Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Murder Accusations Hang Over Silk Road Boss Ulbricht's Sentencing

Posted by timothy on from the prison-break-blockbuster-in-the-works dept.

Patrick O'Neill writes: Ross Ulbricht has never been tried for murder. But tomorrow, when the convicted Silk Road creator is sentenced to prison, murder will be on the mind of the judge. Despite never filing murder-for-hire charges, New York federal prosecutors have repeatedly pushed for harsh sentencing because they say Ulbricht solicited multiple murders. The judge herself recently referred to Ulbricht's "commission of murders-for-hire" in a letter about the sentencing, painting an even grimmer picture of Ulbricht's sentencing prospects.

82 comments

  1. Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if the sentence is in any way based on an assumption of guilt for a crime he wasn't actually tried for.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Well, the prosecutors are trying to carve out an exception to rules, as always. I am surprised that they haven't worked in "think of the children" into the story.

      New York federal prosecutors have urged Forrester to "send a message" with a long prison sentence for Ulbricht.

      And yes, IANAL, but this should not be a fairly easy appeal case:

      With less than 24 hours until the sentencing takes place, however, it seems increasingly clear that Judge Forrester is taking the accusation that Ulbricht tried to orchestrate five murder-for-hire as truth in the New York case.

    2. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 5, Informative

      He will be sentenced for what has been tried and found guilty for, but in the same way his defence lawyer i suppose is trying ask for some mercy by presenting to the judge some evidence of the good personality of the convict, the prosecutor is doing the opposite, asking from the judge to have no (or little) mercy - i am not a lawyer, but i think this is the usual way (at least in Greece/Europe) when a convict is sentenced: the judge has the responsibility to decide for a sentence that is somewhere between the minimum and maximum the law states, based on convict's personality criteria

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    3. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I think you have stated it properly. The defense will try to convince the judge that Ulbricht is a great man, a family man, and in no way deserves more than a second in jail. The prosecutor will say that Ulbricht is the devil himself and that he eats babies for breakfast. The judge will listen patiently, roll his eyes, then sentence Ulbricht to the max for being a total dick shit.

      The use of evidence of uncharged crimes is legitimate, because he's not punished for those crimes only what he's been convicted of.

    4. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      What a load of bullshit. I sentence you to death for your unpaid parking ticket because you murdered 3 million babies.

    5. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You missed a word, "because he wanted to murder 3 million babies."

    6. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL? Stop advertising your sexual preferences: use IMNAL instead.

    7. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your taking into consideration crimes he is accused of and not convicted of then your not sentencing him for the crimes he's been convicted of as the accusations are impacting the sentence. Trying to suggest otherwise is silly. Obviously if they are mere accusations they shouldn't be usable by the prosecutor to argue for a harsher sentence. It's one thing for the judge to take into consideration what the defence argues here as it's the prosecutor who has to disprove it. That's how the system is suppose to work. The other way around doesn't make any sense at sentencing (the prosecutor already had the opportunity to charge him with the crime and prove it, and didn't).

    8. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is normal American justice. They typically charge people with ass loads of extra crimes to get them to 'take a deal' and plea guilty to lesser charges. Now they are moving to base sentencing on greater crimes that they don't even bother to charge the guy with. The United States is a shit hole.

    9. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      The United States is a shit hole.

      It is exactly the way the people that run this place want it. I am puzzled though as to why they would even care about murder, to my experience they don't really give a shit even if you give the cops evidence.

    10. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did Ulbricht Pay a Hitman to Kill A Silkroad Employee?

      A 'murder for hire' indictment was brought against Ulbricht but the prosecution declined to bring charges.

      Indictments that aren't brought as charges infer nothing more than prosecutorial strategy, and it doesn't indicate the existence or not of a criminal action. Prosecutors typically have many more indictments than charges, and as the case proceeds they trade off indictments for the good of their case (e.g. plea bargains, shedding weaker parts, or simply the prosecutor merging indictments to bolster charges, as seems to be the case here).

