Slashdot Mirror


Hans Reiser Interview on ABC's 20/20

baegucb_18706 noted that ABCs 20/20 has a lengthy article on the saga of the Hans Reiser murder trial. I'm not sure if this article provided any information that you might not have known if you read the earlier wired interview, but it's still a really strange story.

482 comments

  1. I see! by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Interviewing Hans Reiser about the Hans Resier murder, eh? Clever.
    How about interviewing Harry Buttle about that known terrorist Harry Tuttle?

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:I see! by doom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      gowen wrote:

      Interviewing Hans Reiser about the Hans Resier murder, eh? Clever.

      Actually, that's what they've got here that's new. Previously we haven't had Hans Reiser's side of the story, just the case the police were making against him in the media. And I have to say, it's nice to see a story that more-or-less takes Reiser's side on this, everyone else seems anxious to convict him before the trial... including "Wired", slashdot, etc.

      By the way: How would you feel if you were on a jury and found out later, after the trial was over, that the judge had decided not to worry your head with a minor little detail like the fact that one of the people in the story was a confessed serial killer?

      Anyway, I'm typing this up on a machine running Reiser FS, which is a really nice file system, and it remains so irrespective of whatever did happen to Reiser's wife. I hope the guys at NameSys succeed in keeping the work going, with or without Hans.

    2. Re:I see! by Bazman · · Score: 1

      I think the allegation against Reiser is a bit more than a spot of rogue plumbing...

      [I'm only writing this so that you can see that at least ONE person laughed at the reference!]

    3. Re:I see! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      By the way: How would you feel if you were on a jury and found out later, after the trial was over, that the judge had decided not to worry your head with a minor little detail like the fact that one of the people in the story was a confessed serial killer?

      The police seems to believe that Reiser's (ex) friend is not a "confessed serial killer" but an idiot who made a false confession of being a serial killer.
    4. Re:I see! by megaditto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe Chewbacca is a paedophile?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    5. Re:I see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the famed Chewbacca defense won't work here. Everyone knows Hans is notorious for fstabings.

    6. Re:I see! by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be a determination for the jury to make?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    7. Re:I see! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyway, I'm typing this up on a machine running Reiser FS

      Any of your files gone missing?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    8. Re:I see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Jawas ran off with all the evidence. If the police had any wit, they'd buy the evidence back from the Jawas. It can be pricey though.

  2. She's in Russia by FunkyELF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She hated him. She staged it and went back to Russia. Aren't their kids over there now? Go interrogate her parents...she can't be too far from them.

    1. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where is mom?

    2. Re:She's in Russia by kasperd · · Score: 1

      That is one theory. Is that theory more or less likely to be true than the theory that Hans murdered her? I don't know. There is evidence pointing in each direction. If she is alive, Russia must be the most likely place for her to be right now.

      But is the police in Russia actually going to look for her? And if she is there, did she do anything criminal by not letting the world know that she is alive?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    3. Re:She's in Russia by porkThreeWays · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The direct physical evidence against Reiser is limited, but police have built a detailed circumstantial case. In this day and age I didn't know you could take a murder to trial purely on circumstance. I'll admit it's extremely weird, but do they actually think they can convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in this day and age with no direct evidence? It almost seems irresponsible to try otherwise. No body. No DNA. No weapons of any sort found. Basically they have more evidence for Jimmy Hoffa's murder than they do this one. Heck, good luck proving she was actually murdered!
      --
      If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    4. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia!

    5. Re:She's in Russia by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course she also removed his car-seat, and put that "how to dispose a body" book into his stuff, too...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    6. Re:She's in Russia by stonedcat · · Score: 1, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, not really dead woman hunts for you!

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    7. Re:She's in Russia by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) As the article says, he was living out of his car. Strange, but not unheard of - especially for someone who likely has few friends and is of limited financial means. 2) He didn't have a book on how to dispose a body, he had a book on murder investigations. As he was the target of one and didn't have a lot of money, this seems pretty reasonable. I'd probably do the same thing.

    8. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. She left him taking the kids shortly after she got her citizenship.

    9. Re:She's in Russia by lankyvaulter · · Score: 1

      DNA evidence actually is technically circumstantial evidence. Testimony of eye-witnesses is direct evidence. Personally given how bad witnesses can be I trust circumstantial cases more than cases based on witness testimony.

    10. Re:She's in Russia by DustyShadow · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least they had a body in the Peterson case.

    11. Re:She's in Russia by EvilRyry · · Score: 1

      It's like my old boss always used to tell me when he was pissed at someone (including myself), "It's hard to prove that someone's dead without a body"

    12. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      But is the police in Russia actually going to look for her?
      No, unless you bribe them.

    13. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The chances of her being in Russia are just plain reasonable
      People don't fly anonymously, do they? Isn't it easy to check if she's left the country?

