On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:57:38 -0800, Mathias Groennebaek
<mathias@???> wrote:

> Have I missed something, or did the defence not really provide any
> particular proof of Ross not having ordered the hit on several people?
> And
> if so, why is it so hard to understand why he has been convicted, when
> there is an ample amount of proof that he did indeed do so?

Have any of the alleged victims of the alleged 'hits' ever been positively
identified? Has it been proven they they were in fact killed or an attempt
was made on their life? Has it been proven that that went missing or were
their bodies recovered?

Forgive my skepticism of the government account, but I don't believe any
of this has been proven.

> From a moral perspective, anyone involved in a murder should in my honest
> opinion be convicted of their crimes. The silk road trial and a
> discussion
> in general about drugs and their legality is a separate matter entirely
> to
> me.

What I don't understand is how confident Ulbricht appeared to be at the
beginning of the trial. Was he was aware that the feds were is possession
of mountains of incriminating evidence (chat logs, emails, etc) that he
left on his laptop like a complete dipshit?

I hate to see a man get sent down the river for 20+ years for what amounts
to providing a much safer and efficient way to acquire _un-patented_
drugs, but jeezus, he basically wove himself a rope, tied it in a noose,
and handed right to the feds to hang himself with.