[roel_v]

No, in layman's terms: they're bullshitting in a desperate , last-ditch attempt, because any sane defense has a snowball's chance in hell (even less than this insane Scooby Doo-style 'revelation') and (apparently) the prosecutor didn't agree to any plea bargain (because let's face it, anything less than the 20 years this guy is looking at would be an awesome deal for him). Is there really anyone who seriously thinks this guy is not going to convicted?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Are you asking if I believe he's going to be wrongly convicted, or just convicted?

[roel_v]

You honestly think he didn't do it? Look, I don't know the guy, and all I have to go on is what I read online, but I would have believed Hans Reiser over this guy.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> You honestly think he didn't do it?

I honestly haven't heard anything that classifies as evidence. Even if there is real evidence, all I have is hearsay about that evidence.

So how the fuck would I know?

I bet you have opinions on whether Bill Cosby is really a rapist too, eh?

[okbake]

Here is an interesting article posted a few days ago on Motherboard as well: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/cirrus-bitcoin-bucks

It mentions how an undercover agent was able to correlate the the times DPR was logged in to times that Ross Ulbricht was on his laptop in public places immediately prior to his arrest.

Its certainly not 100% conclusive or anything but is it corroborating evidence that the prosecution is using to suggest he is guilty. Personally, I'm waiting to make up my mind on the matter of his innocence until the trial brings forward more evidence.

[zamalek]

> So how the fuck would I know?

That is precisely the point of the court. To determine the truth so that the rest of us can know. In another more recent case (Oscar Pistorius) I was completely horrified that practically everyone had concluded that he was guilty before the court had come to a conclusion. I've come to realise that the majority of the human race wants answers so desperately, that they will accept the wrong ones and defend them: be it science or a court case.

[roel_v]

"That is precisely the point of the court. To determine the truth so that the rest of us can know."

Uh, no, of course courts don't determine 'the truth', they decide what should be taken as the truth in the context of a legal question, and how the law applies to that. There is a widespread misconception about 'assumption of innocence', and it's that it applied any further than 'the judge should let himself be convinced that a defendant is guilty, not that that defendant is not guilty'. The rest of the public has nothing to do with that. For example, let's say you and I are in an elevator with nobody around and no cameras. Then I punch you in the face. Do we need a judge to tell us whether or not I punched you? Of course not, we both know what happened, and that is the truth. If you stumble out of the elevator with a bloody face and the impression of 4 knuckles on your cheek bone, should everybody who sees you stumble out then say I didn't do it until some judge rules I didn't? Of course not, it's blindingly obvious I did it, nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence', and nothing to do with 'wanting answers so desperately'.

Source: my law school training.

[roel_v]

Well then why do you post conspiracy theory sounding empty rhetorical questions¿

Edit: dont know about cosby, no indictment or reporting on the evidence eh?

[ErrantX]

Absolutely; this isn't really a defence in so much as it is attempting to nullify the prosecution evidence. They can get away with the argument it's introducing reasonable doubt that Ulbricht is the only candidate for being DPR, whilst the ulterior motive is really to establish the DHS agent as an unreliable witness.