Defense in Silk Road Trial Says Mt. Gox CEO Was the Real Dread Pirate Roberts
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
"You thought you had probable cause that Mark Karpeles
was intimately involved, as the head of Silk
Road, correct?" Dratel asked Homeland Security agent
Jared Der-Yeghiayan.
"By the contents of that affidavit—yes," he answered.If that doesn't work how about retaining Kim Kardasian as part of a legal dreamteam?
If that's the case it's a fascinating defense, I'd love to be able to watch it live.
(1) The defense is trying to impeach the testimony of the aforementioned DHS agent. The unstated implication is that if the agent changes his opinion about the identity of DPR, then his opinions aren't very reliable and shouldn't be taken seriously by the jury.
(2) If the underlying reasons for this DHS agent's belief that Karpeles was DPR are still valid, then the defense could use those reasons to show reasonable doubt as to the true identity of DPR. Basically, "if the DHS agent doubted that DPR was Ulbricht, then it's reasonable you doubt that too!"
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?
Edit: dont know about cosby, no indictment or reporting on the evidence eh?
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.
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.
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.
It's also possible that the intent is to shed doubt on the prosecution by showing how certain they were previously that Karpeles was DPR.
I find it interesting/bizarre that the judge instructed the jury to not watch The Princess Bride.
That said, this is actually a great defense.
The odd thing is that it does raise some suspicions with Mt. Gox, the bitcoin theft, Silk Road, etc. As moyix points out below[1], Karpeles apparently registered silkroadmarket.org.
It's a strange little world.
[1] http://who.is/domain-history/silkroadmarket.org
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3984.msg57086#msg570...
http://web.archive.org/web/20110304201806/http://silkroadmar...
It's signed by "-Silk Road staff" at the bottom. If this site was really owned by Karpeles, then he definitely had something to do with Silk Road, whether or not he was DPR.
It's also worth noting that DPR linked to silkroadmarket.org in his signature as the official way to get to site [7].
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20120128114453/http://silkroadmar...
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26644.5;wap2
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=17556.10;wap2
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26644.0
[5] http://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/i2mq7/the_silk_road_...
[6] http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/06/21/how-and-why-to-get-to-s...
[7] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3984.msg57080#msg570...
remember that SR was probably 90% of the transactions, so they had lots of interest in "working" with it. maybe a more apt analogy would be PayPal posting notices about ebay having troubles (before one acquired the other) since it was the source of all transactions
Defense attorneys specialize in shedding just enough doubt over the defendant's involvement that the jury won't reach a conviction. It doesn't always work (hence why trials sometimes seem so unpredictable to those of us watching from the outside), but when the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," any substantial doubt may be enough to convince the jury to acquit.
This trial could go either way. So it's fascinating to watch.
It looks like sites hosted there used xta.net nameservers, which were used by tibanne.com back in 2009:
There could indeed be real doubt, they'll convict anyway (I didn't like the way his eyes looked... all criminal-y).
There could be no doubt, but they'll acquit.
There's so much truth in this. If you're a US citizen reading this and have never served on a jury, I'd highly recommend not getting out of it. It'll shed a lot of light on the process, and you might be surprised.
> There could indeed be real doubt, they'll convict anyway (I didn't like the way his eyes looked... all criminal-y).
> There could be no doubt, but they'll acquit.
This reminds me of a trial I sat on. During deliberations, a couple of the women discussed how they didn't like the way the defendant would occasionally turn and look at them. They described him as "creepy." Given the circumstances, we were all convinced he was guilty, but we go caught up in a discussion about appearances for a while.
Yet we voted to acquit.
There were a number of reasons why we came to this conclusion, but the executive summary was essentially: Law enforcement mishandled evidence (without gloves!), key witnesses couldn't remember specific details of the defendant's involvement (3 years after the fact...), and 3 of the 4 expert witnesses were called by the defense--that should tell you something. Key pieces of evidence hadn't been admitted in the trial, either, and all we were left with was a couple of boxes of paraphernalia and a stack of photographs. The entire trial was messy.
I remember from the opening arguments thinking "Oh, this will be easy. Open-and-shut case, he'll probably be found guilty, and that's final." My mind completely changed in the first 30 minutes.
It's another thing entirely to falsely claim someone else did it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaken_identity#SODDI_Defense
The closest example I can think of is Amanda Knox, who was prosecuted for slander for suggesting that the police investigators didn't do their job properly as part of her defense. That happened in Italy, however.
Meaning, if you claim someone is AKA someone else, that is a provable statement.