      Lovely sig, by the way

    14. Re:She's in Russia by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      We have 12 million illegal Mexicans in this country and I don't know how many other ethnic illegals. I know of one from Canada right now(she overstayed her visa by about 18 months and is working a decent job. If they can get in so easily, what makes you think they cannot get back out.

      The question really is, do people want us to know if she got back out? I mean if she was "afraid" of something and wanted to go back, she could do it without a trace. On another more sinister note, lets say she left him for a while to cool off or something. She then saw what was going on with Hans and the police over her disappearance and decided to be vindictive and let him suffer. We could write a book with multiple endings with all the what if's until a body or more conclusive evidence was found. How about the serial killer "witness" killed her but after hearing a story about how bad Hans made her life and then blamed it on him as sort of a making him pay thing after feeling bad about the situation and attempting to put it off of his own conscience.

    15. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always the husband who kills the wife, the son who kills the parents. It's a matter of statistics, 99% Reiser is guilty.

    16. Re:She's in Russia by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, what is the chances of your bed getting all bloody by some "unknown to you" reasons and you running out on (or just after) a holiday to buy a new one after dumping the old on in a dumpster all cut up into separate pieces just after returning from fishing at a spot (again on a holiday) and your wife turned out to be missing in the middle of this.

      Circumstance? More like circumspect in covering your tracks.

    17. Re:She's in Russia by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      They've convicted someone recently with only a shit-load of circumstantial evidence In this case they don't seem to have much though. A book on crime investigations and a missing car seat? WTF?
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    18. Re:She's in Russia by KutuluWare · · Score: 1

      In this day and age I didn't know you could take a murder to trial purely on circumstance. I'll admit it's extremely weird, but do they actually think they can convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in this day and age with no direct evidence


      In the United States, at least, "circumstantial evidence" is not a legally defined term. It's used very loosely (mostly on television) to indicate evidence that is two or more steps removed from directly linking a suspect to a crime. The reality is many, if not most murder cases are tried and convicted on circumstantial evidence.

      Criminals, even dumb ones, are usually smart enough not to leave obvious clues to their identity at a pre-meditated crime scene. During unplanned/accidental/spontaneous crimes, you may occasionally find obvious, direct evidence. Otherwise, you rely on things like the presence of DNA, fingerprints, sales/bank receipts demonstrating a persons whereabouts, fiber or other trace evidence, etc. All of these are circumstantial evidence because they indirectly link a suspect to a crime. For example, their fingerprints were found on a wall near the crime scene, so they were at the crime scene, and they cannot come up with a valid explanation why, and they had a motive to commit the crime, thus implying they are guilty.

      As mentioned elsethread, Scott Peterson's conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Same goes for Tim McVeigh. Any good prosecutor will tell you that circumstantial evidence is sometimes better than direct evidence because there's usually so much more of it. It's simply a matter of convincing a jury that no other logical explanation, besides "guilty", can possible arise from all that evidence. Think of a Venn diagram: the number of people with a yellow Camaro is pretty high, as is the number of people with size 10 Nike Air, as is the number of people with a white and brown Pekingese; but as you start putting those together the number of people who qualify for all three criteria shrinks rapidly, hopefully down to one person.
    19. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone remove a car seat to transport a body (and then leave it out) when they have a perfectly good trunk?

    20. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. She left him taking the kids shortly after she got her citizenship.
      I don't see any evidence indicating that you read the comment you replied to.
    21. Re:She's in Russia by Xiph1980 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might want to watch this TED-talk about statistics before you say something like that:
      Peter Donnelly: How juries are fooled by statistics

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    22. Re:She's in Russia by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Right and that is a big difference right thier. As a jour(sp) I would have a really hard time finding someone guilty for murder when there is no proof anyone is actaully dead.

      In the Peterson case there were many reasons to suspect Scott would want to kill her and lots of the evidence showed he had the oppertunity. In the Reiser case we don't even know a woman is dead. There is no body and this is a person who had every reason to want to disappear. Its not unhead of people to live most of a life time before they get tracked down, if they want to remain hidden. I think thats reasonable doubt right there, or it would be for me.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    23. Re:She's in Russia by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Whats your problem asshat? I didn't say anything was good or bad about that. I just said it happens and if they can get in why can't someone get out.

      go troll somewhere else. Maybe your own ass so you can find your head. By now.

    24. Re:She's in Russia by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the thing is, everything hints to the fact that the seat had to be disposed because of the gore that couldnt be cleaned.
      Its been a while since i have read up on the case, so i might be wrong, but IIRC, he claimed that he "spilled something" on it, and it had to be removed.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    25. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      We have 12 million illegal Mexicans in this country and I don't know how many other ethnic illegals.
      This is totally unrelated to the case. You can't get to Russia by hopping over the fence. You've got to hop over Atlantic Ocean. Chances are someone's gonna notice you doing that. You've got to board a plane, you've got to cross 2 borders. You'll leave quite a few traces in several databases, lot's of people will see you on the way. If you're smart you'll forge your documents, disguise yourself, exit through Mexico(preferably illegaly), enter through Ukraine(preferably illegaly again), but what are the chances that some random woman does just that? She's not a seasoned criminal, right?

