Please remember: the argument isn't "did the government conclusively prove that Ulbricht attempted to commission a murder".
It is: "There was no such thing [here: <<evidence of a murder for hire scheme>>] introduced for the trial" (exact words taken from the comment rooting this subthread and the parent comment that provoked it).
That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. Not only did Ulbricht's team have the opportunity to rebut it, but they were obligated to do so in the course of competently representing him.
> The indictment is the whole premise of the trial.
No, the indictment is simply the initial document filed years ago which started the case and the specific charges can be, and were (right up to before Ulbricht's sentencing, even, where I believe some charges were combined or something) amended and strategies changed. You seem to think that indictments are immutable and all you have to do is quote a line from it, but you are not a lawyer.
> That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it.
The prosecution did not introduce the murder for hire and during the trial, as I already quoted, explicitly disclaimed that it was trying to do so and that they were only talking about other things like control of Bitcoins.
The indictment to which we are referring was filed on February 4, 2014. It does not appear to have been superseded, and is the indictment the prosecution makes direct references to.
Is there a newer indictment you can point us to? One in which the murder-for-hire scheme is not ventured as part of the case?
I don't know what you want besides the explicit quotes from prosecution during the trial itself clarifying what they were and were not claiming. Whatever your interpretation is, it seems to be either wrong or irrelevant. Which interpretation should be trusted more, a crypto guy on HN trying to interpret indictments or the prosecutors during the trial?
You, just one comment prior, suggested that the indictment had been changed in a manner relevant to this thread. I cited the most recent indictment --- and took the time to try to verify that it was the most recent indictment. Now the indictment doesn't matter?
No. It very much mattered. The indictment formally documents the charges Ulbricht faced. His lawyer, a relatively well-known defense attorney, was fully aware of his obligation to rebut the allegations in the indictment. Ulbricht is, of course, innocent of charges until proven guilty. The prosecution produced what appears to be very compelling evidence. The defense produced something much less compelling.
A variety of things that aren't findings of fact at criminal trials can, unfortunately, be material to the sentencing phase of a trial. The murder-for-hire scheme isn't one of those things: it was an explicit component of a criminal charge that Ulbricht was convicted of, supported by evidence, provided to the Ulbricht defense during the earliest phases of the trial.