Saying someone is an asshole is not a provable statement.
EFF has a good article on this[1], they call it a 'statement of fact'.
From what I understand though, the defense was trying to IMPLY rather than outright, or rather, just bring up a reasonable alternate explanation.
[1]https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamati...
Edit: Seriously? It's an informative post, why the downvote hate?
If for no other reason, this is necessary so that a trial doesn't devolve into an endless cycle of suit and counter-suit
This is getting to be a rather annoying issue with HN for the past six months or so. You will often get 2 or 3 downvotes very soon after posting, for no apparent reason, and seldom will anyone actually take the time to make a post explaining their objection to your post and why they downvoted it (and, FYI and FWIW, those of you who downvote posts solely to express disagreement, are dumb assholes and you don't belong here - GTFO).
For what it's worth, if I see grey text now I reflexively give it an upvote regardless of content. The voting system here is so dysfunctional now, that all text should at least be black.
Edit: And, yes, 'ironic' downvotes for talking about the downvoting brigade in the first place, are the best kind of downvotes. They do not stop me from posting about it - I take downvotes on HN as an indicator that I'm on the right track, so vote away.
Yeah, I agree, but I think it's been more like a year now. The immediate downvotes are so striking in their regularity that I suspected they may be automated (now I think it's unlikely).
So to the GP: I wouldn't worry about quick downvotes. Unless your post is obviously trolling or a low-content Reddit-like comment (which yours was not), it's highly likely it will be upvoted back into the black (and indeed, yours is in the black now).
An alternative which hasn't been discussed yet is that maybe Karpeles was the Dread Pirate Roberts and then Ulbricht was. It has long been theorized that, like the original name from The Princess Bride, the title "Dread Pirate Roberts" was passed from person to person. DerYeghiayan seems to have had some reason to believe that Karpeles was DPR, while the prosecution seems to have reason to believe that Ulbricht is DPR. Why not both?
This is separate from the rule of law in the US where a prosecution must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that a defense is not required to make any claims or present any evidence. However, depending on the jurors selected, in order to instill or preserve a reasonable doubt, some claims may need to be made. In order for a juror to believe a claim, that individual juror will need to find or receive some evidence sufficient for them to believe the claim.
Historically this may even have been a unusual, but not that uncommon practice. aka trusting in 'the gods' or some such.
Rumors to the contrary, we do have a right to free speech, so you can say anything you want in a courtroom without being arrested, unless it causes immeidate danger (e.g. yelling "FIRE!").
When jury selection happens, I have heard that you can be rejected from being on the jury if you say (essentially) that you don't agree with the law. Not agreeing with the law is precisely what leads to jury nullification.
"F@$% you, your honor!”
“Bailiff, please arrest mr. nthj for contempt of court”
So, saying you'll be arrested for talking about jury nullification in court doesn't really give an accurate picture. Though it is probably technically true.
I think that they aren't medieval precisely because we have trial by jury, jury nullification, etc.
I would expect trials in non-common-law countries to feel much more medieval.
This is not really the case. It would be tough to find all jurors didn't LIKE the law. The people sitting on the jury were asked questions during the selection process to make sure they are neutral. The question is, do they understand the law and the issues at hand.
The prosecuting team bears the burden of proof (obviously). The prosecutors are required to prove their version of the actual events. This means that the proposition that is being presented before the judge / jury by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense needs to convince the criminal jury so they are unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy is guilty.
The defense seems to be casting doubt for the jury to consider from the get-go. Well played.
There are a few benefits as for example Juries are harder to bribe and sequestered juries are harder to tamper with. But, the core issue and why they were considered so important is there a check on unjust laws or even just laws unjustly applied.
That's it!
"Amazing moment later today: in affadavit, DHS agent referred to @a_greenberg's interview of DPR and said it sounded like Mark Karpeles." [1]
"Investigation found that Mutum Sigilum, a Karpeles holding, had registered http://silkroadmarket.org #SilkRoadTrial" [2]
"Karpeles's attorneys met with Baltimore law enforcement, offering to give up the identity of DPR if Karpeles was not charged w crim charges" [3]
[1] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555844940841115648 [2] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821164661321728 [3] https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/555821577485713412
"One of Karpeles' companies had registered 'Silkroadmarket.org,' leading investigators to consider him as a suspect."
Silk Road launched in February 2011: that's the same month Karpeles (or his associate at Mutum Sigilum) registered the domain
So my limited understanding here and what this case is actually about is that it is not so much trying to prove that Ulbricht had anything to do with the site (because the association was proven), but rather who actually was the mastermind behind the site (and pocketing large sums of cash from transactions). Seems association with such a site would carry a lesser charge than being the one who was profiting off of the marketplace and behind its original conception (this is my limited understanding and it could be wrong).
