14 ms·

Yes; please people let's actually look at what happened at trial, at sentencing, and at appeal. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi

• tptacek 4y ago
  JFWIW: that's the first indictment; there's a superseding indictment introduced later that makes the murder-for-hire component even clearer. Later I removed ", and bets more of the case on it.", to dial it back a little.
  • notch656a 4y ago
    The indictment can shot-gun whatever sort of overt acts the grand jury buys into that they like. A conviction usually only needs one qualifying overt act, so a conviction is not at all evidence the accepted overt act was any of the murder-for-hire accusations. What you're doing here is presenting the indictment with the murder-for-hire as overt acts and relying on the sleight of hand that the reader will assume the conviction asserts the overt acts, when in fact the conviction only generally relies on at least one overt act (and need not be any murder-for-hire related one).
    • tptacek 4y ago
      That's definitely not what the sentencing memoranda and final sentencing order say. I'm going to tend to believe that the judge knows more about which facts were and weren't found at trial over the opinions of message boards, which, as you can see, are repeatedly and blatantly wrong about core details of the case.
      • notch656a 4y ago
        • pvg 4y ago
          A judge presiding over a case is a pretty good authority on what a defendant in that case was charged with and convicted of.