Silk Road Defense Says Ulbricht Was Framed by the ‘Real’ Dread Pirate Roberts(wired.com)
wired.com
Silk Road Defense Says Ulbricht Was Framed by the ‘Real’ Dread Pirate Roberts
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/isilk-road-trial-opening-statements/
14 comments
>the libertarian ideals that justify the existence of Silk Road should have their day in court
Real trials don't play out like they do in hollywood. You don't get to spend your time in court talking about your ideology and lobbying for better laws. The entire trial will be about whether or not he's guilty of breaking the laws that already exist.
Real trials don't play out like they do in hollywood. You don't get to spend your time in court talking about your ideology and lobbying for better laws. The entire trial will be about whether or not he's guilty of breaking the laws that already exist.
The defense can object to letting him explain his libertarian viewpoints if they can convince the judge it is not relevant to the case or charges. Which the prosecutor in this case directly attempted during pretrial last month:
> Prosecutors in the case against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht want the court to prohibit Ulbricht from saying almost anything political at all, according to a motion filed last week by the government.
> They’re worried that the jury might end up sympathizing with Ulbricht’s politics.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullificatio...
> Prosecutors in the case against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht want the court to prohibit Ulbricht from saying almost anything political at all, according to a motion filed last week by the government.
> They’re worried that the jury might end up sympathizing with Ulbricht’s politics.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/silk-road-jury-nullificatio...
I'll never understand this - the ability to petition for the judge to disallow a valid defense, because they're scared it might work. That's the entire point of a defense.
To me, this goes against every freedom of speech. To not be allowed to defend yourself in any and every way possible is to not be free.
Edit: "in any and every truthful way possible" - obviously perjury is perjury.
To me, this goes against every freedom of speech. To not be allowed to defend yourself in any and every way possible is to not be free.
Edit: "in any and every truthful way possible" - obviously perjury is perjury.
He shouldn't be allowed to express political views during the trial. It isn't a valid defense because his political views are completely unrelated to the matters at hand. The only purpose of the trial is to determine whether or not he did the things the government says he did. If he did them, then he broke existing laws.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as Jury Nullification. As long as the concept both exists and is valid, a defense that argues the law itself is in fact a completely valid defense.
If he were being tried by a jury of his peers, it would not need explaining.
'peer group' != legal 'peers'. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jur...
And this is why I hope I never end up on trial for anything. Some types of people are more easy to dislike than others. For example, I have asperger's. I'm pretty certain that if I ever went on trial for anything, my personality would increase the chances that I get convicted.
Criminal lawyers don't let defendants talk for a reason, that is their job.
That's not what a "jury of one's peers" is.
You're missing my point: I don't want him to stand up in court and lecture on the nature of freedom and personal responsibility like something out of Inherit The Wind, I would just like to see him take the rap for what he (probably) did without this silly "it was the one armed man" defense.
It's not about the trial, because the trial is lost no matter what he does (regardless of whether or not he's innocent, he's going to jail, guaranteed), it's about nailing your colours to the wall and showing the rest of the world that you're willing to go to jail to stand up for the freedoms you ostensibly believe in.
Ulbricht won't be doing any of that, instead he's going to mount a defense that effectively says that his manifesto, his politics, his core beliefs, are all just something to be discarded when it's convenient.
It's not about the trial, because the trial is lost no matter what he does (regardless of whether or not he's innocent, he's going to jail, guaranteed), it's about nailing your colours to the wall and showing the rest of the world that you're willing to go to jail to stand up for the freedoms you ostensibly believe in.
Ulbricht won't be doing any of that, instead he's going to mount a defense that effectively says that his manifesto, his politics, his core beliefs, are all just something to be discarded when it's convenient.
Ahh OK. It appears I did misunderstand you. Well, if he actually did do the things that the government is claiming, I still wouldn't look at him like he's a champion for libertarian ideals. The person who took the actions of which he is accused is interested in only one thing: money.
So you want him to be a martyr? With the murder for hire accusations I doubt it...
[deleted]
People espouse libertarian ideals because they are terrified of the power of the state and do not trust it. To go with this kind of defense, especially when you don't have many options, is not hypocritical. It's easy to say 'have some balls' from the safety of your keyboard.
