We know the agents presenting evidence against him were crooks. How can any of the evidence against him not be fatally tainted? How can anything said by a judge

We know the agents presenting evidence against him were crooks. How can any of the evidence against him not be fatally tainted? How can anything said by a judge who admitted such "evidence" be credited? The whole investigation and trial, all told, were a shitshow. I cannot trust any of the process, so cannot conclude anything about Ulbricht from it. The most we can say is that chances are he was guilty of something just from how deep he was in the middle of it all. But I would give the agents longer sentences.