From Joshua Dratel, Ross Ulbricht’s attorney, regarding the government’s explanation of how they found the Silk Road server:
Testimony of Experts Needed
As the internet community has quickly recognized, the government’s facile explanation of how it located the Silk Road servers raises more questions than it provides answers. Offering a selective narrative is easy, but without documented, forensic proof Special Agent Tarbell’s declaration simply does not suffice. As more and more commentators point out, the technical, logical and practical inconsistencies in this version require scrutiny in order to resolve the issue and arrive at the truth.
To this end, evidentiary fact finding, not unilateral government claims, is required. Thus a hearing, with testimony and cross-examination of expert witnesses, is necessary to test the veracity and validity of the government’s assertions.
NSA: A simple no
In addition, the government’s dismissive response to the concept of “parallel construction” is, of course, precisely what parallel construction is designed to achieve: a sanitized, opaque version of how information and evidence is obtained. It is a statement that resists further inquiry with categorical denial of access to information, other than that which the government decides to provide.
In that context, the government’s refusal to answer any of the questions posed in Mr. Ulbricht’s discovery motion is telling as well. A simple “no” in answer to questions regarding NSA involvement could end the controversy. The government’s failure to answer generates a presumption that either “no” would not be a candid response or the prosecutors do not know the answer.