I didn't suggest it was hypocritical, and nor did I suggest Ulbricht should feel compelled to defend the principles he wrote about. I'm saying that I wish he (or anyone in his position) would fight for those ideals, which are entirely justified in a world where NSA spying is treated as the punchline to a late night show monologue joke.
Someone always has the de facto authority to wield violence.
In modern society, this authority is the state.
In Dread Pirate Robert's universe, no authority should wield violence... except Dread Pirate and his associates if it suites them.
Libertarian and anarchistic ideologies start from the wish that no-one would wield violence and all would be equal.
Unfortunately, how real world scenarios evolve is that existing system is replaced by chaos, from which a few entities reach political authority, at which point they take the authority to wield violence and make the decisions for everyone else they want to make.
Anarchy and the like work only in smaller social groups such as a family or a commune where everyone can rationally assume everyone can be trusted and to act fairly within the context of an uncodified behavioral standard - to stay within the groups culture.
At larger scales these types of population dynamics just don't work, and the stuff rises up which require the equivalent of the functions of modern state to function properly as a whole.
The point is, if there is no central auhtority, someone will become that authority (picture somalian warlords, russia after 1917 revolution and so on).
So replacing current state with an entity on 'non-violence' and non-coercion does not work - these are sociological oxymorons that do not exist.
In modern society, this authority is the state.
In Dread Pirate Robert's universe, no authority should wield violence... except Dread Pirate and his associates if it suites them.
Libertarian and anarchistic ideologies start from the wish that no-one would wield violence and all would be equal.
Unfortunately, how real world scenarios evolve is that existing system is replaced by chaos, from which a few entities reach political authority, at which point they take the authority to wield violence and make the decisions for everyone else they want to make.
Anarchy and the like work only in smaller social groups such as a family or a commune where everyone can rationally assume everyone can be trusted and to act fairly within the context of an uncodified behavioral standard - to stay within the groups culture.
At larger scales these types of population dynamics just don't work, and the stuff rises up which require the equivalent of the functions of modern state to function properly as a whole.
The point is, if there is no central auhtority, someone will become that authority (picture somalian warlords, russia after 1917 revolution and so on).
So replacing current state with an entity on 'non-violence' and non-coercion does not work - these are sociological oxymorons that do not exist.
Well stated, and I completely agree. I think there's a balance to be struck between personal liberty and social responsibility and DPR's writings don't address that balance at all, not to mention his alleged actions.
But there are some core arguments about freedom of choice that Silk Road addressed in some ways, and DPR was a figurehead for those arguments, and to see him ignore those ideals in exchange for a half-hearted defense like this is disappointing, that's all. Whether or not he's guilty, DPR is dead and Silk Road achieved nothing.
But there are some core arguments about freedom of choice that Silk Road addressed in some ways, and DPR was a figurehead for those arguments, and to see him ignore those ideals in exchange for a half-hearted defense like this is disappointing, that's all. Whether or not he's guilty, DPR is dead and Silk Road achieved nothing.
<IANAL>
His trial probably wouldn't be a proper venue for that. Those principles are that the laws he's accused of breaking shouldn't exist. This would be a very difficult defense to make in a criminal court, which both presupposes the credibility of the laws on the books and its own legitimate capacity to adjudicate them.
The court of popular opinion seems to be edging ever so slightly in Ulbricht's favor. Morally and politically, arguments for minimal government and drug legalization might have some merit. But no one is ever going to convince a judge that, while, the defendant might be guilty, the real crime is that there are even laws against everything he's accused of.
Although I suppose he could use the opportunity to make a statement anyway, regardless of how well it works as a legal defense. I wouldn't blame him either way, really. </IANAL>
The court of popular opinion seems to be edging ever so slightly in Ulbricht's favor. Morally and politically, arguments for minimal government and drug legalization might have some merit. But no one is ever going to convince a judge that, while, the defendant might be guilty, the real crime is that there are even laws against everything he's accused of.
Although I suppose he could use the opportunity to make a statement anyway, regardless of how well it works as a legal defense. I wouldn't blame him either way, really. </IANAL>
> The court of popular opinion seems to be edging ever so slightly in Ulbricht's favor.
On what planet? Public opinion just shifted in favor of legalizing marijuana in 2013, but support for keeping everything else illegal is overwhelming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization-p.... Around 10% of people support legalizing cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, or LSD. 80-85% oppose legalizing those drugs.
