18 ms·

You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't)

by drcode 11y ago

You have to understand that the "murder for hire" evidence was introduced as part of the trial (at which point Ross' lawyer could have disputed it, but didn't) so it could be used as part of the sentencing decision... and that kind of takes the luster off of the "non-violent crime" argument.

Cantremeber 11y ago
Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.
- thornofmight 11y ago
  The person Ross hired as a hitman was an undercover agent who had been befriending Ross online for over a year.
  - Retric 11y ago
    This may have qualified as entrapment which could be why he was not brought up on charges for this. Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.
    - 542458 11y ago
      How would that be entrapment? The police have to remove your ability to make a choice for it to be entrapment. http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
      - Retric 11y ago
        They don't have to remove your choice. They need to significantly change your mind. Basically, if the undercover cop suggests X and you say no. Then come on nobody will know, and you say no. And then they spend the next six weeks convincing you it's a good idea, then that's entrapment. The issue is he was on a sting for over a year and that's plenty of time to cross the line. Of note, asking several times and catching someone at a moment of weakness is not entrapment. So, if you have been clean for 10 years then you’re out of luck.
    - omegaham 11y ago
      I don't think that qualifies as entrapment. In general, entrapment is when the police convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. So, if you want to kill your wife, and your friend (FBI agent) happens to say one day, "Hey, I do a little killing on the side, just for gits and shiggles," and you hire him, that's not entrapment. In contrast, if the agent is manipulating you and saying, "Hey, your wife is going to divorce you and take your stuff. Killing her is the only way to prevent ruin" and slowly convincing you to do it, then that's entrapment. Bottom line: Already predisposed to doing the crime and probably would have gone through with it if it hadn't been the police? You're screwed. In contrast, if you're normally completely innocent and the person has to convince you to commit the crime, it's entrapment.
      - Retric 11y ago
        I completely agree, the point is a 1 year sting is plenty of time for someone to cross the line, and they did not bring the charges up for some reason, so it’s a possibility. I suspect it's more likely they wanted to convict him on just the SR charges because that's better publicity, but it’s still odd.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Did he know that?
  - haroldp 11y ago
    Not only that, but the officer making that allegation has subsequently been charged with embezzling bitcoins from The Silk Road.
  - arikrak 11y ago
    That was one case, but he also seemed to have hired another hitman who pretended to kill multiple people. He seemed to have been addicted to hiring hitmen, eventually it probably would have led to actual murders.
- deweller 11y ago
  allegedly tried to have multiple people killed. The prosecution brought this up at trial but he was not charged or convicted of this in the criminal trial.
  - zanny 11y ago
    This is the key point. He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, pretty much, for running a website. Not for hurting anyone, not for even threatening to kill anyone - those charges weren't a part of his conviction - but simply by enabling the exchange of drugs he apparently should be locked away forever. Go Team 'Murica....
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      He didn't just "enable the exchange of drugs". He knowingly hid that he did so, and made bucketloads of money off it.
      - psykovsky 11y ago
        What are those bucketloads worth when the only time you get to spend them are when you buy assassinations from dirty undercover DEA agents?
    - tzs 11y ago
      Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone? Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves. I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person, so that an addict cannot completely cut themselves off from human contact. Internet sales make drugs too easy.
      - fleitz 11y ago
        No more than water does. Even as a proponent of full legalization I know that as little as a few minutes spent in water can kill someone, and often does. Why people are allowed to casually dive into this toxic substance is beyond me. No licenses, no regulations, practically any body of water you can find you're allowed to jump into totally unsupervised. Most places don't even have signs warning people of the danger, and worst yet, many children practice a dangerous activity called 'swimming' in this substance often daring each other as to who can drop the highest from a rope into a potentially fatal body of water. Also, once you start drinking it you need to find at least 4 litres of this a day to keep from going into water withdrawl, commonly known as dehydration, this can happen in as little as 3 days with out your daily fix.
- cnp 11y ago
  This has not been proven
- Tloewald 11y ago
  The guy he tried to kill was a corrupt law enforcement officer who was stealing from him. If the same trick were deliberately pulled by law enforcement surely the defense could argue entrapment. It's ironic at minimum.
BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391926/gov-uscourts-nysd-422824-142-0.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
  - BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
    Ok, I can't reply to the one answe saying that this isn't true but accoring to the wired articel "Ulbricht, who the prosecutors have sought to prove is that Dread Pirate Roberts, hasn’t been charged with murder-for-hire in his Southern District of New York case, though he faces charges that include conspiracies to sell narcotics, launder money and more. (He does, however, face murder-for-hire charges in a separate case in Baltimore.) " This is the NY case
  - ad_hominem 11y ago
    You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).
      - gwern 11y ago
        An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.
smhenderson 11y ago
Yeah, I've been seeing the other comments about that. As I said I'm not 100% up to speed on the details. I'd like to see more evidence that he actually was being convicted of that though and not just that it was a factor in determining sentencing. I don't doubt it's possible he was trying to contract a hit but the stories about the FBI stinging him, etc. make me a bit suspicious.
- michaelby 11y ago
  He wasn't being convicted of ordering hits on people since there isn't evidence that he was successful in killing anyone; however, I think the justice system operates here on the idea that he could have eventually been successful at ordering a hit, given all the effort he was putting into it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ne0n 11y ago
    Just because someone didn't die doesn't mean that ordering a hit is okay. From the chat logs I've read, DPR ordered a hit on one of the SR employees (Green, I believe) who had gotten arrested. When DPR found out, he thought Green would talk, so he asked another SR employee, Force (who was an FBI member and was actually participating in Green's arrest), to kill Green. Force agreed and pretended to kill him and faked photos with Green. DPR thought he had killed someone. Does that make it not a crime because Green didn't actually die? Anyway, that's not even what this case was really about.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - mordocai 11y ago
    Too bad it is literally impossible to find out "all the information" on anything, huh? So what level of research is acceptable?
user_0001 11y ago
He should have called it collateral damage. Isn't that the term preferred for killing people that get in your way, but is a legally sanctioned killing and not prosecutable?
worklogin 11y ago
From the articles I've read, this was not part of the sentencing.
- MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
  True, but enough people here have had it implanted in the back of their minds to make it true, so no difference really.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It very much was a part of the sentencing.
  - chinpokomon 11y ago
    He was never charged with that. I think the JD held those charges back so they had something else to their at him if this first trial didn't go their way. As such, the sentencing should only be about what he is charged and found guilty of committing.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
latiera 11y ago
Takes the luster off? Nobody died so how is he a murderer? I swear the amount of stupidity written on the matter defies belief. People are unable to think critically and be objective. Disregarding the facts that: He wasn't charged/convicted of murdering anyone He wasn't charged/convicted of attempting to murder anyone The supposed "hitmen" were law enforcement agents, entrapment anyone? Ulbricht got life without parole for selling some mushrooms and running a fucking forum. Guess what the HSBC scum who laundered hundreds of millions for drug cartels got: A huge fucking paycheck and nice fat bonus. There is no justice in this country.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by drcode 11y ago