      The government say,

      1. Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR) was the operator of Silkroad, an illegal drug-related website.
      2. DPR was Ulbricht which now no one disputes (even Ulbricht now admits it, now that he's lost the case),
      3. The Silkroad DPR account wanted the murder of a Silkroad employee for $80k which no one disputes,
      4. A DEA agent posed as a hitman
      4. Someone paid $40k to the hitman before it was done,
      5. A DEA agent posed as a hitman and received $40k.
      6. The DEA Agent sent the DPR account doctored photos of a dead body. DPR was told the person was tortured to death, and responded "I'm pissed I had to kill him ... but what's done is done,I just can't believe he was so stupid. I just wish more people had some integrity",
      7. Another $40k was paid immediately afterwards,
      8. No one was actually murdered.
      9. Ulbrichts recovered laptop had his journal with an April 6 entry that says "gave [Hells Angels] go ahead to find tony76," and "sent payment to angels for hit on tony76 and his 3 associates.", and finally
      10. When Ulbricht was caught in the library his computer was logged into the adminstration page of Silkroad under the DPR account.
      (source: 1, 2)

      Then at trial the `murder for hire` wasn't brought as a charge, but it was allowed to be used to describe the character of Ulbricht.

      Character witnesses, and character evidence is allowed in trials.

      As Judge Forrest said "the prejudicial effect is reduced by the Government’s stipulation that no actual murders were carried out". Apparently the judge considered that prosecutors might be worried a jury in this landmark case might be convinced that Ulbricht was non-violent, detached from reality behind a computer, and that his operation was quite different to a conventional drug ring. The murder for hire charge was unnecessary, and it might be a better prosecutorial strategy to use the murder for hire to attack Ulbricht's character as a backdrop for all other charges, to brand him as a violent drug dealer.

      Of course there's no visibility to the prosecutorial strategy process but that strategy seems possible, and so I don't think much of the fact that the murder for hire charges were dropped and instead used elsewhere.

    11. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I sentence you to the full $100 parking ticket because you murdered 3 million babies. You did exactly the opposite of what I and antiperimetaparalogo said.

    12. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your taking into consideration crimes he is accused of and not convicted of then your not sentencing him for the crimes he's been convicted of as the accusations are impacting the sentence.

      That's only true if the sentence were set in stone (it's not) and there was only one possible sentence (there isn't). There is a range for the sentence. If the defense can bring in outside information to lower the sentence why can't the prosecution to increase the sentence? Maybe it's unfair, but that's the way it is. I expect your amicus brief in support of Ulbricth when he appeals. Prepare for failure since this wouldn't be a matter of first impression but a well-litigated piece of law.

    13. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      All they can sentence him is the minimum, maximum, or something in between, for the crime he has been found guilty of. But it's the job of prosecution to press for the maximum and defense to press for the minimum.

      The overall character of the person being sentenced is relevant during these proceedings. That's why there are Judges, and not just an automaton machine to behead the defendant.

    14. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL? Stop advertising your sexual preferences: use IMNAL instead.

      How do you know that's his/her sexual preference and not their body temperature taking preference, or exploratory probing preference?

    15. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's referring to the upcoming Apple product, the iANAL?

      If you thought the Apple watch was "the most personal Apple device ever", just wait until you see this!

    16. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if a prosecutor doesn't prosecute the "murders for hire" then how in the fuck it's just for him to use those as reasons for giving a harsher sentence? he didn't charge him with those crimes.

      it's not usual in europe for prosecutor to say that the accused is guilty of crimes he is not being charged for, as if being guilty of those crimes was a proven fact. a separate probably going through case would be grounds for lesser sentence in the one case(since the total would grow up - also, in europe in general stacing of sentences doesn't work in the same way so there isn't , as much anyways, of cases where people have sentences of hundreds of years...).

      it's bullshit and good grounds for appeal... even more so because the feds were soliciting him those "murder for hire" offers.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      if a prosecutor doesn't prosecute the "murders for hire" then how in the fuck it's just for him to use those as reasons for giving a harsher sentence? he didn't charge him with those crimes.

      The prosecutor will NOT ask for "harsher sentence" -on the base that the convict is/was suspect for some other crime ("murders for hire")-, but he will just INFORM the judge deciding the sentence (for the NON-"murders for hire" crime(s)) that the convict (for the NON-"murders for hire" crime(s))... IsNoGood! In other words, he will do the opposite of what the defence lawyer will do, who will claim something unrelated to the crimes of the convict (e.g., he feeds stray dogs!) so the judge must show some mercy. I use something some anonymous wrote as a reply to me (agreeing with me): "The use of evidence of uncharged crimes is legitimate, because he's not punished for those crimes only what he's been convicted of."

      it's not usual in europe for prosecutor to say that the accused is guilty of crimes he is not being charged for, as if being guilty of those crimes was a proven fact. a separate probably going through case would be grounds for lesser sentence in the one case(since the total would grow up - also, in europe in general stacing of sentences doesn't work in the same way so there isn't , as much anyways, of cases where people have sentences of hundreds of years...)

