7 ms·
This headline seems unbelievable, but if all the evidence in the article it is actually real, it does cast some reasonable doubt. An alternative which hasn't b
by copsarebastards 12y ago
This headline seems unbelievable, but if all the evidence in the article it is actually real, it does cast some reasonable doubt.
An alternative which hasn't been discussed yet is that maybe Karpeles was the Dread Pirate Roberts and then Ulbricht was. It has long been theorized that, like the original name from The Princess Bride, the title "Dread Pirate Roberts" was passed from person to person. DerYeghiayan seems to have had some reason to believe that Karpeles was DPR, while the prosecution seems to have reason to believe that Ulbricht is DPR. Why not both?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jndsn402 12y agoI thought the defense's case was that Ulbricht was the original, and then passed it on to someone else (now revealed to be Karpeles).
- copsarebastards 12y agoI may have misunderstood the defense, but how does that make any sense as a defense? You don't stop being guilty of running an illegal drug marketplace just because you pass the running of the illegal drug marketplace on to someone else.
- ceallen 12y agoHe also claims they passed it back to him immediately before the bust. Only slightly more effective than the "I was holding it for a friend" legal defense.
- jsprogrammer 12y agoClaims have to be backed with evidence.
- toolz 12y agoOnly if you're prosecuting. If you're defending yourself, all you have to do is make it sound believable given the circumstances. A jury can find you not guilty just because they don't like the law. To defend yourself in a U.S. court you technically wouldn't need any evidence to substantiate any of your claims just so long as the jury buys it.
- vinceguidry 12y agoBurden of proof in U.S. criminal cases often seems to be more of a suggestion than an actual mandate. With the way the legal system is structured, it's effectively guilty until proven innocent.
- andrewhillman 12y ago"A jury can find you not guilty just because they don't like the law." This is not really the case. It would be tough to find all jurors didn't LIKE the law. The people sitting on the jury were asked questions during the selection process to make sure they are neutral. The question is, do they understand the law and the issues at hand. The prosecuting team bears the burden of proof (obviously). The prosecutors are required to prove their version of the actual events. This means that the proposition that is being presented before the judge / jury by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense needs to convince the criminal jury so they are unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy is guilty. The defense seems to be casting doubt for the jury to consider from the get-go. Well played.
- Retric 12y agoThe entire point of a jury of your peers is to prevent unreasonable laws being used to convict people.
- andrewhillman 12y agoWhat? The law is the law. The entire point of a jury is to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of said issue at hand - the law!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 12y agoHere's what is revealed in the article: At one point in time, a DHS agent had the belief that Karpeles was involved with the Silk Road. That's it!
- moyix 12y agoThere's a bit more information from Sarah Jeong, who has been covering this for Forbes: "Amazing moment later today: in affadavit, DHS agent referred to @a_greenberg's interview of DPR and said it sounded like Mark Karpeles." [1] "Investigation found that Mutum Sigilum, a Karpeles holding, had registered http://silkroadmarket.org http://silkroadmarket.org #SilkRoadTrial" [2] "Karpeles's attorneys met with Baltimore law enforcement, offering to give up the identity of DPR if Karpeles was not charged w crim charges" [3] [1] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555844940841115648 https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555844940841115648 [2] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821164661321728 https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821164661321728 [3] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821577485713412 https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821577485713412
- bhouston 12y agoHow did Karpeles know the identity of DPR?
- danielweber 12y agoIt's quite possible he didn't know anything, and was just sending out some test balloons.
- bhouston 12y agoPossible, as anything can be a lie. But usually in these situations people are telling the truth, or what they believe to be the truth.
- jkestner 12y agoBecause it was himself? And also getting immunity, that would be clever phrasing.