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.
As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality.
"They" the defense, didn't suggest anything, they got the prosecution's witness to admit that the DPR identity was believed by the investigator to have changed hands.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for the 99.9% comment, I was obviously trying to convey my opinion - based on the publicly available and very damning facts - that he has no meaningful chance of acquittal on the most serious counts. It wasn't meant to be a scientifically accurate number (as anyone but perhaps the Sheldon Coopers of the world surely understood). That said, the statistics are pretty close to that: once indicted at the federal level, every defendant on average has a 97% chance of being convicted [1]. Since this case is more airtight and more resources have been expended on it than most, my exaggerated number is not off by more than a few tenths of a percent. It's scary that we live in a country with a conviction rate this high, but it is an undeniable reality.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate - "For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 97% conviction rate."