Hmm. I don’t see where the state did not think the logs were real. AFAIK they were pulled from the website’s database. The BTC transactions match up, too.
I think I’ve seen people conflate “there is no evidence that anyone was killed” and them not believing the whole thing, but attempting to hire and the falsified “success” of the supposed murders can be both true.
Honestly, the only places I’ve seen anything that tries to dismiss or question the accusations are right-leaning libertarian biased sites. Reason.com is often cited and say ““they cite their sources”” but their citations are nearly all just links to blog posts and opinion articles on the same site. I have no reason to believe or trust what they say about it, and I’ve already done more than I care to check the validity of their claims, which again are opinions.
Citation 7+8 note that the officers who were convicted of corruption had admin privileges, including the ability to change message content.
Of course, it’s a PDF of a document that says it’s an official court document but is hosted by the site and not a .gov link. I didn’t track down any of the case file numbers to confirm it. If you want to, go nuts.
Right. That seems like more effort than it’s worth in comparison to how much I care about the situation. As you say, the guy was already a piece of shit. That’s why it’s easy for me to believe, especially considering the evidence. Anything that may point out the evidence is invalid is pretty buried or seems to only be spread among areas that have an interest in that narrative.
Hmm. I don’t see where the state did not think the logs were real. AFAIK they were pulled from the website’s database. The BTC transactions match up, too.
I think I’ve seen people conflate “there is no evidence that anyone was killed” and them not believing the whole thing, but attempting to hire and the falsified “success” of the supposed murders can be both true.
Honestly, the only places I’ve seen anything that tries to dismiss or question the accusations are right-leaning libertarian biased sites. Reason.com is often cited and say ““they cite their sources”” but their citations are nearly all just links to blog posts and opinion articles on the same site. I have no reason to believe or trust what they say about it, and I’ve already done more than I care to check the validity of their claims, which again are opinions.
Citation 7+8 note that the officers who were convicted of corruption had admin privileges, including the ability to change message content.
Of course, it’s a PDF of a document that says it’s an official court document but is hosted by the site and not a .gov link. I didn’t track down any of the case file numbers to confirm it. If you want to, go nuts.
Right. That seems like more effort than it’s worth in comparison to how much I care about the situation. As you say, the guy was already a piece of shit. That’s why it’s easy for me to believe, especially considering the evidence. Anything that may point out the evidence is invalid is pretty buried or seems to only be spread among areas that have an interest in that narrative.
Anyway, thanks for the info and discussion.