[tptacek]

The sentencing transcript disagrees with you; the judge goes on for several pages about it.

There's a really virulent meme that Ulbricht was never tried for the assassination scheme. But he was: the murder-for-hire scheme was a predicate on his "criminal conspiracy" charge. Not only was it brought up in trial, but it was brought up in a way that put the onus on the prosecution to prove it.

[trhway]

>There's a really virulent meme that Ulbricht was never tried for the assassination scheme.

nice choice of words - "tried" instead of "convicted" :)

>But he was: the murder-for-hire scheme was a predicate on his "criminal conspiracy" charge. Not only was it brought up in trial, but it was brought up in a way that put the onus on the prosecution to prove it.

not true. The Judge clearly states that assassinations come through on "preponderance of evidence" which is a lower standard from "beyond reasonable doubt" the prosecution must prove for a trial and conviction. There is absolutely no surprise that a testimony from a [still unknown to be corrupt] federal agent met the "preponderance of evidence" threshold.

[mikeyouse]

There was absolutely no testimony from Carl Mark Force or Shawn Bridges during the trial... Everyone involved (Judge, Defense, Prosecution) knew that charges against the two corrupt agents were coming down the line but they were directed to not mention it since the judge deemed that DEA completed their investigation completely independently of evidence gathered by the two. This is one of the reasons Ulbricht's lawyer kept expressing his outrage and promising a retrial.

This is also why they only accused Ross of 5 hits instead of 6 (The 6th was the one setup by the corrupt agents).

[trhway]

>This is why they only accused Ross of 5 hits instead of 6 (The 6th was the one setup by the corrupt agents).

man, we're in different Universes. They dropped 5 charges out of 6 and the 6th has made it only as far as an indictment (in Maryland) completely based on the Force's testimony. And that indictment was used as the reason to deny bail and poisoned the rest of the trial.

[mikeyouse]

Again, from the judge in very article that's linked above, straight from his guilty conviction and subsequent sentencing:

    I find that there is ample and unambiguous evidence that
    Ulbricht commissioned five murders as part of his 
    efforts to protect his criminal enterprise and that he paid
    for these murders. There is no evidence that he was 
    role-playing.

He wasn't charged and convicted of 5 attempted murders, his guilty sentence for running a continuing criminal enterprise was modified based on the preponderance of evidence that he attempted to have 5 people killed. It's 5, not 6 due to the corrupt FBI / SS agents.

[trhway]

>He wasn't charged and convicted of 5 attempted murders, his guilty sentence for running a continuing criminal enterprise was modified based on the preponderance of evidence that he attempted to have 5 people killed. It's 5, not 6 due to the corrupt FBI / SS agents.

the 5 had only chat logs as "evidence". The 6th had chat logs and the Force's testimony. This is why the 5 have never made it anywhere in the proper court procedure - they even didn't made it as far as formal charge, and the 6th stuck at the indictment once the Force's corruption became known. The 5, ie. the chat logs, chronoligacally appeared after the Force's one.

[mikeyouse]

> the 5 had only chat logs as "evidence".

Chat logs and of course the payments, from wallets known to be controlled by Ross, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars that correspond precisely with the chat logs.

From the judge again;

    He commissioned the hits, there is no discussion of
    hypotheticals, he paid actual funds. He paid hundreds
    of thousands of dollars which were, in fact, paid. He is 
    told when the murders are completed, he was provided
    with a photo of the murder scene with random numbers
    that he had provided to the would-be assassins. That
    there had been no confirmation of any of the deaths
    does not eliminate the fact that he directed violence
    and directed the use of violence.