      The prosecutor (and the defence lawyer) will just inform the judge about the personality of the convict - something that i think IS usual in Greece/Europe/USA when the judge decides the sentence. For example: in the sentencing phase (after the convict has been found guilty) a prosecutor may inform the judge that the convict is suspect for other crimes - this is a "hint" for the judge that the convict is not a "saint who made a mistake", so he will not show mercy.

      it's bullshit and good grounds for appeal... even more so because the feds were soliciting him those "murder for hire" offers.

      Well, I AM NOT A LAWYER, so...!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    18. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      There are federal sentencing guidelines. There are criteria for things like past offenses, cooperation with the investigation, among other things. The judge is not bound to strictly follow them, but if the judge just hands out maximum sentences with little explanation, that could be grounds for an appellate court to reduce the sentence. Also, I am not a lawyer either.

    19. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      There are federal sentencing guidelines. There are criteria for things like past offenses, cooperation with the investigation, among other things.

      I take it as a confirmation of what i wrote - i also add the (subjective) convict's personality/character criterias.

      The judge is not bound to strictly follow them, but if the judge just hands out maximum sentences with little explanation, that could be grounds for an appellate court to reduce the sentence.

      That is why a judge does the sentencing, so a human subjective filter exist - keep in mind that (at least in Greece/Europe) a prosecutor can also ask for an appeal if the sentence is too low/minimum without good explanation/reasons.

      Also, I am not a lawyer either.

      Slashdot: too many G[r]eeks, not enough lawyers!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    20. Re: Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much doubt that he will accept the claims of intent. There is no physical evidence and not proof of wrong doing.

      All the money/drug market place will ensure a long sentence - but no murder stuff.

    21. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      I think the prosecution in this case could request an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines because the pending charges mean that his criminal record inadequately shows the seriousness of his past behavior. What I'm saying is that there are rules and formulas that the judge is supposed to follow.

    22. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Cederic · · Score: 0

      But it's the job of prosecution to press for the maximum

      No. It's the job of the prosecution to help the judge understand the context, facts and details of the crime so that the judge can dispense justice.

      I'd fucking sack any prosecutor that felt their job was to press for the maximum punishment.

    23. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'll really be grateful for the rounded corners.

    24. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      if the sentence is in any way based on an assumption of guilt for a crime he wasn't actually tried for.

      I don't think so. The jury has to decide based on evidence whether he is guilty of crimes beyond reasonable doubt. However, the same doesn't apply to sentencing. Sentencing can take your good behaviour into account, and it can take your bad but not criminal behaviour into account. If you have a history of harrassing your neighbour in a non-criminal way, and then you beat him up, your sentence for the beating may very well be higher because of that history.

    25. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He will be sentenced for what has been tried and found guilty for, but in the same way his defence lawyer i suppose is trying ask for some mercy by presenting to the judge some evidence of the good personality of the convict, the prosecutor is doing the opposite, asking from the judge to have no (or little) mercy - i am not a lawyer, but i think this is the usual way (at least in Greece/Europe) when a convict is sentenced: the judge has the responsibility to decide for a sentence that is somewhere between the minimum and maximum the law states, based on convict's personality criteria

      This is also the way it is in America, however, Western society has never had the stomache to judge the judge as far as I know. This does not mean we must shy away from our own shadows.

    26. Re:Sounds like good grounds for an appeal, by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If the defense can bring in outside information to lower the sentence why can't the prosecution to increase the sentence?

      By doing this the judge and prosecution are effectively sentencing him for crimes which Ulbricht was not charged with and the jury did not find a verdict for. I understand that until recently that sentences could be based on the charges rather than the convictions so I assume this is the workaround for that. This encouraged prosecutors to overcharge simple to generate harsher sentences but now the prosecutors do not even need to do that.

  2. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    He could be a scumbag working at source forge. Why hasn't slashdot posted a story about that yet? It's only in the firehose, what, 6 times?

    1. Re:Could be worse by Cow+Jones · · Score: 2

      Looks like this is true (here's one of the story submissions, and the Ars acticle it links to). Shame on Slashdot for trying to hide this.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
  3. Ground for appeal? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL & IANA (I am not American) but aren't you meant to be sentenced based on what crime you are convicted of? Seriously the QLD Chief Justice (Highest Judge in QLD) withdrew from an appeals hearing of a convicted child abuser & murderer because he had had a meeting with someone who lobbied for harsher sentences for child molesters.

