He was not convicted, but it's pretty plain to see that he did it.

Fortunately, the people he hired for the assassinations were really just scam artists who conned him out of some money. The prosecution decided that it would not be worth it for the state to pursue murder charges in such an unprecedented scenario.

On the other hand, the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing.

> He was not convicted

> the assassination attempt was taken into account by the judge for sentencing

There are a whole slew of problems advocating for the ability for judges to sentence people for crimes they were never convicted of.

I don't think a life sentence was appropriate, but I don't think you're concern here is really what happened.

judges have some discretion when it comes to which end of the minimum/maximum end of the scale to sentence someone convicted of a particular crime, and using facts entered into evidence and never contested when exercising that is pretty standard.

The murder-for-hire schemes were predicates to his conspiracy charge, not just innuendo.

There's a distinction between allegation (and even conviction/settlement) and fact. On a case this high profile and with such high stakes there's plenty of motivation for spurious allegations. That they didn't follow through is telling

They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman. He got scammed instead, which ironically saved him.

I encourage you to read the transcript in which he attempts to arrange the assassinations [1]. It is pretty obvious what he is doing.

To go back to the original point, though, I do not believe that his crimes make his ideas about social networks irrelevant.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-bos...

> They did not follow through because he failed to actually hire a hitman.

Not sure why that isn't a crime, but I stand corrected. Thanks for responding with legitimate criticism instead of just downvoting

what’s telling about it? they got what they wanted with an easier case... that doesn’t absolve him of other crimes, it happens all the time

My point was that it shouldn't have been harder. Prosecute everything so that if one charge doesn't lead to conviction, another will. And given the money needed to catch him, the legal expense would have been justified. According to a sibling reply, the hitman was actually a scammer. Not a lawyer, but it seems like they could have easily tried him for attempted murder.

Unless you are purporting to have psychic powers, it seems difficult for you to know he did it outside of conviction.