Alright.
I've taken a gander at the recent pleadings filed. Let me begin with the caveat that these are just my thoughts, and they are obviously based on incomplete information, both because I don't have all the pleadings, and some of them of these recently unsealed pleadings still have redactions.
I'll summarize the government's position as to the problems with the defense's argument:
The defense's argument is essentially that account "flush" which had admin access, was used to plant evidence that Ulbricht was DPR. Force (the DEA agent) had access to the "flush" account. As we call may recall, "flush" was controlled by Green, who was the target of the murder-for-hire that "nob" (aka SA Force) and DPR were involved in. Green subsequently cooperated with the government, which is how SA Force got access to the "flush" account. This have happened on Jan. 19, 2013, which was subsequent to his arrest on Jan. 17, 2013.
These are problems with this theory:
- There is evidence on Ulbricht's computer linking him to DPR long before the SA Force had access to "flush," and long after. Ulbricht locked out the "flush" account on Jan. 26, 2013.
- Even assuming that "flush" reset the DPR account and then planed info using it somehow, Ulbricht always had root access to the server, and could have regained control.
- DPR signed communications with a PGP key that was on Ulbricht's computer. SA Force, with access to "flush" or even the DPR account, could never have gotten the private PGP key.
Judge Forrest considered an
extremely broad discovery request by defense. Judge Forrest did not accept the defense argument's that this information is exculpatory, though the defense's arguments are redacted in the order. Ultimately, the only new information is that SA Force was being investigated, and that the previously known fact that "flush" may have stolen 350K worth of BTC was already known to DPR and to the defense.
Ultimately, defense always was able to put on its theories regarding technical capabilities, and it didn't need any of the SA Force information to do so. (That they didn't do so because of their ludicrously late expert disclosures, is, of course, another matter.).
***
Really, I think the best argument that defense could have had was to delay the trial. But I would think such an issue would be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and J. Forrest's decision would be upheld, particularly in light of the information known at the time of these December 2014 motions. It seems particularly unlikely to succeed before Defense didn't make any kind of argument with
particularity as to what exculpatory information would be uncovered during the Force investigation.
***
Subsequent to this, defense tried to bring the SA Force thing back into play by attempting to admit hearsay evidence from "DeathFromAbove" (aka Force) to DPR on the SR messaging system where "DeathFromAbove" accused DPR of being a Mr. Athavale. It's clearly hearsay, and J. Forrest rightly excludes it. All other evidence linking Athavale to DPR was highly circumstantial and speculative. Moreover, other evidence demonstrates that DPR did not take DeathFromAbove's threats seriously, and that the identifying of him was "bogus."