Cantremeber 11y ago

Plus, it happened multiple times. Even if no one was actually killed the guy still tried to have multiple people killed.

thornofmight 11y ago
The person Ross hired as a hitman was an undercover agent who had been befriending Ross online for over a year.
- Retric 11y ago
  This may have qualified as entrapment which could be why he was not brought up on charges for this. Still, IMO it is reasonable to bring that up as a character issue.
  - 542458 11y ago
    How would that be entrapment? The police have to remove your ability to make a choice for it to be entrapment. http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
    - Retric 11y ago
      They don't have to remove your choice. They need to significantly change your mind. Basically, if the undercover cop suggests X and you say no. Then come on nobody will know, and you say no. And then they spend the next six weeks convincing you it's a good idea, then that's entrapment. The issue is he was on a sting for over a year and that's plenty of time to cross the line. Of note, asking several times and catching someone at a moment of weakness is not entrapment. So, if you have been clean for 10 years then you’re out of luck.
  - omegaham 11y ago
    I don't think that qualifies as entrapment. In general, entrapment is when the police convince you to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. So, if you want to kill your wife, and your friend (FBI agent) happens to say one day, "Hey, I do a little killing on the side, just for gits and shiggles," and you hire him, that's not entrapment. In contrast, if the agent is manipulating you and saying, "Hey, your wife is going to divorce you and take your stuff. Killing her is the only way to prevent ruin" and slowly convincing you to do it, then that's entrapment. Bottom line: Already predisposed to doing the crime and probably would have gone through with it if it hadn't been the police? You're screwed. In contrast, if you're normally completely innocent and the person has to convince you to commit the crime, it's entrapment.
    - Retric 11y ago
      I completely agree, the point is a 1 year sting is plenty of time for someone to cross the line, and they did not bring the charges up for some reason, so it’s a possibility. I suspect it's more likely they wanted to convict him on just the SR charges because that's better publicity, but it’s still odd.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cwyers 11y ago
  Did he know that?
- haroldp 11y ago
  Not only that, but the officer making that allegation has subsequently been charged with embezzling bitcoins from The Silk Road.
- arikrak 11y ago
  That was one case, but he also seemed to have hired another hitman who pretended to kill multiple people. He seemed to have been addicted to hiring hitmen, eventually it probably would have led to actual murders.
deweller 11y ago
allegedly tried to have multiple people killed. The prosecution brought this up at trial but he was not charged or convicted of this in the criminal trial.
- zanny 11y ago
  This is the key point. He is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, pretty much, for running a website. Not for hurting anyone, not for even threatening to kill anyone - those charges weren't a part of his conviction - but simply by enabling the exchange of drugs he apparently should be locked away forever. Go Team 'Murica....
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    He didn't just "enable the exchange of drugs". He knowingly hid that he did so, and made bucketloads of money off it.
    - psykovsky 11y ago
      What are those bucketloads worth when the only time you get to spend them are when you buy assassinations from dirty undercover DEA agents?
  - tzs 11y ago
    Are you implying drugs don't hurt anyone? Even the most ardent proponent of full legalization usually acknowledges that many drugs are very harmful--they just believe the people should be free to do things even if they are harmful to themselves. I generally support decriminalization or even legalization, but I would be reluctant to allow internet sales. I'd require sales to be through licensed dealers and in person, so that an addict cannot completely cut themselves off from human contact. Internet sales make drugs too easy.
    - fleitz 11y ago
      No more than water does. Even as a proponent of full legalization I know that as little as a few minutes spent in water can kill someone, and often does. Why people are allowed to casually dive into this toxic substance is beyond me. No licenses, no regulations, practically any body of water you can find you're allowed to jump into totally unsupervised. Most places don't even have signs warning people of the danger, and worst yet, many children practice a dangerous activity called 'swimming' in this substance often daring each other as to who can drop the highest from a rope into a potentially fatal body of water. Also, once you start drinking it you need to find at least 4 litres of this a day to keep from going into water withdrawl, commonly known as dehydration, this can happen in as little as 3 days with out your daily fix.
cnp 11y ago
This has not been proven
Tloewald 11y ago
The guy he tried to kill was a corrupt law enforcement officer who was stealing from him. If the same trick were deliberately pulled by law enforcement surely the defense could argue entrapment. It's ironic at minimum.

