Silk Road trial closes | Hacker News Reader

Silk Road trial closes

arstechnica.com

81 pointstptacek50 comments

Poison oak! I can't get over the fact that the prosecution had evidence of the DPR, in character, complaining about poison oak at the same time as Ulbricht complained to his ex-girlfriend about poison oak.

If the evidence was manufactured, say by some hacker with access to Ulbricht's accounts, it would contain little tidbits like that one. Not that I think it was. But there are some meaty issues here about the reliability of evidence in the digital age, and I'm disappointed that this is such a lousy case for airing them out.

I get what you're saying, but that's also just classic conspiracy theory mindset, where all new evidence somehow further proves the conspiracy.

Please forgive an ignorant question from someone who has not been following this very closely: is there any substantial evidence that the prosecution's evidence was manufactured (either by the prosecution itself, or a third party seeking to frame Ulbricht)?

It's entirely possible for virtually any evidence to be manufactured (granted, it's often easier with digital evidence), but in most cases we take it at face value simply because there is no reason to think it's been faked.

[Edited to clarify that I'm not just asking about evidence allegedly manufactured by the prosecution.]

The suggestion is not so much that the prosecutors manufactured evidence, but that whoever "framed" Ulbricht did. But that's a tough row to hoe, given that there is physical evidence connecting Ulbricht as well.

There's no evidence of manufacturing or tampering with evidence. The argument that the defense is relying on is that the evidence is so overwhelming, so spectacularly damning, that nobody with the ability to run a vast criminal conspiracy could simultaneously be so reckless and naive as to leave that much evidence.

Two additional points the defense was going to attempt before being shut down by the court:

* They were going to put a bitcoin expert on the stand to testify as to the unlikelihood of someone actually being able to transfer as much bitcoin from Silk Road to Ulbricht's wallet as the FBI actually found. Possibly --- it is part of the defense's strategy to surprise the prosecution with new arguments --- they'd also find some way to testify as to ways in which bitcoin wallets can be tampered with or manufactured.

Nick Weaver at ISCI independently tracked SR transactions to what's believed to be Ulbricht's wallet, and was able to almost immediately trace 20% of the funds in that wallet directly to Silk Road. This was going to be a longshot argument, but it's an argument in the vein you're referring to.

* They were going to put Steve Bellovin on the stand to testify as to how vulnerabilities in BitTorrent clients could have allowed hackers to put arbitrary files on Ulbricht's laptop, thus explaining away all the evidence the FBI found on it. At the time he was apprehended, Ulbricht was running a BitTorrent client downloading a Colbert episode.

That's about it. That, and the old lady he grew up with who said he was a nice boy. Really.

Against the notion that hackers digitally framed Ulbricht are things like the slips of paper they found with SR details on them alongside his girlfriend's phone number, or the USB fob backup of SR they found on his nightstand.

Everyone feels like they've missed something here, or that they haven't been following along carefully, because the defense put on an absurdly short slate of witnesses who primarily testified to Ulbricht's character. The court chided them for attempting to put on a case through the prosecution's witnesses rather than calling their own. Even when the defense tried to do that, it did so outlandishly; for instance, their accusation that Karpeles was behind Ulbricht's framing fell apart dramatically when it was revealed that Ulbricht had paid the hosting bills for the Silk Road website parked at Karpeles hosting company.

It's just a weird, weird case, is what I'm saying.

Interesting. Thanks for all that information.

It does sound like a weird case. But I can also tell you that, having been involved in a number of federal criminal trials, when the defense is exceptionally weak, the trials always get weird in precisely the way you describe. Ulbricht is hardly the first to discover that when the government has you dead to rights, often the best you can do is try to raise the jurors' skepticism about the government's evidence, and elicit testimony from people who think you're a nice guy and "would never do such a thing."

One obvious, and classic way of doing this is to suggest someone is framing you, and try to make the government prove that the mysterious third party didn't manufacture all the prosecution's evidence.

Does that ever work?

I'm curious about why he didn't plead out. Nick Weaver accused his lawyer, Joshua Dratel, of deliberately dragging the case out to secure more fees. But that's not very plausible; Dratel has a long resume (among other things, he was the first civilian lawyer at Guantanamo) and presumably doesn't need to shake down bitcoin drug dealers for fees.

I wonder whether the prosecution was simply unwilling to offer up any meaningful concessions in response to a guilty plea.

I've never seen it work. Then again, in the trials I've been involved in [many, I suspect, by HN standards, but few compared to a practicing criminal attorney], nobody has ever been acquitted, for any reason. (At least in these cases, it wasn't because the system is rigged against them -- it's because the U.S. Attorney in the district where I worked is very politically visible, and tends only to take slam dunk cases to trial.)

As for why he didn't plead out: who knows. It's possible the government didn't want to give him much of a deal, given the high profile of the case, and their apparent mountain of evidence. Occasionally, the government actually wants to go to trial. It's also possible that Ulbricht was either desperate to be exonerated or, relatedly, had a somewhat deluded sense of his prospects at trial (either through self-delusion, or through an overly optimistic lawyer). Some people insist on their day in court, no matter how ill-advised, from a practical perspective, that may be.

