8 ms·

No need for proof or to mention that that the "User" was 1 of 2 corrupt FBI agents involved who is also now in jail for stealing millions in BTC during the case

No need for proof or to mention that that the "User" was 1 of 2 corrupt FBI agents involved who is also now in jail for stealing millions in BTC during the case when you don't actually try to charge someone with the Murder-for-hire. The charge is conspiracy, there are several overt acts listed, not all of them need to be proven to be convicted of conspiracy.

tptacek 6y ago
In fact, the opposite is true, the burden of proof was in fact on the DOJ to prove the murder-for-hire scheme, which was, as you can see, charged, and they met that burden at trial.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Are you not familiar with how things work in the US? The burden is to prove one overt act in a conspiracy charge, you can list all the bullshit you want and there is no need to prove it all beyond reasonable doubt. https://reason.com/2018/07/25/ross-ulbrichts-murder-for-hire-charges-d/ https://reason.com/2018/07/25/ross-ulbrichts-murder-for-hire... Why were all the actual murder for hire charges dropped and instead included in a side notes of a conspiracy sentencing? Seems obvious to me that it was because there is no way they would get a conviction.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Again: a finding of fact of the trial is that Ulbricht ordered a murder for hire. The defense had the opportunity to refute that, and didn't.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - thatcat 6y ago
      There was an irc chat log and nothing more offered as evidence. Later the agent involved was convicted of stealing BTC from defendant. You could say the relevant fact is that an irc log on a compromised computer had a questionable chain of evidence. The logical error of assuming something quoted in a sentencing as fact is "appeal to authority" if you want to look it up.
- sjy 6y ago
  The government expressly disclaimed any such burden. See Ulbricht’s (unsuccessful) petition for certiorari [1] linked elsewhere in this thread: > The sentence was based on judicial findings related to allegations of serious crimes that not only were never found by a jury but were not even among the charges leveled at trial. During closing argument, the U.S. attorney explicitly advised the jury: “[T]o be clear, the defendant has not been charged for these attempted murders here. You’re not required to make any findings about them. And the government does not contend that those murders actually occurred.” [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180205155810342_180202%20Brief%20for%20E-filing.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180...
  - tptacek 6y ago
    The murders didn't occur. They were staged.

tptacek 6y ago

In fact, the opposite is true, the burden of proof was in fact on the DOJ to prove the murder-for-hire scheme, which was, as you can see, charged, and they met that burden at trial.

thatcat 6y ago
Are you not familiar with how things work in the US? The burden is to prove one overt act in a conspiracy charge, you can list all the bullshit you want and there is no need to prove it all beyond reasonable doubt. https://reason.com/2018/07/25/ross-ulbrichts-murder-for-hire-charges-d/ https://reason.com/2018/07/25/ross-ulbrichts-murder-for-hire... Why were all the actual murder for hire charges dropped and instead included in a side notes of a conspiracy sentencing? Seems obvious to me that it was because there is no way they would get a conviction.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Again: a finding of fact of the trial is that Ulbricht ordered a murder for hire. The defense had the opportunity to refute that, and didn't.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - thatcat 6y ago
    There was an irc chat log and nothing more offered as evidence. Later the agent involved was convicted of stealing BTC from defendant. You could say the relevant fact is that an irc log on a compromised computer had a questionable chain of evidence. The logical error of assuming something quoted in a sentencing as fact is "appeal to authority" if you want to look it up.
sjy 6y ago
The government expressly disclaimed any such burden. See Ulbricht’s (unsuccessful) petition for certiorari [1] linked elsewhere in this thread: > The sentence was based on judicial findings related to allegations of serious crimes that not only were never found by a jury but were not even among the charges leveled at trial. During closing argument, the U.S. attorney explicitly advised the jury: “[T]o be clear, the defendant has not been charged for these attempted murders here. You’re not required to make any findings about them. And the government does not contend that those murders actually occurred.” [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180205155810342_180202%20Brief%20for%20E-filing.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/34432/20180...
- tptacek 6y ago
  The murders didn't occur. They were staged.