4 ms·

Didn't Ross hire a hitman?

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>Ross was smeared with false, unprosecuted allegations of planning murder-for-hire that much of the media amplified through inaccurate and sensationalized reporting. The allegations were never charged at trial, never proven, never submitted to, or ruled on by, a jury, and eventually dismissed with prejudice.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Well, that sounds dispassionate and unbiased. And oh hey, he's a model prisoner ...none of this is utilizing actual facts, it's just assertions and emotive wording.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    "First-time offender, All non-violent charges, Two life sentences + 40 years without parole" Seems pretty clear cut. I would like to take this moment to remind you that Ghislane Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      US judges are free to sentence a convict for allegations of which he was acquitted. Sentencing him for allegations that were dismissed isn't really different.
      - superchroma 4y ago
        Yes I know they are free to do that but that doesn't mean that it's fair.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Well, I'd agree; the fact that that's allowed is an obvious miscarriage of justice. But it's also how the system is explicitly supposed to work; it doesn't make for a strong "facts-based" argument for clemency.
        vkou 4y ago
        Is it? There's two angles to justice. The legal, and the moral. What was done to him was legal, and nobody's denying that. Given the scope of the crimes he was convicted for, I don't think it was immortal to throw the entire book at him, to the maximum possible legal extent.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    The website is called "free Ross Ulbricht," they aren't quiet about their bias. >none of this is utilizing actual facts, "The allegations were never charged at trial, never proven, never submitted to, or ruled on by, a jury, and eventually dismissed with prejudice" are the actual facts.
    - ffggffggj 4y ago
      Being proud of your bias doesn’t absolve you of its fact corruption effect, that is just silly. If anything it makes you more likely to stretch the truth.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I didn't say it absolves them of anything, I said that the bias was clear and unhidden.
  - boomskats 4y ago
    It objectively compares his sentence of 2 lifetimes + 40 years to the sentences of the biggest actual drug dealers on silk road, as well as the founders of the bigger silk road 2.0, all of whom got less than 10 years. I would consider that to be satisfactory actual fact utilization.
  - rob74 4y ago
    The fact remains that someone should be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty. If the prosecution couldn't prove that he hired a hitman (sounds like they didn't even try), then that shouldn't influence his sentencing.
    - jahewson 4y ago
      That’s not how it works. The evidentiary standard for a jury is “beyond a reasonable doubt” but for the sentencing judge is “preponderance of the evidence”, with the caveat that the judge can’t use that to hand down a sentence harsher than legally permitted by what the jury convicted on (in this case narcotics distribution - resulting in deaths of overdose victims).
      - pcthrowaway 4y ago
        At the very least, the 2 agents involved in his case being found to be corrupt and having forged evidence, should cast additional doubt on the murder for hire. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but had that been known at the time, I think it would have been less decided that his sentencing should take the alleged murders for hire into account. He should be tried for that separately at this point
        jahewson 4y ago
        It went to appeal and all those points were addressed. But I agree that it would have been much better to actually prosecute those murder-for-hire charges. Even if acquitted, the judge can still take the accusations into account during sentencing (due to the different evidentiary standards).
      - from 4y ago
        > That’s not how it works No one is arguing about how it works, they're arguing how they think it should work. Otherwise there would be no discussion here at all.
boomskats 4y ago
The article linked here addresses that multiple times. That accusation, largely overinflated by the media, was dismissed with prejudice. He was never even charged with it.
- avalys 4y ago
  What does "largely overinflated" mean, and how does it differ from "completely fabricated"?
  - DoItToMe81 4y ago
    The FBI accepted that multiple people were behind the DreadPirateRoberts account and that the writing style did not match his. He was ultimately not charged with it, but the story was used to slander him and make him seem dangerous and violent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - etchalon 4y ago
      That is not what happened.
- etchalon 4y ago
  The article conflates the case in Maryland, which was dismissed after Ulbricht was already convicted and his appeals denied by SCOTUS. The article pretends this exonerated Ross when it reality the government didn't see a reason to go through another trial when he was already serving multiple life sentences. The article also does the hand-waivey "it was never shown the messages were authored by Ross." Those messages were presented into evidence, during the trial. Ross lawyers had no explanation for them.
heromal 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Hey, can you please not break the site guidelines like this? We have to ban such accounts and I don't want to ban you. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