There was no plea deal offered to Ulbricht, and he steadfastly refused to plead guilty. Honestly hearing stuff like that makes me pretty damn confident in the prosecution's case, Ulbricht really does seem like the kind of guy who thought he was infallible.

He couldn't plea, by admitting he ran the site he thus admits he took part in conspiracy to murder a witness which is the second trial he faces after this one in Maryland.

There's no indication than any of the substantive evidence (i.e. the evidence that tends to indicate Ulbricht is guilty) was manufactured. There is a strong argument to be made that the government's testimony as to how it came to obtain that evidence is fraudulent or at the very least incomplete* (which is not relevant to guilt, but would have been relevant to a suppression motion under the fourth amendment except the defense inexplicably procedurally defaulted on that question+.)

* See http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/10/reading-silk-road-configur... and http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/silk-road-lawyers-poke-ho...

+ http://ia700603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.42... (starting on page 6)

The issue here is that the FBI discovered the SR server in Iceland and didn't credibly reveal how they did it, and the rest of the evidence is traceable back to the server imaging that Iceland did.

Against that is the assertion that they had Ulbricht's name prior to the server seizure, and that virtually all of the most important evidence in the case came from the laptop, which was searched with a warrant and incident to his lawful arrest. There's also the notion of inevitable discovery to contend with.

Sure, Ulbricht's suppression motion was hardly a slam dunk even if it hadn't been de facto defaulted, but it was certainly worth a shot.

A IRS special agent apparently found Ross "first" using Google:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/the-incredibly-si...

>Ulbricht’s computer may have been infiltrated—perhaps via the BitTorrent client that was downloading the previous day’s Colbert Report when he was arrested.

Is he saying that he was downloading torrent files to the same computer that he was using to run SR? This guy had enough money to use a seedbox, even if he wasn't running the SR why wouldn't he use one? But specially, if he were running the SR, why would he start opening ports like crazy?

Are there any evidence showing that Ulbricht was careful and paranoid about his online activity. Because it is also possible that he thought that he was invincible and started disregarding basic things like those.

I think anyone who has the competency to avoid doing bad operational stuff like this probably realizes the horrifying possible consequences of starting something like silk road or even a bitcoin exchange and doesn't start one.

Well said.

Smart people tend to avoid getting into a "I have to be lucky every day, they just have to get lucky once" situation -- especially when it involves their life or freedom.

Not the computer that was running SR, the computer that he was accessing SR with.

Everyone assumed that DPR, whoever he was, must have superlative operational security to keep pulling the stuff he did.

When it turns out he didn't at all, he just had a near-invincible shield of narcissism.

(Journal of his crimes on the same laptop he was running the site from. Bugger me sideways. That tidbit's the cherry on top of this ludicrous case.)

What not to do in a Bitcoin-related drug and money-laundering trial: annoy the judge. http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.42...

I rather doubt their plan was ever to "win" the trial by jury.

As that opinion & order suggests: racking up appeal credits. But then, the defence's entire "plan" appears to have been a series of Hail Marys. Because the evidence is laughably overwhelming. Because Ulbricht is apparently a narcissist so utterly convinced he couldn't possibly get caught that he kept a diary of his crimes right there on his daily working laptop.

(I realise technically he hasn't been convicted yet. But HOLY SHIT.)

To be fair, Ulbricht seems to have been a nightmare client. But a bench-slap like that says "one millimetre further and you're sanctioned." No lawyer wanting a long and happy career wants one of those.

> Ulbricht seems to have been a nightmare client

The previous "nightmare client" that comes to mind is Hans Reiser. That didn't end well.

> To be fair, Ulbricht seems to have been a nightmare client.

I haven't gotten that impression. He didn't insist on testifying, and he's been polite and well-mannered in the court room. As far as the defense strategy goes, it seems to have been all Dratel et al; I'm not aware of Ulbricht forcing any of the strategy choices.

I mean mostly in the sense that this was such a hopeless case he should have taken a plea, leaving only Hail Mary passes as a strategy.

I'd had the impression Dratel was respected before this. But attracting a bench-slap like this is not behaviour that gets you respect.

(Unless I am proven wrong and Ulbricht gets off or only gets a light sentence, of course.)

Why would they offer him any plea worth taking? Would you offer more than a negligible amount off if you were the prosecutor?

> I'd had the impression Dratel was respected before this.

From reading the transcript, I get the impression that he's respected but also known to be aggressive and a bit of a dick; but maybe that's what a good defense lawyer is in a hard case like that.

Taken a plea? What plea?

Note: on appeal, you're stuck with the consequences of the tactical decisions made in the trial. Any factual findings of a jury or decisions within the discretion of the trial judge (e.g. decisions to exclude witnesses), are reviewed very deferentially.

