to avoid suspicion while throwing it on Rysto tomorrow (or having my cake and eating it too).This argument is flawed. First Rysto assumes I'm voting for Moody because of Rysto's arguments. Rather it is Moody's responses, something I make perfectly clear, that made me suspicious of Moody enough to vote. Even without the belief that I'm innocent because of what Tigion said, this seems to be quite a weak argument by Rysto. Second, he assumes that since I'm voting for moody, as is he, I can't find the person attacking moody suspicious. But I gave reasons then (weak, fast, overly confident argument) why I found Rysto's argument suspicious, it was only Moody's suspicious responses that made me vote for him. The reasons that Rysto gives are very poor for his vote. Throw in that it seems he doesn't want cruciality lynched (he defends cruciality, doesn't vote for him, and tries to throw suspicion on one of the voters and attackers) and this whole argument seems scummy.
Day 3: Well first we can see Rysto never votes for cruciality. Now, who this game has been the main (maybe only) one talking about Scum hammering their partner to gain credibility? Rysto. Rysto brings it up to use against Jayhsu.
Rysto wrote:I forgot to say, by no means do I consider Jayhsu cleared for hammering cruciality. At that point it was basically a given that cruciality would get lynched so Jayhsu could have been trying for townie cred by hammering a Mafioso.
That's one example, the other's not overly relevant. The implication of this is clear, Rysto is saying that a Scum would have voted for cruciality. Because he did not vote for cruciality, the implication is clear, he's trying to manipulate people into believe only those who voted for cruciality can be scum (thus he can't), and his two targets both voted for cruciality (Me, Jayhsu). Note also the Perfect Information argument Rysto made above. There's clear similarity in both these cases. Rysto makes an argument about how scum should act, and then deliberately acts the other way so as to throw suspicion off him.
Now also remember the two ways in which Rysto misrepresents facts or lies during his attack on Jayhsu (these are both above, the first was he makes it look like Jayhsu changed his mind about cruciality in a suspicious way by completely ignoring all the substantive reasons to vote for cruciality presented between Jayhsu's posts, and the second was he claims the case against cruciality was solely based on a link between Rysto and Cruciality, and thus Jayhus is suspicious for defending Rysto, this completely ignores at least half of the arguments made against cruciality). Both of these are either major reasoning errors or more likely intentional lies to make Jayhsu look guilty.
One last minor thing. Rysto unvotes Jayhsu after I say please don't hammer him in order to prevent a speed lynch. Yet again, the implication is that a Mafia in that position would speed lynch Jayhsu and because he's preventing that, he can't be Mafia. This is the same form of argument as the cases I mentioned two paragraphs ago, Rysto says how Scum would act and then acts the exact opposite way to avoid suspicion.