    If the sentencing judge references other non-case related matters surely that would affect the standing of the ruling and open up appeals?

    1. Re:Ground for appeal? by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Normally if a prosecutor were to infer additional crimes not discussed during trial, the defense attorney would say 'Objection!' and the judge would immediately reply 'Sustained.'

      As an earlier poster said, if the sentence is out of bounds for what he was tried for, he'll have a strong case for an appeal.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    2. Re:Ground for appeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you are correct, though I am not American either.

      "United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that, other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence a judge may impose is a sentence based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

      Wikipedia, but probably ok for this.

    3. Re:Ground for appeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. US v. Booker is about "enhanced sentencing," that is, a judge giving a defendant a sentence greater than set by statute. Normally, a prosecutor can use almost anything to push for the maximum sentence. Simply put, if crime X has a statutory sentence of 3-5 years a prosecutor can bring in uncharged crimes to get 5 years. US v. Booker is about going above the 5 years (in my example). In Booker, Federal guidelines only allowed a 21 year sentence but the judge gave 30 years due to additional evidence given during sentencing. The SCOTUS ruled that enhanced sentencing can only be based upon facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury and sent it back down. Booker got 30 years again but ended with 27 years due to sentencing law changes. Additionally, the SCOTUS said that the sentencing guidelines themselves were advisory and not mandatory.

      In the case of Ulbricht, the evidence that he might have had someone killed or hired someone (or whatever it is) can come in to say that he should get the max sentence for what he was convicted because he's a bad guy. He won't be convicted or sentenced for murder.

    4. Re:Ground for appeal? by Copid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately, I think the range of sentences the US considers reasonable for drug related crimes varies between, "we force you to be seated in The Comfy Chair for an hour" and "we nuke your city of residence and sow the radioactive fields with salt," so if he's given the harshest sentence, it will be very hard to tell the difference between "harsh drug sentence" and "fair drug sentence biased by a whiff of murder for hire."

      If you've convicted the guy of hiring hit men, by all means, throw the book at him for that. But this sounds incredibly sketchy.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    5. Re:Ground for appeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately I suspect that the objection stuff might not work in the sentencing phase. It's something like the prosecutor/defence each get to say near-anything they want to here. Unfortunately it seems this only really works for the prosecutor.

    6. Re:Ground for appeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might get a lighter sentence if he were being sentenced for murder. Drug laws are insane.

  4. Dear Mr Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We can't actually prove anything, so we wont bring it to trial, but Dave knows a guy whose brother said Ulbricht totally asked a this other guy to murder someone. With this in mind could you please slap another 15 years on the sentence.

    Your's Faithfully
    -The State

    1. Re:Dear Mr Judge by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Well no -- in this case, it was the state that first of all posed as a resource that had carried out hits in the past, and then later responded to his request, first to "send a message" and later to "take him out". They instead staged the whole thing (the guy who was supposed to be killed actually being held by the state at the time the hit was arranged). So at least in one of the five cases, they knew exactly what he had said/done, because they were involved in setting it all up.

    2. Re:Dear Mr Judge by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      And that was sworn in the trial testimony? Or did they say that everywhere except where they had to swear that was the truth?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Dear Mr Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what they're doing. Your example is stupid anyway. First, no judge would put any weight in what that person has to say. Second, the sentence hasn't been handed down, yet, so there is no "slap another 15 years on the sentence." Instead, it's here, judge, is evidence that this man is a dick and will likely reoffend if given the minimum sentence. The people request the full 15 year sentence which is available under law for the crime for which he was convicted by a jury. You see, your honor, some people make a mistake and the minimum will suffice which is why the defendant's attorney went on and on about Ulbricht's family and personal life which wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury, so we've provided evidence that Ulbricht is a man of low character and is likely to reoffend if given a light sentence. I know it's your job to weigh the credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence appropriately, but I'm still going to dick punch you online for your sentence and, of course, won't read the actual opinion and will instead read a crappy journalists take on the topic and just ascribe it to you. You really should write 100+ page opinions when laypeople can squeeze your shit into 1,000 words.

    4. Re: Dear Mr Judge by oobayly · · Score: 1

      That's pretty damming - why was he not prosecuted for soliciting murder as well? It seems a message that the trafficking of drugs is worse than murder.

  5. Ross Ulbricht: More Reason to End The War on Drugs by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Most of us have learned a lot about drugs in the last two decades, but sadly not our government.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  6. This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Grog6 · · Score: 0

    This Trial was in no way fair; Secret evidence, discovery denied for obvious things...

