Correct me if I’m wrong: IIRC the feds sent back mock pictures to ‘confirm’ the victims were killed, so I don’t know if anyone was assassinated in reality but, as you said, Ulbricht payed to have them murdered.
That doesn’t mean they’re scams. Ross really did earnestly pay to get people killed, he just got caught in a honey trap trying to do so and that’s a good thing
when the government puts a gun in the hands of someone under pressure and whispers in their ear “do it. Kill them. Pull the trigger” I’d say they’re innocent 100% of the time
If you manipulate someone into doing a violent crime, the person who did the manipulation is the criminal
So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.
Just to note, charges dismissed with prejudice means that the prosecution can’t correct the errors and re-file the case. It’s usually done when the judge has pretty compelling evidence that the charges are garbage, or there’s really egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
Correct me if I’m wrong: IIRC the feds sent back mock pictures to ‘confirm’ the victims were killed, so I don’t know if anyone was assassinated in reality but, as you said, Ulbricht payed to have them murdered.
You’re correct. They were all scams, including one by the US government
That doesn’t mean they’re scams. Ross really did earnestly pay to get people killed, he just got caught in a honey trap trying to do so and that’s a good thing
when the government puts a gun in the hands of someone under pressure and whispers in their ear “do it. Kill them. Pull the trigger” I’d say they’re innocent 100% of the time
If you manipulate someone into doing a violent crime, the person who did the manipulation is the criminal
I have seen this repeated multiple times on Lemmy. When I look this up, I find:
So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.
Just to note, charges dismissed with prejudice means that the prosecution can’t correct the errors and re-file the case. It’s usually done when the judge has pretty compelling evidence that the charges are garbage, or there’s really egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
Did you just restate exactly what the person above you already said?
I was clarifying and adding more details, and also restating to make it clear I wasn’t disagreeing at all or trivializing it.