3 ms·

Indeed, that was the log I gave a characture of above-- you'll note that there is no mention of the supposed four other ones as they entirely rested on claims m

by nullc 6y ago

Indeed, that was the log I gave a characture of above-- you'll note that there is no mention of the supposed four other ones as they entirely rested on claims made by the now-convicted officers Carl Mark Force IV and Shaun W. Bridges. Media coverage from back then: https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/ https://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross... > To date, there have been precisely zero murder charges filed. Instead, the indictment has been changed without explanation, the formal charges omitted, and the broader accusations buried within a lesser drug trafficking charge. > Of the six murder indictments trumpeted by the U.S. government in the days following Ulbricht’s Oct. 2013 arrest, five have fallen off the table and the sixth sits untouched in a separate indictment (legalese for an unproven allegation) that was purposefully left out of the upcoming trial. Of course, we know now why they didn't charge-- those charges were impossibly tainted by the involvement of the corrupt officers. But the trial was no less prejudiced just because they skipped charging on the murder-for-hire parts: those corrupt officers had administrative control over the systems, they fabricated evidence to conceal their heist, and so on. Had the compromise of the investigation not been fatal to the prosecutions case they simply wouldn't have risked concealing it from the defence.

tptacek 6y ago
If what you were trying to communicate was that Ross Ulbricht was never charged with ordering a murder, all I'm saying is, the indictment flatly refutes that. Whatever corruption you say taints the charge, it taints the entire Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy charge as well! The murder-for-hire scheme is a predicate!
- nullc 6y ago
  Pedantically, you are incorrect. The alleged one of these instances an was admitted of "of his efforts to protect Silk Road and his interests therein.". It was not a charge and no one was required to believe an ounce of it to convict him. It literally wasn't charged, nor was he convicted of it. If he was charged it would have been possible for the jury to find him innocent of it, but that was literally impossible here. It was something the trial literally could not have falsified because it was no something it gave a verdict to. All that would be been possible is that the jury could have found him innocent of the broader conspiracy to distribute narcotics-- a charge that was supported by many different pieces of evidence. Consider the jury instructions: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.422823.123.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.422823... (sadly this is a readline and not the final version but I don't see the final version). > In order to aid or abet another to commit a crime, it is necessary that the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally associated himself in some way with the crime, and that he knowingly and intentionally sought, by some act, to help make the crime succeed. To further emphasize this, the appellate court wrote (emphasis mine): > Here, the six drug-related deaths (and more importantly, Ulbricht's attempted murders for hire) were uncharged facts But I do also agree with you on the rest: I am of the opinion that almost the entire investigation was tainted, unfortunately-- because the corrupt officers had administrative access to the systems and tampered with the evidence. And not only did this potentially spoil almost all of their material evidence, but the defence was prejudicially denied knowledge of this spoliation. [Aside, I want to thank you for your replies, it's been years since I looked at any of this. Your responses made mine more accurate in context.]

by nullc 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

If what you were trying to communicate was that Ross Ulbricht was never charged with ordering a murder, all I'm saying is, the indictment flatly refutes that. Whatever corruption you say taints the charge, it taints the entire Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy charge as well! The murder-for-hire scheme is a predicate!

nullc 6y ago
Pedantically, you are incorrect. The alleged one of these instances an was admitted of "of his efforts to protect Silk Road and his interests therein.". It was not a charge and no one was required to believe an ounce of it to convict him. It literally wasn't charged, nor was he convicted of it. If he was charged it would have been possible for the jury to find him innocent of it, but that was literally impossible here. It was something the trial literally could not have falsified because it was no something it gave a verdict to. All that would be been possible is that the jury could have found him innocent of the broader conspiracy to distribute narcotics-- a charge that was supported by many different pieces of evidence. Consider the jury instructions: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.422823.123.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.422823... (sadly this is a readline and not the final version but I don't see the final version). > In order to aid or abet another to commit a crime, it is necessary that the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally associated himself in some way with the crime, and that he knowingly and intentionally sought, by some act, to help make the crime succeed. To further emphasize this, the appellate court wrote (emphasis mine): > Here, the six drug-related deaths (and more importantly, Ulbricht's attempted murders for hire) were uncharged facts But I do also agree with you on the rest: I am of the opinion that almost the entire investigation was tainted, unfortunately-- because the corrupt officers had administrative access to the systems and tampered with the evidence. And not only did this potentially spoil almost all of their material evidence, but the defence was prejudicially denied knowledge of this spoliation. [Aside, I want to thank you for your replies, it's been years since I looked at any of this. Your responses made mine more accurate in context.]