    Referring to a series of Uncharged crimes during trial and sentencing is nowhere near Constitutional.

    Although, this actually IS one of the things the NSA did with all that Intel; one person will get prison time.

    And they proved Tor is not secure; arguments to the contrary are just not convincing anymore.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Secret evidence, discovery denied for obvious things...

      When you get a hold of the accused laptop which is logged in and has ample evidence of being an administrator of the site in question... what exculpatory evidence do you think existed that could have gotten him off that he was denied?

      And they proved Tor is not secure; arguments to the contrary are just not convincing anymore.

      Tor is secure if you use it right... many do not. Bitcoin however we did find is far from anonymous and the evidence in the blockchain could be used against you years or even decades after your illicit purchase.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First off, even getting that laptop was fruit of the poisoned tree because they got it using evidence the NSA gathered through illegal wiretapping programs.

      Even then, Ulbreit admitted he built the site. He just didn't run it during the period in question. The entire point of the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" is that anyone can use it.

      Besides, the site did use Tor correctly. It didn't help because the NSA has infiltrated Tor, which should surprise no one, because it was originally built by the US DOD anyway.

    3. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, even getting that laptop was fruit of the poisoned tree because they got it using evidence the NSA gathered through illegal wiretapping programs.

      Citation?

      Even then, Ulbreit admitted he built the site. He just didn't run it during the period in question. The entire point of the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" is that anyone can use it.

      So he admitted buying the gun and evidence puts him at the murder scene... but you are still going to fight the idea that he pulled the trigger? You can be an accessory to a crime without directly taking part.

      But then lets just ignore the other evidence on his laptop which did show him being a more active runner of the site than you suggest.

      Besides, the site did use Tor correctly.

      Really? So you've personally audited it and certified that in your capacity as an AC Tor expert?

      FYI: Posting to Stackoverflow with your own name when trying to learn how to setup a Tor hidden service isn't the brightest thing when you are trying to not have the site tied to you.

      It didn't help because the NSA has infiltrated Tor, which should surprise no one, because it was originally built by the US DOD anyway.

      Like many, I'm still waiting to see/hear of these secret backdoors in Tor that were somehow inserted not through rouge check-ins... but through large checks to the Tor foundation.

      Lemme guess... 9/11 was an inside job?

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    4. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't reveal any evidence that Tor was not or is not secure. However that said Tor doesn't protect an all knowing adversary either so it is possible the NSA leaked the connection and parallel construction utilized to fabricate the case. However it isn't clear Ross actually was the person behind Silk Road. They were investigating and ready to charge another person just weeks before he was brought up on charges. They government did not reveal how they took him down and didn't bring the people who did the investigation up on the stand. They basically did a magic wand tick over how he/the servers were revealed. What the expert witness ultimately said for the prosecutor just isn't possible. Chances are they did do something illegal (think NSA and parallel construction) and/or used traditional investigative techniques that the government didn't want revealed to track him down.

      All of that said Tor hidden services aren't a perfect solution. It's merely going to make it more difficult to locate the server and will have protections for the users of Tor- not so much the hidden service operator.

    5. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you've personally audited it and certified that in your capacity as an AC Tor expert?

      Actually, the configuration and logs of the site was made publicly available during the trial. People recreating the configuration the government claimed the server had do not get a public IP address when they connect to the server in the way the government claims they connected to the server, they get a MySQL admin page. DPR screwed up the configuration, but the government lied -- sorry, misspoke -- about how they located the IP of the server.

    6. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      They KNEW he was DPR because he solicited advertisements for the site in various places including USENET using traceable accounts when he set it up. How they found the server is an open question but not really an issue given the other evidence they already had including the seized laptop. They probably had him under surveillance for months.

      They had a lot of evidence he was DPR and he's admitted it in filing since. Regardless of his trial arguments that he wasn't running the site anymore there was plenty of evidence he was.

      How they found the server and copied it before they got him is an open question but it's probably a very small piece of evidence for how they got him. They didn't get him by getting the server, they got him the old fashioned way. Even if the server was gotten through NSA help it wouldn't have impacted the conviction. My bet is that they did something like they did with DPR 2.0, they infiltrated or compromised the site enough to get it to install a homing beacon and reveal it's true location.

