4 ms·

Why don't you think he was? I personally was all-for his cause (and everything silk road stood for), but I think he's probably guilty of the murder thing and th

by butwhy 12y ago

Why don't you think he was? I personally was all-for his cause (and everything silk road stood for), but I think he's probably guilty of the murder thing and they claim evidence to back it up. Edit: Funny how I'm getting downvotes. Apparently it's soo controversial to make my decision based on evidence. And something that'll he likely be convicted for.

lsaferite 12y ago
If they had the evidence you'd think they would charge him with attempted murder.
canvia 12y ago
Then why wouldn't they indict him for it? Seems like manipulation of public perception to me. "If You Care About Internet Freedom, Read About Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road Trial NOW" http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/12/if-you-care-about-internet-freedom-read http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/12/if-you-care-about-internet...
- tptacek 12y ago
  Because the murder charge is factually complicated, the Silk Road charges are simpler, Ulbricht will serve a long prison sentence if convicted of either set of charges, and introducing the trickier murder charge risks the credibility of the rest of the charges with the jury?
  - canvia 12y ago
    It is also possible that the evidence was collected illegally.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Also true!
  - tomp 12y ago
    That doesn't sound plausible - US prosecutors are notorious for piling up charges (even when there is little chance they will hold in court), to increase the maximum possible sentence the defendant could server, to make him/her plead guily and settle (e.g. the story of Aaron Swartz).
    - tptacek 12y ago
      This is similar to the logic people applied to the Reiser case and their failure to charge the "serial killer" who "confessed" to Nina Reiser's murder. The reality is: charges are applied strategically in most federal cases, and, for that matter, witness lists are regularly withheld until trial. The reason this is generating outrage now is because people on HN have a rooting interest in Ross Ulbricht, just like they did in the Reiser case.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Furthermore, if the prosecutor wished it, the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. The fact that he was not indicted shows that the prosecutor did not desire for him to be indicted. Given the aforementioned notoriety for throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, the most likely explanations for a no-bill are (1) the charge can't actually be proven with admissible evidence or (2) the suspect is a cop or (3) the prosecution of the charge would embarrass or otherwise damage the state. We can probably rule out #2. And by the ham sandwich rule, #1 is only rarely an impediment to indictment. So that leaves #3. The state probably fears what would go public in the discovery phase if they pressed the murder-for-hire charge, and that might affect its position for the other charge. That should make all of us curious.
lstyls 12y ago
The prosecution has every incentive to cast Ulbrecht in the worst light possible before the trial begins. Because they're not actually at trial yet, they can make claims that won't actually hold up to scrutiny in court. As others have already pointed out, if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it? All that aside, it seems a big leap for Ulbrecht to make from online drug-deal middleman to someone calling out hits on people. He's not Don Corleone or Avon Barksdale, he's some tech kid with really poor judgement. I actually find the government's claim that he tried to hire an undercover as a hitman completely credible. It also seems to speak to the idea that he had no idea what he was doing and was completely out of his element.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I do not find the idea that some dude sitting on a mountain of Dunning-Krugerrands might write an email allocating some tiny percentage of them to the project of getting rid of someone inconvenient to his business. I would find the story less believable if it involved Ulbricht actually meeting some shadowy figure in the the parking lot of a Target or whatever. But nobody has alleged that he effectively ordered a killing; he appears to have just had a casual email exchange about it. The factual complexity of the murder narrative, and the degree of dedicated intent Ulbricht didn't pay to it, seems like good reason not to base the case against him on it.
- dietrichepp 12y ago
  > if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it? No, that's a non sequitur. For example, imagine that the prosecution knows that Alice killed Bob, but only because they were illegally tapping Alice's phone lines and the evidence would get thrown out. Or imagine that Alice is in the mafia, and your only witness, Charlie, suddenly went missing. > he's some tech kid with really poor judgement History is littered with people who went from "poor judgement" to "murder". To be clear, I'm not calling Ulbricht a murderer. I'm just not convinced that you know him so well that you know what he will and won't do.
  - lstyls 12y ago

by butwhy 12y ago

lsaferite 12y ago

If they had the evidence you'd think they would charge him with attempted murder.

canvia 12y ago

Then why wouldn't they indict him for it? Seems like manipulation of public perception to me. "If You Care About Internet Freedom, Read About Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road Trial NOW" http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/12/if-you-care-about-internet-freedom-read http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/12/if-you-care-about-internet...

tptacek 12y ago
Because the murder charge is factually complicated, the Silk Road charges are simpler, Ulbricht will serve a long prison sentence if convicted of either set of charges, and introducing the trickier murder charge risks the credibility of the rest of the charges with the jury?
- canvia 12y ago
  It is also possible that the evidence was collected illegally.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Also true!
- tomp 12y ago
  That doesn't sound plausible - US prosecutors are notorious for piling up charges (even when there is little chance they will hold in court), to increase the maximum possible sentence the defendant could server, to make him/her plead guily and settle (e.g. the story of Aaron Swartz).
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This is similar to the logic people applied to the Reiser case and their failure to charge the "serial killer" who "confessed" to Nina Reiser's murder. The reality is: charges are applied strategically in most federal cases, and, for that matter, witness lists are regularly withheld until trial. The reason this is generating outrage now is because people on HN have a rooting interest in Ross Ulbricht, just like they did in the Reiser case.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Furthermore, if the prosecutor wished it, the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. The fact that he was not indicted shows that the prosecutor did not desire for him to be indicted. Given the aforementioned notoriety for throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, the most likely explanations for a no-bill are (1) the charge can't actually be proven with admissible evidence or (2) the suspect is a cop or (3) the prosecution of the charge would embarrass or otherwise damage the state. We can probably rule out #2. And by the ham sandwich rule, #1 is only rarely an impediment to indictment. So that leaves #3. The state probably fears what would go public in the discovery phase if they pressed the murder-for-hire charge, and that might affect its position for the other charge. That should make all of us curious.

lstyls 12y ago

The prosecution has every incentive to cast Ulbrecht in the worst light possible before the trial begins. Because they're not actually at trial yet, they can make claims that won't actually hold up to scrutiny in court. As others have already pointed out, if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it? All that aside, it seems a big leap for Ulbrecht to make from online drug-deal middleman to someone calling out hits on people. He's not Don Corleone or Avon Barksdale, he's some tech kid with really poor judgement. I actually find the government's claim that he tried to hire an undercover as a hitman completely credible. It also seems to speak to the idea that he had no idea what he was doing and was completely out of his element.

tptacek 12y ago
I do not find the idea that some dude sitting on a mountain of Dunning-Krugerrands might write an email allocating some tiny percentage of them to the project of getting rid of someone inconvenient to his business. I would find the story less believable if it involved Ulbricht actually meeting some shadowy figure in the the parking lot of a Target or whatever. But nobody has alleged that he effectively ordered a killing; he appears to have just had a casual email exchange about it. The factual complexity of the murder narrative, and the degree of dedicated intent Ulbricht didn't pay to it, seems like good reason not to base the case against him on it.
dietrichepp 12y ago
> if he really did order people's murders, wouldn't the prosecution indict him for it? No, that's a non sequitur. For example, imagine that the prosecution knows that Alice killed Bob, but only because they were illegally tapping Alice's phone lines and the evidence would get thrown out. Or imagine that Alice is in the mafia, and your only witness, Charlie, suddenly went missing. > he's some tech kid with really poor judgement History is littered with people who went from "poor judgement" to "murder". To be clear, I'm not calling Ulbricht a murderer. I'm just not convinced that you know him so well that you know what he will and won't do.
- lstyls 12y ago