The transition in political thought doesn't seem to have been toward "people should be able to freely trade in whatever they want." It seems to have been a change in attitude towards the harmfulness of marijuana specifically.
On what planet? Public opinion just shifted in favor of legalizing marijuana in 2013, but support for keeping everything else illegal is overwhelming: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization-p.... Around 10% of people support legalizing cocaine, crack, heroin, meth, or LSD. 80-85% oppose legalizing those drugs.
The transition in political thought doesn't seem to have been toward "people should be able to freely trade in whatever they want." It seems to have been a change in attitude towards the harmfulness of marijuana specifically.
Haven't you ever seen the Fountainhead? :-)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/
(or read it...)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/
(or read it...)
How about we wait for his defence to be tested in court before we pre-judge it as "doing whatever it takes to beat a charge"? Did you stop to think it might possibly be true before complaining that your own interests - having the trial be a showcase for libertarian ideals - may not end up being served by this particular man's prosecution?
>Did you stop to think it might possibly be true before complaining that your own interests - having the trial be a showcase for libertarian ideals - may not end up being served by this particular man's prosecution?
Nope. My opinion is that it's a desperate ploy from a guilty man who knows that the strength of the evidence against him is so great that he's resorting to a defense they wouldn't use in a movie plot because it's so unbelievable. I'm entirely unapologetic about my opinion, because that's what it is, an opinion. Fortunately I'm neither judge nor jury in this case.
Also, don't put words in my mouth and don't ascribe motives to me that I don't have. The very first sentence of my comment says explicitly that I understand he's free to mount whatever defense he likes - it's his freedom to lose.
Nope. My opinion is that it's a desperate ploy from a guilty man who knows that the strength of the evidence against him is so great that he's resorting to a defense they wouldn't use in a movie plot because it's so unbelievable. I'm entirely unapologetic about my opinion, because that's what it is, an opinion. Fortunately I'm neither judge nor jury in this case.
Also, don't put words in my mouth and don't ascribe motives to me that I don't have. The very first sentence of my comment says explicitly that I understand he's free to mount whatever defense he likes - it's his freedom to lose.
So for him to effectively use this defense, he'd have to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's evidence that he was "Dread Pirate Roberts"?
And in order to do that, he'd have to discredit the authenticity of their evidence that his computer was the one doing all the work, which means the defense would have to show that his computer was hacked, and all of the evidence was forged by the hacker(s).
How's he going to show a jury of non-techies (which you know the prosecution selected for) that it was all just his computer getting hacked?
How do any high-level technical trials work, when the jury goes into the trial not educated on the topic? The reliance on expert testimony?
And in order to do that, he'd have to discredit the authenticity of their evidence that his computer was the one doing all the work, which means the defense would have to show that his computer was hacked, and all of the evidence was forged by the hacker(s).
How's he going to show a jury of non-techies (which you know the prosecution selected for) that it was all just his computer getting hacked?
How do any high-level technical trials work, when the jury goes into the trial not educated on the topic? The reliance on expert testimony?
Well, if his defense can throw up enough dust, the government will likely have to abandon the charges around murder and go for something a lot lower level.
Ah, the 'Keyser Soze' defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyser_S%C3%B6ze
Or the Shaggy defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv5fqunQ_4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv5fqunQ_4I
It will be interesting to see this unfold. But I am inclined to believe Ulbricht here.
My main reason for finding it immediately believable is that the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" is an obvious Princess Bride reference to a pirate who inherited his trade and occupation from another pirate. That combined with the fact that the name did not appear on the forums for the first few months leads me to believe that the name is an inside joke about the fact that the Dread Pirate Roberts did not create the site.
The 2013 quote from the Dread Pirate Roberts saying the same thing when he had no particular reason to lie is just icing on the cake.
My main reason for finding it immediately believable is that the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" is an obvious Princess Bride reference to a pirate who inherited his trade and occupation from another pirate. That combined with the fact that the name did not appear on the forums for the first few months leads me to believe that the name is an inside joke about the fact that the Dread Pirate Roberts did not create the site.
The 2013 quote from the Dread Pirate Roberts saying the same thing when he had no particular reason to lie is just icing on the cake.
People were inclined to believe Hans Reiser too[1],[2], untill he led the police to Nina's body.
