A VERY reliable source has confirmed to me unequivocally that {REMOVED} has been bragging that he hit Bitstamp, SR, and Gox with DDoS, flooded them with mutated transactions, and even made a fortune. TL;DR -{NATIONALITY} former contractor used the transaction malleability media hoopla (WHICH CAN NOT BE USED TO STEAL COINS) as a cloak to break in and steal. His initial development work probably worked as an advantage, or he kept a clone of the security methods, I don’t know
The crux of your 'evidence' is that someone told you that this guy is bragging about hitting Bitstamp, SR and Gox with DDoS and flooding them with mutated transactions, making a fortune. And he made a fortune from these DDoS attacks, but also used them as cover to break into Silk Road and steal coin directly?
This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, which i'll outline below.
First i'll say that your doxing is completely irresponsible.
Now, where to begin.
There is no record of a DDoS against either Bitstamp, SR or Gox. Not in the last week, not in the last month. You might be confusing this with the DOS attack the Bitcoin blockchain suffered last week, which was a flood of mutated transactions.
Here is a post from the Bitcoin Foundation explaining that DOS attack:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=422
What somebody was doing was listening on the blockchain for new transactions, cloning them and altering (mutating) the transaction ID and then sending it out into the Bitcoin network. This meant that every transaction had two copies - the original and another that was mutated, having been sent by the person carrying out the DOS. This wasn't used to steal coins, it was used to simply attempt to stop some Bitcoin transactions from confirming - which makes it difficult to check balances (which is why Bitstamp shut down).
Nobody 'made a fortune' from that attack, and the 'media hoopla' over this issue wouldn't provide much of a cover for breaking into the Silk Road server
Further, your claim that he simply entered the Silk Road server via some form of magical backdoor (the details here aren't clear) does not match the evidence. We know that the malleability issue combined with the way Silk Road implemented withdrawal and transaction checking is what caused the coins to be stolen. This is why the hackers registered multiple vendor accounts, and why it took over a month to carry out the attack - because each withdrawal has to be for an amount of funds that exists in the account and the attack only works 50% of the time (and when it fails the attacker has to re-deposit the coins back into the vendor account he is using to carry out the attack).
Even if the technical details that you describe *were* plausible (they are not) you have to account for hackers having a bad habit of bragging and taking credit for attacks they didn't do.
You have totally missed the mark here - not only is your evidence weak and extremely circumstantial, it technically makes no sense and you offer zero explanation for how the site was actually breached and further it doesn't match up with what we know about how the Silk Road attack was carried out.
edit: I removed his dox. I assume oracle's post will be removed - but i've removed the details from my post so that it won't be deleted.