      DPR 2.0 was more careful and couldn't be tied as easily so they infiltrated the sites support and developed enough information to identify him. The problem with these sites is that to really make them function you need to use javascript and running javascript on TOR is a big no no. It's right in basic warnings they give you when you download TOR that you should under no circumstance allow javascript to run because it can do a lot of things that will identify you. All the feds had to do with Silkroad 1 and 2 was hack in enough to get a rouge script running that would identify the server and anyone that connected to it.

      Doing TOR security properly isn't trivial, it's actually quite hard. And building a secure website is even harder when it has to be secure against ever sending data out over the general internet. On top of that you can't use JS or allow any of it to run and you have to watch security like a hawk because if your security isn't PERFECT you are done. Perfect security is very very hard.

    7. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you get a hold of the accused laptop which is logged in and has ample evidence of being an administrator of the site in question... what exculpatory evidence do you think existed that could have gotten him off that he was denied?

      The ability to examine the evidence. The justice department is well known to ignore the truth and judicial procedures in order to get a conviction. If I take your laptop at the point of a gun and refuse to allow anyone else to examine it, there is no proof that all those child porn pictures I'm entering in evidence against you actually came from your laptop, or the stock image library that the FBI maintains specifically for this purpose.

    8. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then, Ulbreit admitted he built the site. He just didn't run it during the period in question. The entire point of the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" is that anyone can use it.

      The laptop was actively logged in to the site as administrator at the time it was taken. Smoking gun. Pretty hard for him to successfully argue he wasn't running the site.

    9. Re:This was a 'Show Trial' at best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entry / exit node monitoring using timed packets proves that Tor is not "secure".

      All this proved was that one jackass was foolish enough to use his real name while creating a string of easily traced false on line credentials while promoting the Silk Road, was foolish enough to use one VPN for all his dealings on TOR giving a single point to focus on, was foolish enough to allow anyone to help him with the administration of an underground market selling illegal stuff when there's no way he could even begin to background check them properly, was foolish enough to do an interview with Forbes describing himself as a "libertarian revolutionary" and he was HUGELY foolish enough to document his endeavours in detail for the sake of posterity!

      I'm not going to comment on what I know of Ulbrichts political views or the trial but I will say this: he was a fool many times over.

  7. Why perpetually connected to msn bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TCP    192.168.0.187:49264    msnbot-65-52-108-219:https  ESTABLISHED

    What is this doing?

    c:>netstat -a

    Gonna murder this thing!

    1. Re:Why perpetually connected to msn bot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      add to

      C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

      127.0.0.1 BN3SCH020022337.wns.windows.com
      127.0.0.1 *.wns.windows.com

      Do wildcards work anymore? And let's not put the guy on a railroad. He was a bad actor. Reiser killed one that anyone here knows about. This guy dozens.

  8. jury duty and double jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This reminds me of the last time I had jury duty. The prosecutor spent a huge amount of time explaining how if we were selected for the jury and were to find the defendant guilty, then at sentencing time there would be a free-for-all where they'd present information about other past alleged crimes that weren't part of this case (and I think for which the defendant had previously been tried unsuccessfully, my memory is foggy), and we'd be expected to set the punishment in the context of the full list of alleged crimes, not just the current crime for which we were convicting him. He waved his hands endlessly insisting that this was not double jeopardy, and the judge even made a statement that this was so.

    To me that situation would be "trying" the defendant for the same crime twice in every practical sense of the word, just merely not "trying" him in the technical sense. Anybody have more experience/insight on this? Is this legit or is it an end-run around constitutional protections that everybody in the legal system has just collectively agreed on?

    1. Re:jury duty and double jeopardy by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

      The one time I was on jury duty, after we found the guy guilty (of robbery), the prosecutor tried to bring up a history of similar crimes in a different state in the 1970s. The defense attorney objected, we were kicked out of the room for 4 hours, and when we were brought back in, we were told that the old records of supposed past crimes were incomplete and had been rejected as evidence.

      At the same time, though, the defendant had waived his right to jury sentencing, so we didn't have to mentally exclude those while contemplating his sentence. Instead the judge just gave him the maximum allowed time and we went home for dinner.

      So, in the one situation where I have first-hand experience, the judge wouldn't let the prosecutor allege and allude to past crimes - even arrests and convictions - if the paperwork wasn't in order.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re: jury duty and double jeopardy by 31415926535897 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know the legality, but it seems shitty. Think about how it could be easily abused.

      "The defendant has a history of abusing children and assaulting police officers. He has cheated on his wife and hadn't paid his bills. Consider all of this when you determine how he should be sentenced."