    26. Re:She's in Russia by m2943 · · Score: 1

      People don't fly anonymously, do they? Isn't it easy to check if she's left the country?

      No. She may have driven to Canada or Mexico, she may have gone by ship, and even if she went by plane, there isn't a single, perpetual database where these things can be looked up.

    27. Re:She's in Russia by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I don't know but marrying the rich American or the GI stationed overseas to get a green card isn't exactly an original thought. Then she discovers she can skim a small fortune off the books which is a huge fortune back home, so the whole thing seems very plausable, who's going to believe the computer nerd, especially if she manages to provoke some violence in public and get a restraining order. Even if they catch her it'll be "BooHoo I was so afraid; I only took the half that was mine BooHoo!" then it'll be a pity-party for her; that is if she really isn't sleeping with the fishes.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    28. Re:She's in Russia by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are four countries that border the US, Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Russia; you can almost drive a car to Russia. The last little bit is by boat plane or snowmobile. A Japonese compnay has offered to dig a tunnel between Russia and the US for half-price. It would be very cool to travel from New York to England by rail the long way!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    29. Re:She's in Russia by budgenator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She was a translator for a Russian "Dating Service" or one of it's clients, seems a few "seasoned" freinds could be pretty easy fot her to aquire along the way. As likely as not a few parasitic "seasoned" freinds would be hard to avoid around that business.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    30. Re:She's in Russia by tftp · · Score: 1

      Checks on your way out are minimal. I haven't crossed the US-Canada land border in some years, but as I recall there was no inspection on the US side (Niagara Falls), and the customs officer on the Canadian side just asked for valid papers to enter. There was no record on either side. If you fly then you'll be logged somewhere, but if you walk or drive you can get out easily; thousands of people get in even.

    31. Re:She's in Russia by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

      Got any concrete evidence?

    32. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise that she could well have left the country in another manner than flying right? It's entirely possible to get yourself over either the Canadian or Mexican borders and travel from there. It's also possible to get forged documents to travel with. Assuming that a person *has* to have flown out of the country on a legal passport is rather silly, especially if they don't want to be traced.

    33. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's like my old boss always used to tell me when he was pissed at someone (including myself), "It's hard to prove that someone's dead without a body"

      Was one of those times when you mistakenly used the word "myself" instead of "me?"

    34. Re:She's in Russia by jcr · · Score: 1

      Isn't it easy to check if she's left the country?

      Commercial air travel isn't the only way to leave a country.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    35. Re:She's in Russia by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, there are lots of South Americans entering and leaving your country without anyone keeping records.

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    36. Re:She's in Russia by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      A pity-party you say?

      Will there be cake?

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    37. Re:She's in Russia by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. last I checked alaska and russia aren't that far apart... and guess what.. it's not the atlantic between them. Funny thing.. Canada is also right up there too...

      I think I'd go through canada and not mexico if i was going to russia.

      I don't think I could convict him on the evidence I've heard so far. He might be guilty, but I really don't know.

    38. Re:She's in Russia by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Why a plane? Last I heard, boats still plied the oceans.

      Also, why back to Russia? Maybe just up to Canada, down to Mexico or South America ... or up to Alaska, and then a quick hop across the Bering Straits.

      Or even still in the US mainland, using someone else's identity. Identity theft isn't always just for money.

      This is what we have juries for - to decide the facts.

    39. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh god no! *looks over shoulder*

    40. Re:She's in Russia by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article also says he was walking around with 9000 cash in his pocket and he was running some kind of business out of Russia. He also has a commercial lawyer not a court appointed one. I am sure the police will find out exactly what his finances are, but thus far he does not seem destitute at all.

      Sorry, but I do not believe the living out of his car story one bit. People that do that do it as a last resort. Nobody lives in their car and walks around with 9000k in their pockets and runs a business. Being homeless is very very dangerous.

      Also, if he had to tear out his seat because he was living in his car he would be able to tell the cops where and when he threw the seat out and they would be able to find it in a dumpster somewhere.

    41. Re:She's in Russia by macro187 · · Score: 1

      My bad - I was reading news about the US invasion of Iraq at the time.

    42. Re:She's in Russia by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      9000k in their pockets He had 9 million dollars in his pockets?
      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    43. Re:She's in Russia by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Sorry but there is no effing way she could have left to russia through alaska without being noticed. The actual distance between russia and alaska may not be great but that area has some of the most vicious weather on the planet. It is also very heavily guarded on both sides. And no, you cannot drive to that edge of alaska, so you cannot "almost drive to russia" it is not even close.

      If she was some kind of crazy advanturer with a lot of money to various ships and vehicles she could have made it far enough accross the bering straight only to be arrested by the US or Russian military. But she could not pass it unnoticed.

