Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

> It is a defense tactic. They are trying to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that someone else may have been behind it - that's a tactic.

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.

View on HN

I think we're splitting hairs here. In any event, regardless of any tactics, strategies, or arguments they use, he is sure to be found guilty on most, if not all, of the charges.

Would you back up your 99.9% confidence level with a bet? For example, I will send you $1 if he is convicted, and you will send me $1,000 if he is acquitted?

If not, how much would you put at risk for the chance to win $1 if he is convicted?

I realize that there are several ardent supporters of this guy here, so I won't respond to any more of these taunting comments. I actually don't believe he should be facing the kind of time that he is for this, but I think he has no chance of acquittal. Whatever your opinion of SR, Ross Ulbricht was sloppy and stupid, and that's why he is sitting in a jail cell right now and will likely remain so for the rest of his life.

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.

Granted, the conviction rate of the Justice Department is as high as 97%[1], so it's certainly likely. But if you have had any experience with litigation whatsoever you would know that there's nothing at all that's certain in a high profile trial such as this one.

[1] http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2013/...

Assuming the jury is allowed to hear most of the relevant facts that have been released to the public, he will be found guilty of (at least) the narcotics conspiracy charges. Could there be a mistrial? Sure - those happen for any number of reasons. But he would still be found guilty at a retrial. The facts won't change. While I am no fan of the FBI (or the harsh prosecution and sentencing of non-violent offenders in general), in this case they appear to have done their job quite well and are going to get their pound of flesh. They methodically built a slam-dunk case - largely with the help of Ross Ulbricht himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com