      Utterly reprehensible if this is legal. This is what children do. If I were on a jury, I'd be inclined to give the most lenient sentence possible.

    3. Re:jury duty and double jeopardy by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      The one time I was on jury duty for attempted murder, we were constantly leaving the room while they discussed what could be allowed to be said in court. Both the victim and the attacker had ties to organized crime, and prety much everything they said and did had links to other court cases that had either already happened or were pending. It was pretty easy to figure out what we weren't hearing from the direction the questioning was going each time the judge called a halt and asked us to step out. At least with that judge, unless the accusations had witnesses who were in court and were used to indicate character, and the accounting had no impact on other cases, it would not be allowed.

      So in this case, if the officer who moonlighted as the guy arranging the hit was called on as a character reference and used this story in that context, it might be admissible and affect the weight of the sentencing. If it was just thrown in as hearsay, that would be grounds for mis-sentencing, and a new judge would need to be called for the sentencing (not for the finding of fact).

    4. Re:jury duty and double jeopardy by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like any of my several jury duties. However, mine all went like this. We come in, sit down, a judge comes in, explains to us how the whole purpose of a jury pool is to scare people into settling cases.

      Then a couple of hours later, they return, announce that all of the cases today have settled, and send everyone home.

      They sure to imprison a lot of people and call up a lot of jurors for the number of cases that actually ever see a jury; which is sad, I don't think this type of system makes for a very good meat grinder.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:jury duty and double jeopardy by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Is this legit or is it an end-run around constitutional protections that everybody in the legal system has just collectively agreed on?

      It's not an end-run. Crimes have a range of punishments. The punishment is to serve as a deterrent to both the offender in the future and society at large, to serve as rehabilitation for the offender, to isolate the offender from society, to hurt the offender to the degree to which the offender hurt society The last one have no relation previous offenses, but the first three do. If the criminal was convicted beforehand, it's pretty obvious that a minimum correction was ineffective at modifying behavior beforehand, so harsher punishment is called for. If the criminal was not convicted, but guilty, it indicates he is more a danger to society because he will do more damage before getting caught.

      Okay, I think that the last part is pretty dubious. I have no issue with using previous convictions in the sentencing... I would probably have no issue with a trial resulting in a "probably" verdict that was not sufficient to punish at the time, but could be brought up at further sentencings. But accusations??

      It's a tough issue

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  9. This cannot have been legal??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As I recall, the reference llines from Law & Order are "Objection, hearsay your honor" and "Objection, if the prosecution has any evidence of these claims why hasn't my client been charged?"

    It's standard procedure to have other defame or stand up for the defendant personally ("Goes to character, your honor") during a trial but I'm pretty sure there's a line drawn at explicitly accusing someone of a heinous felony to this end. In fact it needn't even be a felony I bet: You cannot accuse the defendant of something illegal of which they have not been convicted precisely because of that silly innocent-until-proven-guilty thing.

    Not, with "parallel construction", "civil forfeiture", or the CIA knowingly holding and torturing people it knew to be innocent, that the US legal system actually practices *that* any more.

    1. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's not hearsay when the prosecution were the ones (under false pretenses) who were asked by the defendant to arrange the hit.

    2. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by suutar · · Score: 2

      It's still an unproven allegation at that point. The judicial system may have decided that bringing that stuff up at sentencing is not forbidden, but it's still a dick move in my opinion.

      Now, since such charges are pending in a different venue I don't expect it to make a practical difference in the long run; he's still likely to be in for life. But effectively he's going to get sentenced twice for the same crime.

    3. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I think the idea here (although it'd be hard to prove one way or the other) is that this is an indication of his character, which will influence how likely he is to re-offend in the future, AND what his actual intent was in setting up and running the site. Setting up a black market and using it yourself to obtain some marijuana is a far cry from setting up a blat market and attempting to use it to kill people. It colors his intent for use.

      But it's still not a good move on both the prosecution's part and the judge's part, as it damages the veil of impartiality.

    4. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It's not hearsay when the prosecution were the ones (under false pretenses) who were asked by the defendant to arrange the hit.

      Police officer says: "He told me that he had hired a hitman" - hearsay.
      Police officer says: "He asked me to kill the guy" - not hearsay.

      Actually, a bit more complicated. If someone is accused of intimidating witnesses. and the police officer says "I heard him telling Mr. X that he had hired hitmen to kill people giving evidence against him before". That's hearsay as far as hiring hitmen and killing people is concerned, but it is perfectly acceptable evidence for witness intimidation.