      No, if she left the country she has to do it by plane or commercial ship, and for that she must be recorded somewhere (even if she left through mexico or canada). Of course it may certainly be possible for a seasoned criminal to get fake papers and leave the US unnoticed, but some housewife that has been moved to a foreign country? I doubt it.

    44. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She could easily have left the U.S. for Russia anonymously. Perhaps because of some criminal type connection, perhaps because of some government connection.

      Unfortunately I cannot comment more and must post anonymously, because I know Hans, and I've met the wife and kids.

    45. Re:She's in Russia by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Those are mostly North Americans, just not starting as far north as they end up.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    46. Re:She's in Russia by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Drive to Mexico, take a plane from one of how-many airports there to Russia. Or Panama. Or Brazil...

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    47. Re:She's in Russia by yoshi3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      LOLLLL ^_^

    48. Re:She's in Russia by dintech · · Score: 1

      It's like my old boss always used to tell me when he was pissed at someone (including myself), "It's hard to prove that someone's dead without a body"

      Ah, so you work for Aperture Science too?

    49. Re:She's in Russia by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. last I checked alaska and russia aren't that far apart

      I don't think Nina walked across the Bering strait on the off chance that by not departing officially she could get her ex locked up for a while and make it hard for him to follow her. Once in Russia with the children it would be easy for her to get lost, and the kids left legally after all.

      One way out would be to buy or borrow a passport from a friend or relative, somebody you could pass for. But I don't really see why she would do that as opposed to using her own documentation.

    50. Re:She's in Russia by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Of course it may certainly be possible for a seasoned criminal to get fake papers and leave the US unnoticed, but soe housewife that has been moved to a foreign country? I doubt it.

      Buy or borrow a passport from another Russian woman who has no intention of returning home any time soon. Somebody with a similar photo. Even better if you travel as a close relative.

    51. Re:She's in Russia by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > People don't fly anonymously, do they?

      If you want to cross an ocean anonymously, the usual method is to get on a boat.

      Note that I don't claim to know enough about the Reiser case to say whether there's a reasonable chance the alleged victim may actually be alive. But yeah, it's possible for a reasonably resourceful person to get from the US to Russia without people knowing.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    52. Re:She's in Russia by backformed · · Score: 0

      There wasn't a body in the Carrie Culberson case.

    53. Re:She's in Russia by AVee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being homeless is very very dangerous. Well, actually driving a car may well prove to be far more dangerous then living in one. And sleeping in a home containing a very visible expensive TV set may well be far more dangerous than being homeless.
      I know I could survive pretty fine on my own in a car, certainly when I still have a bank account and the ability to eat in a restaurant every day. That pretty much makes it trivial to do. And if that is what it takes to see your kids sometimes, I might just do the same thing.

      And appart from all that, even if you are totally right, doing strange and even dangerous things doesn't make you a murderer. That isn't to say I somehow think he didn't do it. It don't know, and so far I've seen nothing which comes close to proving he did. He's innocent until proven otherwise.

    54. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't bet much on the ability of the government to verify the passenger list of every vessel capable of leaving the US, to say nothing of the countries she could travel through along the way. How hard would it be to borrow a friends junk car, drive it to Canada or Mexico, and leave from there? When I drive into Canada, nobody even looks at my passport. Crossing the border on foot is not completely out of the question. If I were the "travel agent" for a clandestine trip to Russia, I would cross the border to Mexico and charter a boat to Cuba, then fly from there.

      We already know the kids are in Russia. IF she is alive then that's where she is.

      I think she is probably dead, and he probably did it. But there is plenty of room for doubt, starting with the so-called serial killer. Without a body, Hans walks.

    55. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      If you're thinking about Alaska, think again. Once you enter Russia from the east, you're in the territory that's about as populated as Arctic ocean. Everyone who happens to meet her there, will remember her.

    56. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      Don't let the world map confuse you. There are no roads and almost no people if you're entering through Bering Straits. That's only slightly better than entering Russia via North Pole... If you want to slip in unnoticed you've got to do that through the south.

    57. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      There are no significant money in Dating Services. Hence, there are only petty criminals involved. Not a lot of help, if you're hiding from police.

    58. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I think he meant a sea plane or something... I doubt the GP was talking about walking or driving.

    59. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but not in the Anne Marie Fahey case.

    60. Re:She's in Russia by defaria · · Score: 1

      No it's extremely difficult to check if somebody has left the country. That's why we have 12 million illegal immigrants. It's hard to check if they are here or if they left.

    61. Re:She's in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, bear in mind that a huge percentage of people in jail (later freed due to dna testing clearing them) got there because of a witness who mis-identified them.

      Huge percentage? Source please.

