Many of us bought off him, but let's not be unrealistic and suggest he didn't do more than simply sell a legal product. He certainly aided and abetted through consultation and advice directed towards an end goal. Which is why he'll not have a leg to stand on according to law. The fact is that just because one perceives the right to die to be good doesn't mean this guy did it for good intentions, he did it completely for his own ends. Also what we think is irrelevant in law, he did something either without understanding the law or in purposeful contradiction. Maybe that seems hypocritical after purchasing from him but we all entered the pact knowing the score, he must have known that was likely to be problematic in law and we must have known it could have consequences (which it did, through visits and such)