    5. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "He told me...", where 'he' is the accused, would not be hearsay.
      "This other guy told me that he...", where 'he' is the accused, and 'this other guy' is not the accused? That is hearsay.

      The prosecution doesn't have a confession from 'he' about hiring the hit man, and apparently decided that the evidence wasn't strong enough to actually bring charges. They should be barred from using it as an insinuation during an unrelated trial.

    6. Re:This cannot have been legal??? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Yeah; in this case it gets trickier than that.

      Prosecution has a police plant who was contacted by DPR to perform a hit. So in order for it not to be hearsay, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DPR is in fact Ulbricht. This is the trial that decides if DPR == Ulbricht is fact. If it IS fact, then the prosecution can substitute that their plant was contacted by Ulbricht to perform a hit. Which means it doesn't move from hearsay to fact until the finding of fact in this trial. After the finding of fact, they can now conclude that these actions took place, based on the officer's testimony. Since the officer's testimony was already a key piece in orchestrating the original search warrant against Ulbricht, it makes this a case of connect-the-dots.

      But again, it all depends on exactly how the judge and prosecution lined things up and presented the evidence; anything out of place/in the wrong order and the entire line of reasoning has to be thrown out.

  10. Behold the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boss Ross

  11. RICO by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    covers (uncovers?) multiple sins

  12. So charming. by Jahoda · · Score: 2

    Oh, so now in the sentencing phase we're going to be punishing you for crimes that the state couldn't charge you with, presumably due to being unable to prove in a court of law? Nice. Also, not surprising.

    1. Re:So charming. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Before long they'll realize how silly it is and dispense with the whole trial and conviction theatre altogether.

    2. Re:So charming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that what drug laws are mainly for?

      Putting you in prison when the real reason they want to wouldn't hold up in court.

  13. You seem to talk much like the Prosecutor... by Grog6 · · Score: 0

    So, is the NSA making it easier for Brandon to pay off his student loans?

    Paid shill is pretty cheap these days...

    At least Cold Ford got paid salary.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:You seem to talk much like the Prosecutor... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      So your best/only response is to accuse me of being a paid shill?

      Truly now we see the depth of your intellect... though I doubt even a new born could drown in such waters if one were to try.

      Never can it be that someone on their own might had a different opinion, no, never that.

      Or would you like to cite specific and tangible EVIDENCE of what you claimed? I hear lots of claims of the NSA being involved yet so little to back it up... that must be part of why the judge (another NSA shill?) rejected those claims.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:You seem to talk much like the Prosecutor... by MichaelMacDonald · · Score: 2

      I've read a lot about this, and this guy broke the law, knew he was breaking the law, and got caught. He, pretty much, told them who he was - openly. They caught him red handed with all the evidence he could ever need. The legal system isn't acting in any way that isn't legitimate. Plus, he probably did hire people to kill people. Which, no matter how I feel about draconian drug laws, I will never get behind or agree with. I'm as anti establishment as the next guy, but there is a point where you have to say, lets look at another case...

  14. end-run around constitutional protections by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

    or is it an end-run around constitutional protections that everybody in the legal system has just collectively agreed on?

    The Constitution isn't perfect, but it is better than what we have now.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  15. Malware Accusations Hang Over Slashdot Media Head by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/submission...

    http://slashdot.org/submission...

    http://slashdot.org/submission...

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Re: Ross Ulbricht: More Reason to End The War on D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? Who do you think made drugs really happen?? The drug industry both legal and illegal, this is the one thing that "you" did not build, to cite the Chairman of the American Politburo, Comrade Obama, but your government did. That's right, boy, your government did that. See, how we are kick-ass?

  17. They'd better bring charges and have a trial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they do not bring those charges against him, and have a fair trial re those charges, then they cannot legally apply penalties for said actions against him.

    It would be unconstitutional, and likely garner murder charges against the prosecuting attorney and judge in the case, which I would happily see given lethal injections for some of the USAG's other murders.

  18. The judge should recuse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they know they won't deal with the case in front of them with the facts as court has assessed (you CAN take a criminal record into account, but it has to be ON that record first!0, then they should recuse themselves.

    Maybe they all know that this is BS and merely continue because it will cost Ulbricht to go to appeal, and that's really what they want: siphon his money off into US lawyer hands and out of his.

    Remember, government prosecution is paid out of government funds,so they're not losing a penny. And being the richer end, the tax rise won't touch them either.