This story is absolutely insane, it will be interesting to see where this case heads. From what I gather, the bust in the library, screenshots of the chat and admin panel of the site and supposedly a few scrunched up pieces of paper found in the bin of Ulbrichts home are all they have (that we know about). There is nothing that actually proves or disproves that either Ulbricht or Karpeles, are the owners of Silk Road.
Now we just need the defence to come out and claim that Karpeles is actually Satoshi Nakamoto and then we've got ourselves a super interesting case. There is undoubtedly a movie script in here somewhere once the case is finished.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/judge-govt-can-sh...
The likely explanation here is that they exaggerate everything to some insane degree for exciting press conferences (and to subtly poison potential jurors).
Based upon all of this, I'd say he has a 99.9% chance of conviction, and will receive a sentence that will amount to life in prison. This judge will make an example out of him.
Life is a fairly constant battle between satisfying my brain's need to provide clarity and not annoying people with often excessive or unwanted detail.
Sometimes the itch to correct is strong enough that it's very difficult to ignore, even though I know it probably won't be well-received.
* I say inherent because while I consciously value knowledge/clarity, I'd presently like to move past such strong obsession but I'm working against a couple decades of all the small events that have shaped my brain.
Never. Why would one stop? It is a good thing to stop people from doing bad things.
It's not a moralization that drugs are bad for you. It's an objective medical fact of injuries to the body, psyche, collateral damage to bystanders etc.
Not to forget, acting morally is also a good thing. It seems to be a popular idea that acting morally should be avoided, and I disagree.
Overeating, sitting at a desk all day, consuming alcohol, smoking, tanning, etc. all can negatively impact an individual's health. Should those activities, and many more, also be banned?
Acting morally is an important thing, yes, but the problem is that there is no one definition of morality. How should we all behave? By your standards? By mine? The superset of everyone's personal concept of morality would allow and prohibit pretty much everything all at once.
One reasonable(?) baseline for morality could be the golden rule: don't do things that will hurt others or prevent others from freely living their life — i.e. don't murder, injure or enslave others, steal, etc. Or... don't be a dick.
The world is not black and white; it's black and grey.
Vague statement.
You're talking about stopping people from doing what you (or others, all besides the person in question) have decided is a "bad" thing.
You fail to realize that you are working off different definitions of "good" and "bad". Those are value judgements, and by definition almost always subjective.
E.g. The OP you are responding to probably has a definition of "good" and "bad" that takes into account victimless crimes, thus precluding all the "bad" from actually being "bad" if it is self-inflicted. Whereas, it seems you have a definition of "bad" that blanketly covers anything detrimental to an individual, self-inflicted or otherwise.
It's no wonder that the one group criticizes the other for slippery slopes and "where will you stop". Because you've drawn arbitrary lines, leading right back to the idea of subjective value judgements regarding "bad".
Personally, I hate arbitrary lines and definitions. Irreducible first-principles should be used to derive more complex ideas and constructs; and that is imperative if we are ever to have a truly fair and free society.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/silk-road-...
I have lots of sympathy for a man who was accused of something, smeared in the eyes of the public (and potential jurors), but wasn't even charged with that crime!
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/Ros...
A legalised drug trade could be victimless, but not the one which exists now.
How are they any different?
Does this contain an attempt to have someone killed? Or is it just running an online marketplace? If it's the latter I can't see how the sentence could be so harsh. Tax evasion tops.
Specifically, he's looking at a base offense level of 38, plus 2 points for distribution "through mass-marketing by means of an interactive computer service," for an offense level of 40. If he has no criminal history at all, that puts him in the 292-365 months (~25-30 years) in prison range on the drug charges alone. If he also gets the 2 point enhancement for making "a credible threat to use violence, or directed the use of violence" as has been alleged, then he would automatically be looking at 30 years to life since his offense level would be 42.
[1] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-2d11 (see "drug quantity table")
[2] http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2013/2013-5asentab
I took the time to look up the laws[1] for my country and found (disclaimer I'm no lawyer so I might be wrong) a maximum sentence of 5 years for anything related to drugs (including possession and Trafficking)
Were the US sentences always that high or are they a result of the "War on Drugs"?
[1]http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/BJNR106810981.ht...
There's some unsettled aspects that may allow you to appeal that sentence, but it's technically on the books.