    62. Re:She's in Russia by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      All of those "traces" have to stick around long
      enough to be seen. If some cops interested in a career
      enhancing arrest aren't interested in making sure the
      victim isn't just hiding I could very well see someone
      going missing even if they made no attempts to cover
      their tracks.

                The evidence has to be there and the people looking
      for evidence have to be interested in finding it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    63. Re:She's in Russia by rve · · Score: 1

      All evidence is circumstantial, except eye witness reports and perhaps video footage.

      'Circumstantial' doesn't mean 'unreliable' or 'worthless', it just means it links the suspect to the crime when combined with other facts. The murderer's DNA on a murder victim's body is circumstantial evidence for example. The murder weapon being found in the murderer's house is another example.

    64. Re:She's in Russia by Strawser · · Score: 1

      I could easily see that. Or better, she uses a friend's passport to disappear, then gives it to a friend in Russia, who uses it to get into the country, then gives the passport back. She could even charge the one in Russia a pretty good fee for the service.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    65. Re:She's in Russia by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      In his pockets he had $9,000,000M million American USD dollars in his pockets.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    66. Re:She's in Russia by Charbox · · Score: 1
      If she staged it, she apparently forgot to leave incriminating evidence such as blood, signs of a struggle, etc.

      I bet she sprinkled some blood on the missing car seat, and Hans knew he had to ditch it without a word or he would be toast.

    67. Re:She's in Russia by mrmud · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I do not believe the living out of his car story one bit. People that do that do it as a last resort. Nobody lives in their car and walks around with 9000k in their pockets and runs a business. Being homeless is very very dangerous.

      Okay, you don't know much about humans. People do odd things all the time. Billy Corgan lived in a storage unit when he had over a million dollars in the bank. (source: http://billycorgan.livejournal.com/ Apr. 23rd, 2005|12:00 pm) Your premise that people don't live beneath (Or WAY beneath) their means unless they NEED to is clearly wrong.

      --
      -- MrMud
    68. Re:She's in Russia by yoprst · · Score: 1

      It takes someone a lot more experienced (or at least someone with much more common sense) than you to successfully disappear abroad. I see absolutely no reason why she's such a person.

  3. Is that pic caption right? by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Hans Reiser, left, and his attorney, William Dubois"

    I think the pic caption is wrong - isn't that Hans on the right side?

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:Is that pic caption right? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      isn't that Hans on the right side?
      It looks like him. It certainly ain't Hans on the left.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    2. Re:Is that pic caption right? by should_be_linear · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the pic caption is wrong - isn't that Hans on the right side?

      Who knows, only Reiser certainly knows for sure. Mysteries just keep adding up in this strange story.

      --
      839*929
    3. Re:Is that pic caption right? by Skater · · Score: 1

      I hope so, because if I were Reiser, I certainly wouldn't want my lawyer to have that expression on his face. (For those who haven't clicked on the article, it's a hand-to-the-forehead "I'm screwed and I can't believe this" expression.)

    4. Re:Is that pic caption right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the caption is wrong, or at least misleading (maybe the writer meant to say "Hans Reiser, leftmost person as viewed by a theoretical observer standing behind the two men,..."

      Anyways, based on previous pictures of Hans, it's clearly the guy on the right:
      http://geekz.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/hans-reiser.jpg
      http://www.documentandolavida.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/hans-reiser-2006-10-10.jpg
      http://scitalks.com/thumbnail/Picture%20855.jpg

    5. Re:Is that pic caption right? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Haha, I know, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the pic.

    6. Re:Is that pic caption right? by Acid-Duck · · Score: 1

      If it was the attorney on the right hand side and I'd be Hans, I'd be pretty worried and probably thinking about getting a new attorney

    7. Re:Is that pic caption right? by ickoonite · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who knows, only Reiser certainly knows for sure.

      One would presume that the lawyer has a reasonable idea which one he is as well...

      :P

    8. Re:Is that pic caption right? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      OMG. I though that was a joke. Let me sound it out for you, I didn't know you were serious until I double checked. I wonder if whoever wrote the article was thinking the same thing?

      Hans Reiser left his attorney, Well I am dubious. "Hans Reiser, left, and his attorney, Will-i-am Dubois"

      Talk about having a bad day. This just throws subliminal stuff out there.

    9. Re:Is that pic caption right? by alex4u2nv · · Score: 0

      oh lets iron this out, once and for all: reiserfsck --check --fix-fixable

    10. Re:Is that pic caption right? by mickwd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, he's a smart one, this Hans Reiser.

      A simple switch when his lawyer isn't paying attention, and his lawyer spends the rest of his life in jail....... .....while Hans gets paid all the money he paid him in fees.

      That's just cunning.

    11. Re:Is that pic caption right? by FPCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But wouldn't revealing that violate attorney/client privilege?

    12. Re:Is that pic caption right? by tilde_e · · Score: 1

      It can be frustrating if you've gotten used to reading wikinews where you can correct these kinds of mistakes.