The judge has written the outline of what Ulbrict should use in his appeal when he claims he had an incompetent trial lawyer!!!

Yes I know it's not that simple. And the evidence so far seems overwhelming. But if OJ can get away with murder, there's still some hope for DPR.

That is actually excellent advice for not doing in any criminal courtroom situation.

Bench-slaps are one of my favourite literary forms.

Apparently, the prosecution was not less annoying. From this[1] Forbes report:

> She was annoyed. The defense was annoyed. The press gallery was annoyed. By the time the lunch break rolled around, Judge Forrest struggled to hold back her irritation. “I’m not suggesting the government doesn’t have a right to object,” she said. But, “I think that there are objections which are objections that you really need to make, and then there are objections where there certainly may be a legal basis for it, but the better part of valor is to stand down.”

> But the rapid-fire objections continued throughout the day.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/02/03/the-silk-r...

Yeeup. OTOH, the prosecution did have a secret weapon on their side: overwhelming evidence. That does help.

Re the Forbes article, I have never completely understood how hearsay rules work. The sworn affidavit from Der-Yeghiayan can be entered as evidence but then certain parts of it can be labeled as hearsay and then the jury the can be told to disregard those specific parts as well as his testimony relating to the contents of the affidavit? How does this not bring in to question the accuracy and integrity of the entire affidavit?

Roughly, "hearsay" means that the person testifying to a fact was not a witness to it themselves or does not have direct knowledge over it. So it's entirely possible that some parts of the affidavit are hearsay while others are acceptable testimony.

I'm not sure I can agree that the judge was being entirely reasonable or fair. On the one hand, the defense wasn't allowed to use people like Andreas Antonopoulos as an expert because he lacks bona-fides and has no published academic papers on Bitcoin; and on the other hand the defense wasn't allowed to question the FBI's very own bona-fide computer scientist to establish simple factual details about computer operating systems. Of course everything is all by the rules, but it's a bit rich to expect there to be a large body of work in academia about a recently invented technology (Bitcoin). It could be true that the defense could have executed their case differently/better, but it may also be that their hands were tied and all they had to work with was Chewbacca. In which case, appeal incoming.

No, that's not what happened. The problem isn't simply that Antonopolous lacked credentials; it's that they disclosed him as a witness at the 11th hour without giving the court time to vet him. If you read the ruling, Steve Bellovin was also rejected, despite the judge's repeated acknowledgement of his outstanding credentials. In both cases, the defense was also unable or unwilling to describe what their expert witnesses would testify to, which they are required to do, just as the prosecution was required to do the same for their witnesses, to allow the opposing side time to prepare.

It's apparent to me this court is not interested in the truth!

On the contrary, it's very interested in the truth. When you want to present an expert witness, you include in the paperwork what truth they're going to tell the court, and their evidence for it.

The trial is a show for the jurors to convey information to them - everything that's going to be said NEEDS to be conveyed to the opposing side in advance, so they can prepare responses.

Surprise witnesses that blow cases wide open are only on TV.

That's all artificial. You don't throw out facts, hide your head in the sand, if you are seeking truth.

You also don't refuse to tell the judge what your expert will testify about if you want your witness to have their change to tell the truth.

> that they disclosed him as a witness at the 11th hour

Yeah, that bit makes me suspect it was a deliberate strategy.

I'm not 100% sure on the timetables, but one reason for it could be that defense's counsel was getting sustained objections for cross-examining outside of scope. In essence, defense was trying to use a government witness as their own witness to prove other points.

The judge didn't allow this, but the defense said that they had been able to use opposing witnesses in this manner before. So, while it may have been a dumb idea in the first place, the logic may have been that they didn't think they would need a witness until that surprise.

In the filing introducing the two witnesses, the defense failed to concretely specify what they'd be testifying about. A late-game strategic switch to using their own experts is one thing; being coy about what those witnesses would testify is another.

Oh yeah, that's true. Well, consider me convinced that it was appeal fodder.

"The Internet permits—and thrives, to a certain extent—on deception and misdirection". That's exactly why DPR and Ulbricht shouldn't be compared the way the defense does. "Would DPR do that?" is a pathetic argument in this context.

Assuming Ulbricht is found guilty and then appeals, will he get a second chance to challenge the FBI's account of how they found the server in the first place? Nicholas Weaver [1] seems to think they could have admitted to owning the servers (and thus having standing to contest the FBI's story about how they found it) without harming their case:

> Such a declaration is not an admission of guilt: it can only be used by the prosecution if the defendant testifies.

But I don't know if that door will be closed to them on appeal...

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbric...

Best part of that; they arrested him while his encrypted computer was on, with him sitting there logged in as DPR. Why do computer criminals not have a big red button to smash that self destructs their computer; or at the very least shuts it off instantaneously?

The FBI agents grabbed his hands and pulled them away from the computer before he knew what was happening. Even with a BRB he wouldn't have been able to secure his computer.

Token in your pocket that auto locks the computer the instant you are pulled away from it? Google "proximity lock"; they cost like $20.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com