6 ms·

I only know about the one case. Care to fill us in? >Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was droppe

I only know about the one case. Care to fill us in? >Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested. >>In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht. Here is the letter. http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf Is it of no consequence that these comments rely upon a farcically compromised investigation?

tptacek 11y ago
No, I don't believe it is of much consequence, since the evidence that convicted Ulbricht was not derived from Force's investigation. Again: Ulbricht used full-disk encryption and nothing else to protect his data (OPSEC lesson: don't do that), and was captured with his laptop unlocked. There was a glittering dragon hoard treasure trove of evidence on that thing. It's practically the case that everything he was charged for, he confessed --- in detail --- to his journal about. His journal! The case was over as soon as they imaged the laptop.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff in sentencing after federal agents provoked the whole bit (not excusing Ulbricht's part in it, mind you). I think we're all a lot better off if the gov't is restrained from engaging in that kind of behavior, or taking advantage of this kind of gambit in any way.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
        tedunangst 11y ago
        Page 4 and 5. Overt acts. In furtherance of the conspiracy DPR solicited a murder for hire.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Count One, Overt Acts, section b.? I saw that, but I don't see any charge or indictment of "murder-for-hire" they just sort of threw it in there. The crime charged is Title 21 section 846 "Attempt and conspiracy". Title 21 United States Code is the Controlled Substances Act.
        tptacek 11y ago
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Sentencing can be appealed, but you'd need to prove that excluding the evidence would result in a substantially different outcome. It seems unlikely the appeals court would agree that the life sentence was a result of this evidence alone.

tptacek 11y ago

No, I don't believe it is of much consequence, since the evidence that convicted Ulbricht was not derived from Force's investigation. Again: Ulbricht used full-disk encryption and nothing else to protect his data (OPSEC lesson: don't do that), and was captured with his laptop unlocked. There was a glittering dragon hoard treasure trove of evidence on that thing. It's practically the case that everything he was charged for, he confessed --- in detail --- to his journal about. His journal! The case was over as soon as they imaged the laptop.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff in sentencing after federal agents provoked the whole bit (not excusing Ulbricht's part in it, mind you). I think we're all a lot better off if the gov't is restrained from engaging in that kind of behavior, or taking advantage of this kind of gambit in any way.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
        tedunangst 11y ago
        Page 4 and 5. Overt acts. In furtherance of the conspiracy DPR solicited a murder for hire.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Count One, Overt Acts, section b.? I saw that, but I don't see any charge or indictment of "murder-for-hire" they just sort of threw it in there. The crime charged is Title 21 section 846 "Attempt and conspiracy". Title 21 United States Code is the Controlled Substances Act.
        tptacek 11y ago
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Sentencing can be appealed, but you'd need to prove that excluding the evidence would result in a substantially different outcome. It seems unlikely the appeals court would agree that the life sentence was a result of this evidence alone.