    13. Re:Is that pic caption right? by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

      Looks like It's been corrected

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    14. Re:Is that pic caption right? by Garabito · · Score: 1

      Because said car doesn't have a trunk?

  4. Take the conviction and... by BadHaggis · · Score: 1, Funny

    Obviously he should take the conviction, server two years, escape and live a long happy life in middle America after changing his name and ssn. That should give him a good 30 years or so to prove he is a productive citizen.

    --
    Homo homini lupus
    1. Re:Take the conviction and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously he should take the conviction, server two years...
      Server? Something tells me he'll be a receiver as the new guy...

      ba dum dum cha!
  5. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by FunkyELF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alan Turing murdered himself (or perhaps he was poisoned).

    Is he known as a murderer or the father of computer science?...I forget.

  6. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't murder yourself, you commit suicide. Suicide, while deplorable, is not on the same level as murder.

    Def: Murder - noun. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

    I agree with the coward.

  7. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by phaunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Einstein murdered his wife, he would be a murderer, not a genius. He would have been both a murderer and a genius. Maybe you meant he would have been remembered today as a murderer only, but I very much doubt that.
  8. late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was on like 2 nights ago ... late nite abc...

  9. Creepy by Falstius · · Score: 0, Troll

    I realize it has no real bearing on the man's guilt or innocence, but that man is seriously creepy. Did they have him on doped to the eyeballs? I had it mute the sound when he read the poem to his kid or I would have had nightmares.

  10. Renaissance man, indeed. by bryanp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reiser, whose work kept him overseas in Russia for months at a time, wanted more children and did not want Nina returning to work as a doctor.

    "I ran the business and I expected my wife to take care of the kids," he said.


    Wow. Wotta guy. Let's see, I want to marry an intelligent, highly educated doctor and then turn her into a brood mare who stays in the kitchen making cookies. Yeah, that'll work.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    1. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Honestly, if I could find an intelligent, highly educated doctor who would take care of her practice and leave me home to cruise Slashdot (ahem!) raise the kids ... I'd marry her in a split femtosecond.

      But, yeah. If a woman decides that her career choice is one of raising a family, that's one thing. If she already has a career, one which took her many years of schooling to achieve and which her husband wants her to just forget about ... well. I can see where the conflict came in.

      Reiser always did seem to think very highly of himself, though, even before the murder charges.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you see the 20/20 piece with the video of him cavorting around in a speed-o?


      That was choice.

    3. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by bryanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I was insulting a man who marries a woman and tries to force her to stay home with the kids when that wasn't what she wanted to do. But then you might have know that if you'd RTFA.

      I have no problems with one parent staying home. I know several people who do that. Two families I'm thinking of the wife is the breadwinner and the husband is the stay-at-home dad.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    4. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0

      Wow. Wotta guy. Claiming that stay-at-home moms are "blood mares". You, sir, are an idiot.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    5. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, you asshole (sir is to good for you) are an idiot.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    6. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by G+Fab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pal, it's cool that most women want a family and are willing to sacrifice for it, but it's up to the chick to do that on her own.

      This is the opposite case, where the woman wanted to have a nice profession herself, obviously worked her ass off to earn one, and then was forced out to serve her lord husband's interest.

      Note: your girl might change her mind. PEople get married young, hoping to have kids, and the girl will do ANYTHING for that family ideal. A few years of college can make her more interested in saving the world or something. When your girl considers that option (and if she doesn't even consider it, she's a moron), are you going to tell her to stick with the original deal? It's hard not to. I know. I wanted my wife to raise the kids so I could take my career whereve I wanted. It's hard, but ultimately, it's about sharing the burdens and choices equally. And if she's willing to sacrifice hers for yours, then she better get something valuable out of the deal (raising kids and changing daipers is not what I have in mind).

    7. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by teg · · Score: 1

      I happen to know different, I'm marrying one. Partly for that reason. In my opinion, it's rare for a maladjusted child to come from a home where the father works, and the mother cares for the children, but it's common for maladjusted children to be latch key kids with both parents working 2 jobs.

      If one has a university education, it's a waste to just stay at home with the kids. Also, the kids will be better off in good kindergartens, with educated personnel and many similarly aged friends to play with.

      As for being maladjusted... compare the US to Scandinavia. In Scandinavia, far more parents are working, and the crime rates are much, much lower than the US.

    8. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by mingot · · Score: 4, Funny

      But, hey, you can insult women who want to devote their lives to their children all you like. And I could call you a feminazi supporter. But I won't, because I'd like to think I'm above that.

      Is there a name for this sort of statement? You know, the "I'd call you x, but I'm above that sort of thing".

    9. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Plutonite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. She seems to be one hell of a bitch, obviously married him only for the money and the oh-so-prized citizenship.