>Ross was smeared with false, unprosecuted allegations of planning murder-for-hire that much of the media amplified through inaccurate and sensationalized reporting. The allegations were never charged at trial, never proven, never submitted to, or ruled on by, a jury, and eventually dismissed with prejudice.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
Well, that sounds dispassionate and unbiased. And oh hey, he's a model prisoner ...none of this is utilizing actual facts, it's just assertions and emotive wording.
- superchroma 4y ago
  "First-time offender, All non-violent charges, Two life sentences + 40 years without parole" Seems pretty clear cut. I would like to take this moment to remind you that Ghislane Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    US judges are free to sentence a convict for allegations of which he was acquitted. Sentencing him for allegations that were dismissed isn't really different.
    - superchroma 4y ago
      Yes I know they are free to do that but that doesn't mean that it's fair.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Well, I'd agree; the fact that that's allowed is an obvious miscarriage of justice. But it's also how the system is explicitly supposed to work; it doesn't make for a strong "facts-based" argument for clemency.
        vkou 4y ago
        Is it? There's two angles to justice. The legal, and the moral. What was done to him was legal, and nobody's denying that. Given the scope of the crimes he was convicted for, I don't think it was immortal to throw the entire book at him, to the maximum possible legal extent.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  The website is called "free Ross Ulbricht," they aren't quiet about their bias. >none of this is utilizing actual facts, "The allegations were never charged at trial, never proven, never submitted to, or ruled on by, a jury, and eventually dismissed with prejudice" are the actual facts.
  - ffggffggj 4y ago
    Being proud of your bias doesn’t absolve you of its fact corruption effect, that is just silly. If anything it makes you more likely to stretch the truth.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      I didn't say it absolves them of anything, I said that the bias was clear and unhidden.
- boomskats 4y ago
  It objectively compares his sentence of 2 lifetimes + 40 years to the sentences of the biggest actual drug dealers on silk road, as well as the founders of the bigger silk road 2.0, all of whom got less than 10 years. I would consider that to be satisfactory actual fact utilization.
- rob74 4y ago
  The fact remains that someone should be considered innocent of a crime until proven guilty. If the prosecution couldn't prove that he hired a hitman (sounds like they didn't even try), then that shouldn't influence his sentencing.
  - jahewson 4y ago
    That’s not how it works. The evidentiary standard for a jury is “beyond a reasonable doubt” but for the sentencing judge is “preponderance of the evidence”, with the caveat that the judge can’t use that to hand down a sentence harsher than legally permitted by what the jury convicted on (in this case narcotics distribution - resulting in deaths of overdose victims).
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      At the very least, the 2 agents involved in his case being found to be corrupt and having forged evidence, should cast additional doubt on the murder for hire. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but had that been known at the time, I think it would have been less decided that his sentencing should take the alleged murders for hire into account. He should be tried for that separately at this point
      - jahewson 4y ago
        It went to appeal and all those points were addressed. But I agree that it would have been much better to actually prosecute those murder-for-hire charges. Even if acquitted, the judge can still take the accusations into account during sentencing (due to the different evidentiary standards).
    - from 4y ago
      > That’s not how it works No one is arguing about how it works, they're arguing how they think it should work. Otherwise there would be no discussion here at all.

boomskats 4y ago

The article linked here addresses that multiple times. That accusation, largely overinflated by the media, was dismissed with prejudice. He was never even charged with it.

avalys 4y ago
What does "largely overinflated" mean, and how does it differ from "completely fabricated"?
- DoItToMe81 4y ago
  The FBI accepted that multiple people were behind the DreadPirateRoberts account and that the writing style did not match his. He was ultimately not charged with it, but the story was used to slander him and make him seem dangerous and violent.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - etchalon 4y ago
    That is not what happened.
etchalon 4y ago
The article conflates the case in Maryland, which was dismissed after Ulbricht was already convicted and his appeals denied by SCOTUS. The article pretends this exonerated Ross when it reality the government didn't see a reason to go through another trial when he was already serving multiple life sentences. The article also does the hand-waivey "it was never shown the messages were authored by Ross." Those messages were presented into evidence, during the trial. Ross lawyers had no explanation for them.

heromal 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Hey, can you please not break the site guidelines like this? We have to ban such accounts and I don't want to ban you. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.