BoardsOfCanada 11y ago

There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.

tptacek 11y ago
This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391926/gov-uscourts-nysd-422824-142-0.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
- BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
  Ok, I can't reply to the one answe saying that this isn't true but accoring to the wired articel "Ulbricht, who the prosecutors have sought to prove is that Dread Pirate Roberts, hasn’t been charged with murder-for-hire in his Southern District of New York case, though he faces charges that include conspiracies to sell narcotics, launder money and more. (He does, however, face murder-for-hire charges in a separate case in Baltimore.) " This is the NY case
- ad_hominem 11y ago
  You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).
    - gwern 11y ago
      An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.

smhenderson 11y ago

Yeah, I've been seeing the other comments about that. As I said I'm not 100% up to speed on the details. I'd like to see more evidence that he actually was being convicted of that though and not just that it was a factor in determining sentencing. I don't doubt it's possible he was trying to contract a hit but the stories about the FBI stinging him, etc. make me a bit suspicious.

michaelby 11y ago
He wasn't being convicted of ordering hits on people since there isn't evidence that he was successful in killing anyone; however, I think the justice system operates here on the idea that he could have eventually been successful at ordering a hit, given all the effort he was putting into it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ne0n 11y ago
  Just because someone didn't die doesn't mean that ordering a hit is okay. From the chat logs I've read, DPR ordered a hit on one of the SR employees (Green, I believe) who had gotten arrested. When DPR found out, he thought Green would talk, so he asked another SR employee, Force (who was an FBI member and was actually participating in Green's arrest), to kill Green. Force agreed and pretended to kill him and faked photos with Green. DPR thought he had killed someone. Does that make it not a crime because Green didn't actually die? Anyway, that's not even what this case was really about.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- mordocai 11y ago
  Too bad it is literally impossible to find out "all the information" on anything, huh? So what level of research is acceptable?

user_0001 11y ago

He should have called it collateral damage. Isn't that the term preferred for killing people that get in your way, but is a legally sanctioned killing and not prosecutable?

worklogin 11y ago

From the articles I've read, this was not part of the sentencing.

MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
True, but enough people here have had it implanted in the back of their minds to make it true, so no difference really.
tptacek 11y ago
It very much was a part of the sentencing.
- chinpokomon 11y ago
  He was never charged with that. I think the JD held those charges back so they had something else to their at him if this first trial didn't go their way. As such, the sentencing should only be about what he is charged and found guilty of committing.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

latiera 11y ago

Takes the luster off? Nobody died so how is he a murderer? I swear the amount of stupidity written on the matter defies belief. People are unable to think critically and be objective. Disregarding the facts that: He wasn't charged/convicted of murdering anyone He wasn't charged/convicted of attempting to murder anyone The supposed "hitmen" were law enforcement agents, entrapment anyone? Ulbricht got life without parole for selling some mushrooms and running a fucking forum. Guess what the HSBC scum who laundered hundreds of millions for drug cartels got: A huge fucking paycheck and nice fat bonus. There is no justice in this country.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]