      "She divorced me the day she became a citizen. I don't know whether it was the exact day but same month"

      And from TFA she also was cleaning out his money. He introduced her to his best friend, to take care of her while he was away, but this highly intelligent, educated doctor you speak of let the man introduce her to drugs and fuck her while reiser wasn't there. Sounds like some Russian skank who wanted to escape being a translator for a dating service in KGB land. And beautiful? She looks barely average.

      As for your blood-mare comment, I'm sure the governments of Sweden and similar nations who pay women to stay at home and care for their children several YEARS have something to say to you. I have the utmost respect for stay-at-home moms who are helping to build solid families for this country.. definitely more than your favorite juknie/ho "doctor".

      Reiser could've had so much better for a wife, no matter how "weird" he is. Reiser also doesn't have the nicest of friends, unfortunately. Kind of tough when you're best friend is a homosexual serial killer who wanted to sleep with you then decided to give it to your Russian wife when you said no. Jesus fucking Christ, Hans, are there no other people in the world to make friends with?

    10. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by piojo · · Score: 1

      As for being maladjusted... compare the US to Scandinavia. In Scandinavia, far more parents are working, and the crime rates are much, much lower than the US. I'm sorry, but there's so much difference between the US and Scandinavia that there is no comparison. You may conclude that "parents working does not always lead to maladjusted children", but that's all. After all, we aren't talking about Scandinavian culture, here. (Though I don't know where the grandparent poster is from.)
      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    11. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by kv9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kind of tough when you're best friend is a homosexual serial killer who wanted to sleep with you then decided to give it to your Russian wife when you said no. Jesus fucking Christ, Hans, are there no other people in the world to make friends with? this story is so badass (especially if he killed her, manages not to get convicted then kills his buddy by bashing his head in with an oversized dildo) that Tarantino should consider it for one of his next movies.
    12. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by EllynGeek · · Score: 1

      What is a blood mare? Why didn't you read the article before commenting? "It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

      --

      we will end no whine before its time

    13. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Ask the parent poster what he meant by blood mare. And I did read the article, genius - I didn't magically have the quote in my post transferred into my brain. Maybe you should, like, RTFA yourself.

    14. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      And if she's willing to sacrifice hers for yours, then she better get something valuable out of the deal... Presumably, if one is willing to sacrifice their career to take care of the kids, they consider that fulfilling enough that it does actually count as getting "something valuable". That's the only circumstances under which I'd sacrifice my career (being of the opinion that I'd get just as much fulfillment out of child-raising), I know that much.
      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    15. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that, could he on the other hand, have invoked the wife of Godwin's law?

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    16. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Is there a name for this sort of statement? You know, the "I'd call you x, but I'm above that sort of thing". Whatever the name is, I think it's a corollary to saying something like "No offense, but you're a total moron".
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    17. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by innerweb · · Score: 1

      If one has a university education, it's a waste to just stay at home with the kids. Also, the kids will be better off in good kindergartens, with educated personnel and many similarly aged friends to play with.

      So, the kids are far better off with a stranger being paid $6.00 to $9.00 per hour that most likely does not have a college education, let alone a strong belief in education or a strong desire to see all these children do well no matter what than to be home with a person who has walked the walk and believes in education, personal advancement, has a vested interest in the children they are watching and will be able to filter who the children will learn good habits and not learn bad habits from?

      Since when did early childhood care centers actually have more than one person (if even that) who had serious early childhood development training working? Must not be the US anywhere I am used to, unless you are talking about the expensive centers where only a few can afford to send their kids. Even then, the stay at home parent involved in play groups seems to do very well. Children learn by example. The examples they see and spend time with.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    18. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Ask the parent poster what he meant by blood mare.

      He said brood mare, not blood mare. A broodmare is a female horse used for breeding.

    19. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Is there a name for this sort of statement? You know, the "I'd call you x, but I'm above that sort of thing".

      I'd call it self-delusional weaseling, but who am I to point fingers? Yeah, it seems like there ought to be some fancy Latin term for that.

    20. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "turn her into a brood mare " How is that "insightful"? That is a flamebait.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    21. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "praeteritio," from a Latin verb meaning "to pass over."

      Cicero did it a lot, usually in the form of "Now I'm not going to talk about how you supported your puppy-slaughtering business by prostituting yourself to whales and other large sea mammals because it's not relevant to the case."

      Damn, he was a good lawyer.

    22. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by MindspanConsultants · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what it's called. See Praeteritio

    23. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually yes. It's a rhetorical device called praeteritio or apophasis.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praeteritio

    24. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Wow. Wotta guy. Let's see, I want to marry an intelligent, highly educated doctor and then turn her into a brood mare who stays in the kitchen making cookies. Yeah, that'll work.

      Doctors make better cookies.

    25. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 1

      I prefer the form "I want to do you a favor and let you know that you are a , but I'm afraid that for just being the messenger you'll hold some sort of grudge against me, so I won't."

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    26. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Oops, thnx for the heads up, sorry about that, "mare" was enough to disgust me.

