So which of the charges is it (from your link): " charging Ulbricht with seven crimes:
Narcotics Trafficking (Count One), Distribution of Narcotics by Means of the Internet (Count Two), Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy (Count Three), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (Count Four), Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking (Count Five), Conspiracy to Traffic in Fraudulent Identification Documents (Count Six), and Money Laundering Conspiracy (Count Seven). (ECF No. 52.) "
The murder for hire scheme was the second overt act charged in Count One (an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is an element of conspiracy.) [0]
> So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence?
No. Soliciting a killing for pay ("murder for hire" in informal terms) as an act to advance a conspiracy is included (hardly "hidden") as one of the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, at least one of which must have been found by a juror to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to vote to convict on the conspiracy charge.
> unfortunately there is no "killing for pay" in the document you linked either.
Actually the document uses the phrase "murder-for-hire".
Your word search probably failed because its an image scan and has no searchable text.
You actually need to read it. Which should be helped by the fact that where I linked it, I told you where in the document the murder-for-hire scheme was addressed.
It's right there on page 3 ("II. Background A. The Murder-For-Hire Evidence") and continues for quite some length. I'm not a lawyer and haven't been following the case, but if he was convicted of what the government alleges in this section it pretty much eliminates the "non-violent" argument.
Here is exactly what you said, kicking off this long and unproductive subthread:
There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.
By "no such thing", you were referring to the words <<the "murder for hire" evidence>> in the preceding comment.
Let's pick it apart:
1. There was no such thing introduced for the trial. Not only was it introduced for the trial, it was an explicit part of what Ulbricht was indicted for.
2. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. It was never withdrawn; he was indicted based on (among other things) the explicitly asserted "overt act" of commissioning a murder. The murder-for-hire scheme wasn't innuendo, but a rebuttable fact introduced not just as evidence but as one of the legs of the case.
3. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. It may have been either of those things, but if so, it was also actually one of the predicates of the conspiracy charge he was convicted of.
4. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations. Yes, he did; his legal team mounted multiple arguments against the allegation, and did not prevail at trial. Ulbricht's team had not only the opportunity to defend him against the allegation, but the obligation to. Conclusively refuting that allegation would have significantly harmed the prosecution's case, knocking out one of the predicates for the conspiracy charge.
From what I can tell, you made a fairly complicated series of assertions, none of which turned out to be true.
Hey, this may be weird, but I've got this football field where the goalposts were installed in the wrong place, and I need them moved. After checking out your comment history I think you'd be a good fit for the job; let me know if you'd be interested.
Dude, it's right at the very beginning of the exact page that he linked you. The fact that it says "murder-for-hire" with hyphens doesn't somehow make it not say "murder".
EDIT: Whoops I see that zorpner said basically the exact same thing just a couple minutes before me.
Yes, it was a factor in his sentencing (the whole debate about whether or not it was charged was because it was included as a factor in the proposed calculation for sentencing.)
Ok, he wasn't sentenced for murder but it was "factored in" in another sentence. Wow.. I'm not sure there is a more serious crime than murder though. Wouldn't it be that the other crime was factored in under murder?
> Ok, he wasn't sentenced for murder but it was "factored in" in another sentence
Its not "murder", its "soliciting murder in the furtherance of a conspiracy". Which is not a separate crime, but manner in which the crime of conspiracy is achieved.
(Soliciting murder itself can be charged as a crime, and Ulbricht is charged with that, too, though those charges were not tried with these charges.)
Ok, so he wasn't sentenced to murder, thanks. Neither to "solicinting murder in the furtherance of conspirancy either" actually. Or, which charge was it exactly if you look here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627263 ... Seems as if there was no such charge.
From ArsTechinca: "Prosecutors' allegations that Ulbricht tried to arrange several murders-for-hire also came up at trial, but he was not charged for them in this case. Instead, one of those six accusations is pending in Maryland."
