zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. mikeas+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-05-30 03:33:06
Why would anyone disagree with this sentence, unless someone thinks having people killed is a normal part of business?
replies(1): >>valar_+S9
◧
2. valar_+S9[view] [source] 2015-05-30 07:49:34
>>mikeas+(OP)
Because that's not what he was charged with?
replies(1): >>mikeas+Nl
◧◩
3. mikeas+Nl[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-05-30 13:50:50
>>valar_+S9
Yes, it was.
replies(1): >>valar_+U63
◧◩◪
4. valar_+U63[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-06-01 18:02:38
>>mikeas+Nl
No, it was not.
replies(1): >>mikeas+Ck3
◧◩◪◨
5. mikeas+Ck3[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-06-01 19:49:02
>>valar_+U63
Yes, it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627200

Or if you want to go straight to the source, see item 10b on page 5 of: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...

As far as I can tell, the only reason people are saying he wasn't convicted of murder for hire is because the top-level charge is "conspiracy" or somesuch, with "murder for hire" as one of the specific conspiracy items, and they haven't dug down.

[go to top]