Edit: Funny how I'm getting downvotes. Apparently it's soo controversial to make my decision based on evidence. And something that'll he likely be convicted for.
All that aside, it seems a big leap for Ulbrecht to make from online drug-deal middleman to someone calling out hits on people. He's not Don Corleone or Avon Barksdale, he's some tech kid with really poor judgement. I actually find the government's claim that he tried to hire an undercover as a hitman completely credible. It also seems to speak to the idea that he had no idea what he was doing and was completely out of his element.
I would find the story less believable if it involved Ulbricht actually meeting some shadowy figure in the the parking lot of a Target or whatever. But nobody has alleged that he effectively ordered a killing; he appears to have just had a casual email exchange about it.
The factual complexity of the murder narrative, and the degree of dedicated intent Ulbricht didn't pay to it, seems like good reason not to base the case against him on it.
No, that's a non sequitur.
For example, imagine that the prosecution knows that Alice killed Bob, but only because they were illegally tapping Alice's phone lines and the evidence would get thrown out. Or imagine that Alice is in the mafia, and your only witness, Charlie, suddenly went missing.
> he's some tech kid with really poor judgement
History is littered with people who went from "poor judgement" to "murder". To be clear, I'm not calling Ulbricht a murderer. I'm just not convinced that you know him so well that you know what he will and won't do.
You make it seem like it's some big deal, you could/can literally order a murder in a few clicks on these black market sites.
Please give an example of someone murdered by hire over the internet.
"If You Care About Internet Freedom, Read About Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road Trial NOW" http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/12/if-you-care-about-internet...
The reality is: charges are applied strategically in most federal cases, and, for that matter, witness lists are regularly withheld until trial. The reason this is generating outrage now is because people on HN have a rooting interest in Ross Ulbricht, just like they did in the Reiser case.
The fact that he was not indicted shows that the prosecutor did not desire for him to be indicted. Given the aforementioned notoriety for throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, the most likely explanations for a no-bill are (1) the charge can't actually be proven with admissible evidence or (2) the suspect is a cop or (3) the prosecution of the charge would embarrass or otherwise damage the state.
We can probably rule out #2. And by the ham sandwich rule, #1 is only rarely an impediment to indictment. So that leaves #3. The state probably fears what would go public in the discovery phase if they pressed the murder-for-hire charge, and that might affect its position for the other charge.
That should make all of us curious.