zlacker

No part of the allegation that Ulbricht commissioned a murder appears to have been "thrown out"; that accusation was a formal predicate (the second listed "overt act") of the conspiracy charge for which he was convicted.

Can someone help me understand why people keep suggesting that this murder-for-hire allegation was dropped? That does not at all seem to be the case.

>>tptace+(OP)
It's an inconvenient talking point for people who want to hold Ulbricht up as some type of hero.

Painting over it is their only option.

>>tptace+(OP)
I didn't read the new indictment, I assumed from articles they dropped all those charges http://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-...

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/29/technology/silk-road-ross-ul... "Prosecutors had charged Ulbricht with commissioning six murders-for-hire but those charges were dropped"

The overt act is there in the new indictment they changed after dropping the 6 murder for hire charges, guess it's my fault for trusting journalists who said nothing about it http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...

>>tptace+(OP)
Why are you riding this belief so hard? It's like a one man fan group trying desperately to make an untruth truth.

Was he convicted of this charge you speak of? No. And who really cares what the legal system decides, it is an utter farce.

>>shit_p+n3
Yes, he was convicted of the Narcotics Conspiracy count in which the murder-for-hire scheme was one of the several charged over acts.

>>pakled+j2
So far as I can see, he was never formally charged with murder, making the claim that those charges were "dropped" a little odd.

>>shit_p+n3
Yes, he was convicted on all counts, and murder-for-hire was part of count one.

So why are you convinced he wasn't convicted of this charge?