Despite all the evidence, lots of people did not want to believe it was him and held out for hope, in the end, though, people realized indeed it was he who did it.
[1] http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/06/09/1155214/hans-reiser-...
[2]http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-a...
Despite all the evidence, lots of people did not want to believe it was him and held out for hope, in the end, though, people realized indeed it was he who did it.
[1] http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/06/09/1155214/hans-reiser-...
[2]http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/23/2218256/hans-reiser-a...
I totally wanted to believe in Hans, given his accomplishments to the file system community and open source, I was saddened when he admitted to doing it.
He _did_ have a particular reason to lie about this in 2013, and to make his name Dread Pirate Roberts and spread rumors that he wasn't the first one. He could have been setting up just this kind of defense.
But I am inclined to believe Ulbricht here.
You don't even need to believe him, as long as it casts doubt on the prosecution's narrative. I'm interested to see what digital forensics the government relies on to prove association with the evidence. Is he guilty? Probably. But that is not sufficient for conviction, at least in theory.
You don't even need to believe him, as long as it casts doubt on the prosecution's narrative. I'm interested to see what digital forensics the government relies on to prove association with the evidence. Is he guilty? Probably. But that is not sufficient for conviction, at least in theory.
Seems more like a 'grasping at straws' strategy to me.
Given a jury without sufficient education and a case with as much technical nuance as this and then a reasonable doubt that the same technical nuance could indicate a frame job... Seems like an ok move...
I'd say it was a good strategy in light of overwhelming evidence he is connected to the site.
He's still going to prison just maybe not for the rest of his life.
He's still going to prison just maybe not for the rest of his life.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe they just need to convince the jury he didn't act alone? There is probably a decent amount of evidence to show he had help and maybe wasn't running the whole operation, but this seems like a defense approach that will make the jury very suspicious from the onset.
I mean, everyone's defense is "I didn't do it, I was framed". There really is no defense here. You'd think more people would be screaming about it if he was truly innocent. Hopefully, the defense will also include some sort of evidence backing up the statement, otherwise I'm pretty sure Ulbricht is going to jail.
I think the strategy is to dazzle the jury with confusing uncertainty
Ah, the Chewbacca Defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
I think he really is just trying to convince the jury that it might have been someone else who ordered the murders.
That should shave decades off the jailtime.
That should shave decades off the jailtime.
Obvious question the jury will be asking: so who did he sell it to? Better have a good answer.
As for "murder for hire": he was never charged with it. Why?! Why on earth prosecutors have chosen not to throw a book on a guy? Because it never happened. Whole "murder for hire" story is just a part of smear campaign.
Did you read the indictment? Do you think they just blatantly made up the dialogues and diary entries there? It seems unlikely they would risk doing that just to spice up what already seems like an open-and-shut case.
Well, the other possibility is that there isn't enough proof. But IMO if there isn't enough proof, he's not guilty, and they shouldn't even mention it, to avoid damaging his public perception.
The counterpoint to what you say is that the evidence comes from personal documents/conversations/etc. they obtained, and if they released some of that but not all -- in order to avoid publicly releasing any murder-for-hire bits -- you would be here saying that the selective release is suspicious and that they should release everything in order to avoid damaging his reputation through cherry-picking evidence.
Wasn't Ulbricht logged into an administrator account of Silk Road when he was busted at the library?
That would make it harder to claim you were "framed".
That would make it harder to claim you were "framed".
No, their genius leadership somehow got him to come back for... for whatever. Yes, people he doesn't really know doing illegal things that he didn't want to be a part of convinced him to go to a public space and get back into it just before he got caught. All because they are far to clever to get themselves caught, you see.
Not a bad start.
[deleted]
mattrj(1)
The real Roberts has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.
[deleted]
Pantagonia... sounds like I'd like the weather there
Wow. I had a joke theory that the "real truth" was the Silk Road was a DEA sting operation but the (gov) operators were caught skimming and needed to shut it down in a hurry. I didn't think that would be the real defense.
Whatever Ulbricht himself may be, whether or not the murder for hire allegations are true, however he might have gone about running Silk Road, the libertarian ideals that justify the existence of Silk Road should have their day in court. But that won't happen here, because his defense relies on Silk Road being a terrible thing that somebody else did.