It's entirely possible that they are both DPR... and there may be others. I mean, that rather fits with the moniker.

It's also possible that the intent is to shed doubt on the prosecution by showing how certain they were previously that Karpeles was DPR.

I find it interesting/bizarre that the judge instructed the jury to not watch The Princess Bride.

Why would the judge do that? It's up to the jury to determine - to the best of their ability - whether the "DPR" moniker is really a reference to the multi-headed nature of the group, or whether it's irrelevant. But either way, they should know the context for the name.

If the jury should know, then either the defense or prosecution should introduce it into evidence.

I wonder if the prosecution screened out people who had already seen the movie.

Would that also mean the defense would be barred from mentioning it? If they're approach is to prove that DPR was multiple people over time it would probably help them to talk about nature of the name in the context of the movie

So in layman's terms, would I be right in saying that the defense is effectively saying that the prosecution is taking a "shotgun approach?" In a more obvious claim, they are said to be pulling random people off the street?

If that's the case it's a fascinating defense, I'd love to be able to watch it live.

I don't think that's accurate. The defense has only identified one other person investigated by the police, which doesn't make for much of a "shotgun". I think the defense is probably doing one of or both of the following:

(1) The defense is trying to impeach the testimony of the aforementioned DHS agent. The unstated implication is that if the agent changes his opinion about the identity of DPR, then his opinions aren't very reliable and shouldn't be taken seriously by the jury.

(2) If the underlying reasons for this DHS agent's belief that Karpeles was DPR are still valid, then the defense could use those reasons to show reasonable doubt as to the true identity of DPR. Basically, "if the DHS agent doubted that DPR was Ulbricht, then it's reasonable you doubt that too!"

Right, all about that "reasonable doubt" thing we always hear about. Still a fascinating case, thanks for the clarification!

No, in layman's terms: they're bullshitting in a desperate , last-ditch attempt, because any sane defense has a snowball's chance in hell (even less than this insane Scooby Doo-style 'revelation') and (apparently) the prosecutor didn't agree to any plea bargain (because let's face it, anything less than the 20 years this guy is looking at would be an awesome deal for him). Is there really anyone who seriously thinks this guy is not going to convicted?

Are you asking if I believe he's going to be wrongly convicted, or just convicted?

You honestly think he didn't do it? Look, I don't know the guy, and all I have to go on is what I read online, but I would have believed Hans Reiser over this guy.

> You honestly think he didn't do it?

I honestly haven't heard anything that classifies as evidence. Even if there is real evidence, all I have is hearsay about that evidence.

So how the fuck would I know?

I bet you have opinions on whether Bill Cosby is really a rapist too, eh?

Here is an interesting article posted a few days ago on Motherboard as well: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/cirrus-bitcoin-bucks

It mentions how an undercover agent was able to correlate the the times DPR was logged in to times that Ross Ulbricht was on his laptop in public places immediately prior to his arrest.

Its certainly not 100% conclusive or anything but is it corroborating evidence that the prosecution is using to suggest he is guilty. Personally, I'm waiting to make up my mind on the matter of his innocence until the trial brings forward more evidence.

> So how the fuck would I know?

That is precisely the point of the court. To determine the truth so that the rest of us can know. In another more recent case (Oscar Pistorius) I was completely horrified that practically everyone had concluded that he was guilty before the court had come to a conclusion. I've come to realise that the majority of the human race wants answers so desperately, that they will accept the wrong ones and defend them: be it science or a court case.

"That is precisely the point of the court. To determine the truth so that the rest of us can know."

Uh, no, of course courts don't determine 'the truth', they decide what should be taken as the truth in the context of a legal question, and how the law applies to that. There is a widespread misconception about 'assumption of innocence', and it's that it applied any further than 'the judge should let himself be convinced that a defendant is guilty, not that that defendant is not guilty'. The rest of the public has nothing to do with that. For example, let's say you and I are in an elevator with nobody around and no cameras. Then I punch you in the face. Do we need a judge to tell us whether or not I punched you? Of course not, we both know what happened, and that is the truth. If you stumble out of the elevator with a bloody face and the impression of 4 knuckles on your cheek bone, should everybody who sees you stumble out then say I didn't do it until some judge rules I didn't? Of course not, it's blindingly obvious I did it, nothing to do with 'presumption of innocence', and nothing to do with 'wanting answers so desperately'.

Source: my law school training.

Well then why do you post conspiracy theory sounding empty rhetorical questions¿

Edit: dont know about cosby, no indictment or reporting on the evidence eh?

Absolutely; this isn't really a defence in so much as it is attempting to nullify the prosecution evidence. They can get away with the argument it's introducing reasonable doubt that Ulbricht is the only candidate for being DPR, whilst the ulterior motive is really to establish the DHS agent as an unreliable witness.

I bet they came up with the strategy during disclosure.

In the US that is called "discovery".

What could be better for a reasonable doubt defence than the prosecution opening with a Mark Fuhrman?

Umm... If the keyboard doesn't fit, you must acquit?

If that doesn't work how about retaining Kim Kardasian as part of a legal dreamteam?

So there is an investigation, and during the course of the investigation, there are several theories about what went down and who is who, and in the end it turns out that most of them were incorrect and only one is correct? What a shocking revelation! Who would have thought that!