I understand some Bitcoin fanatics of the cryptolibertarian and anarchist persuasion would like to believe that anything not a blockchain is a house of cards destined to tumble, but everything Ulbricht is charged with would still be a crime if the Silk Road ran entirely on dollars and cents, so to me, invoking conspiracy doesn't really pass the smell test.
If the government weas really that afraid of dark markets, or bitcoin, one would expect it to take heavier action against sites like Coinbase, or other open businesses which accept it, since they have far greater potential of spreading Bitcoin to the masses than inherently illegal sites like Silk Road, which would make most people uncomfortable even to know about. Yet, merely holding Bitcoins, or transacting in BTC, is not a crime.
Also, there's nothing stopping the US government from simply using BTC itself, or whatever cryptocurrency it sees fit, as it might any foreign currency.
I've never seen any sign that the Fed or the USG actually see cryptocurrencies as a threat.
Your first words are very prejudicial - "an interesting tactic". It's not a 'tactic', it's part of his defence. It might even be true. And your second paragraph is frankly fairly ridiculous - no trained lawyer talks about "a 99.9% chance of conviction".
As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate - "For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 97% conviction rate."
Actually suggesting someone else is behind it would appear to be the defense's strategy. The cross-examination of the DHS witness would be a defense tactic.
There is a substantive difference between strategy and tactics that goes beyond semantics.
If not, how much would you put at risk for the chance to win $1 if he is convicted?
As for betting with you over the internet, that is a violation of the Interstate Wire Act, and I have no intention of being cellmates with Ross Ulbricht. But, for example, if this bet were offered in a legal sportsbook in Nevada, I would easily put up $10K to win $100 (for a 99% certainty - trying to win $1 is a bit of a fruitless exercise). I believe that I would have a positive edge on that bet.
[1] http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2013/...
Bitcoin, by definition, is not "centrally controlled." It doesn't matter how many coins any entity controls, there's nothing that it could do to actually break the system or remove the inherent value of bitcoin. The fact that there are thousands and thousands of miners and nodes around the world protecting the ledger (the blockchain) is what makes bitcoin so groundbreaking.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com//2013/11/23/study-suggests-lin...
but they later retracted their claim.
http://www.businessinsider.com/silk-road-satoshi-paper-retra...
> He says the account was randomly assigned to him by the Mt. Gox exchange
So the suggestion that DPR is not Satoshi relates to evidence from Mt Gox.
I'm not sure what the "I'm not the kingpin" defense actually buys.
Trial adjourned. There's a lot going on. DHS agent was pursuing Karpeles as late as August 2013. Ulbricht was arrested Oct 2013. Like I wrote in my last article, he went after Ulbricht based on a tip off from an IRS agent in September 2013. Whiplash! Amazing moment later today: in affadavit, DHS agent referred to @a_greenberg's interview of DPR and said it sounded like Mark Karpeles. Recall, this is the same guy who was on a 6 person team to arrest Ulbricht. In Aug '13 he said he had probable cause to suspect Karpeles.
Maybe they're hoping people will think it's too crazy not to be true? The only possible way it isn't a complete joke is if it's true.
Having sat on a jury before, I can guarantee you that this will have at least some impact on the decision. Even if you're convinced the defendant is guilty, the job of the jury is to act as finders of fact, and if sufficient doubt is raised to that end an acquittal is likely. The trial I sat on had a similar event unfold where the law enforcement involved completely screwed up and made some admissions during cross-examination that severely harmed reaching a guilty verdict.
That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up.
On the trial I sat on, one of the most damning admissions also came from a DHS employee who admitted they handled evidence without gloves. The admission in that case wasn't the screw up--violating the number one rule of handling evidence was!
Whether it is admitted under cross-examination is irrelevant to whether it is a screw-up. (Though it is relevant to whether the screw-up is compounded by, or transformed into, an abuse of government power. Because that is what happens when it is material to the case and concealed, actively or passively.)
I'm having a difficult time following your line of reasoning. I think it's completely relevant.
If a LEO mishandles evidence or otherwise makes a mistake (henceforth referred to as "screw-up"), and then admits such a thing under cross-examination, it's perfectly relevant to the trial. In nearly all circumstances, those sorts of screw-ups are completely accidental (stress, overworked, etc.), and are extremely important to the jury's decision-making process.
