>The underlying argument here seems to be that if the evindence was procured via unlawful means, then Ulbricht should go free even he is guilty of the crime.

>The underlying argument here seems to be that if the evindence was procured via unlawful means, then Ulbricht should go free even he is guilty of the crime. If they don't provide the packetlogs, it's not that the evidence is procured via unlawful means, it's that there's no evidence! And if there's no evidence, why would you claim that Ross is guilty of the crime?