You know, I just read back through my original comment, and it seems to me that you're conflating two separate points I made. So, perhaps I should reiterate and clarify in case my original comment was misleading:
1) DerYeghiayan's admission was not a screw-up. You were confusing this with an example I used for purposes of illustration in my second paragraph. The agent is going to tell the truth, obviously, but he is not going to volunteer that information without first being asked while under oath (it's not his obligation to do so). Again, not a screw-up. He just happened to share a detail that may possibly affect the jury's decision.
This is also unrelated to point #2.
2) Where I mentioned screw-up was with regards to a trial I sat on, which I offered up tangentially as an example of mistakes law enforcement can make that undoubtedly change the direction of the trial toward an acquittal. During that specific trial, DHS border patrol agents admitted they handled the evidence without gloves--that was a complete and total screw-up. In fact, it was so much so, that I distinctly remember a comment made during cross-examination of the special agent assigned by the sheriff's office. When he caught wind of what the DHS agents did, his first reaction was "Crap! We screwed up."
So yes, mistakes can be made, and yes they're completely relevant to the decision-making process of a jury.
Another example comes from the same jury pool I was assigned to, but on a trial I wasn't part of. The trial lasted, as I understand from other jurors, for the whole of about 3-4 hours. During cross-examination, one of the LEOs involved inadvertently admitted details related to another case or circumstance involving the defendant (the exact details I can't remember), and resulted in the defense attorney immediately seeking council with the judge, and the judge declaring a mistrial due to the nature of the material the officer shared while under oath.
So, no, I don't agree. It's completely relevant, especially when mistakes are admitted or committed under cross-examination. (The latter being a circumstance of biasing the jury while under cross-examination.)
Now, it's likely I'm completely missing your point, in which case I'd greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate, because I have a strong suspicion that our disagreement may be based on us thinking about or arguing two entirely unrelated points. Indeed, we might be more in agreement than not, but I'm sincerely having trouble following why you're caught up with this notion that mistakes of this category are irrelevant to a jury trial.
> If a LEO mishandles evidence or otherwise makes a mistake (henceforth referred to as "screw-up"), and then admits such a thing under cross-examination, it's perfectly relevant to the trial.
I didn't say "whether an LEO screws up is irrelevant to the trial".
I said "whether it [the mishandling of evidence] is admitted under cross examination is irrelevant to whether it [again, the mishandling of evidence] is a screw up."
In response to your statement: "When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up."
But I don't think that statement is, from your subsequent post, what you actually meant there (though I'm not clear what else that sentence could mean.)
Not sure why the GP got downvoted for stating facts, though I don't know the details of the murder-for-hire plot, so perhaps it somehow doesn't pertain in that particular case.
Regardless, it's a legit thing. So be careful about threatening people with bodily harm.
I take issue with this characterization. Unless there is a much, much more realistic piece of evidence yet to emerge, I regard this allegation as very unlikely.
And if it's not true, and all DPR did was help people to circumvent laws prohibiting transactions of prohibited substances, then he's a libertarian hero.
Actual crimes from homicide range from the various types of murder, manslaughter, felony-murder, Misdemeanor-manslaughter, negligence causing death, vehicular manslaughter ... and others I cannot remember off the top of my head.
I agree that weapons are a good thing to have but are far from necessary, especially when there aren't any (murder through neglect). Motives are equally unnecessary. Google "one-punch murder". You don't need a motive to be guilty, unless by motive you mean "mens rea", a very different concept.
Really? Wasn't a motive one of the things keeping murder and manslaughter apart? (IANAL.)
In some cases, murder does not require mens rea, when the accused shows "extreme indifference to the value of human life" (e.g, "depraved heart" manslaughter). The classic legal example is someone who sits at the top of a skyscraper idly tossing bricks off the side; they might not intend to kill someone, but their callous and wanton disregard for human life means that in most jurisdictions they're going down for murder.
>In some cases, murder does not require mens rea, when the accused shows "extreme indifference to the value of human life"
In such a case, the extreme indifference IS the mens rea. The prosecution must prove the existence of that extreme indifference. Murder without mens rea would mean that the prosecution wouldn't need to even discuss indifference.
"Involuntary manslaughter" is a totally different thing in that there is no malice aforethought. Usually these are cased of responsible people failing to act, such as a life guard watching someone drown who they should save.
Neither requires a motive, nor does murder.
There's even a relevant xkcd (2).
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Angry_Men (2) http://xkcd.com/657/
It's a fairly common trial strategy, and sometimes it works.
As someone who followed that trial very closely, I think the coverage of this trial has been really good.
He wasn't the real Dread Pirate Roberts either. The real Roberts has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Patagonia.
The verdict is in: yes, HN really is so humorless. Such a pity.