    27. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow. Wotta guy. Let's see, I want to marry an intelligent, highly educated doctor and then turn her into a brood mare who stays in the kitchen making cookies. Yeah, that'll work.

      She wasn't a doctor. She was something that lacks a counterpart in the US -- a mix between a paediatrician and obstetrician without an MD's qualifications. This Russian profession doesn't translate to an doctor, but more like a midwife in that they have limited practitioner's privileges in their specific field only.
          Unlike in the US, Russian women/children-practitioners are ill paid with very little status, so it's not like Reiser married someone high on the social scale and brought her down to a lower status level -- rather the opposite. Check out the Russian bride-for-sale services, and you'll be astonished at how many of the girls are "doctors". And, indeed, a Russian dating service is how he met his wife.

      (A Russian "doktor", by the way, is a professor with at least a decade's experience -- a level of education way higher than anything in the US, so that title shouldn't be mistaken for a doctor either.)
    28. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by KnuthKonrad · · Score: 1

      Let's see, I want to marry an intelligent, highly educated doctor and then turn her into a brood mare who stays in the kitchen making cookies.

      But than again, say, I know that I'm a weirdo of some kind, having trouble socializing with other people. And my wife is a highly educated, intelligent and caring woman. Who would be better qualified to raise/educate our children? Me or her?

    29. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

      On this, you got it wrong. Nina was a doctor with full credentials that she could practice medicine in the USA...at least from an educational point of view. And she did have the equivalent of an M.D. in gynecology and obstetrics.

      The reason she didn't practice in the USA was mainly an issue of her trying to pass the medical board tests that are required when any foreign-educated physician tries to practice medicine in the USA. From what I understand, Nina passed all of the knowledge-based sections of the board examination (similar to a medical-type GRE exam or bar exam), but essentially flunked the ethics sections. In short, she was not licensed to practice medicine in the USA, not that she didn't have the knowledge about how to do medical procedures.

      Now doesn't that give you something to chew about.... when her largest short coming was trying to understand why you needed to be ethical when practicing medicine? And that isn't relevant to this murder trial?

    30. Re:Renaissance man, indeed. by defaria · · Score: 1

      You're buying into the assumption that she was intelligent and successful. Many "doctors" in Russia are no where near as well paid, well respected or intelligent as in the US. And indeed there is at least some evidence that she may not be all that as the media portrayed her. Remember Hans met her when she was working *as an interpreter for a dating service*. Now I ask you, how many smart, intelligent female doctors making a good living stoop down and take a second job to be an interpreter? Answer is not many if any.

  11. No body by hey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a reasonable system there is no way somebody can be convicted of murder without a body.

    1. Re:No body by schnikies79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that would just make an unreasonable system where anyone with the skill to properly dispose or hide the body would never be found guilty.

      --
      Gone!
    2. Re:No body by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Besides, circumstantial evidence has always been used to convict. It's more difficult from a prosecutorial perspective, of course, but it's still a viable way to get a conviction. "Reasonable doubt" doesn't mean they have to find you standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in your hands (hey, I watch CSI.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I murder someone with acid, that's okay?

    4. Re:No body by Ossifer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem for the prosecution is that in the absence of any real evidence suggesting murder (pool of blood, scene of an altercation, etc.), any conceivable theory by the defense trumps a murder story.

      The cops/prosecution decided Reiser must be guilty since he's really weird, despite no real evidence that a crime was committed at all. Having followed the case locally (from across the bay), I and many others were surprised the case even passed basic plausibility by the judge holding the preliminary hearing.

      The reality is, in fact, that she may very well be alive and well in Russia...

    5. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, so even if someone kills the president on live tv with thousands of eye vitnesses, he gets off without conviction if he manages to destroy the body.

      "reasonable"

    6. Re:No body by ari_j · · Score: 1

      In a reasonable system there is no way somebody can be convicted of murder without a body.

      I'd like you to take a moment to think about that, and then try again.

    7. Re:No body by linuxci · · Score: 1

      Yea, so even if someone kills the president on live tv with thousands of eye vitnesses, he gets off without conviction if he manages to destroy the body.

      "reasonable" Yeah, if it's Bush :)
    8. Re:No body by doom · · Score: 1

      The cops/prosecution decided Reiser must be guilty since he's really weird, despite no real evidence that a crime was committed at all. Having followed the case locally (from across the bay), I and many others were surprised the case even passed basic plausibility by the judge holding the preliminary hearing.

      One of the Great Mysteries in the case is the behavior of the police. Do they always try to convict people in the media when they know that they don't have any evidence that's worth a damn? Isn't that like, unethical, or something?

    9. Re:No body by kithrup · · Score: 1

      They don't have a body; they do have evidence of a crime.

      What has been disclosed to the media so far -- and that doesn't need to be all of the evidence, mind you -- includes her car, with groceries still in it, left abandoned somewhere, in a bit of disarray; a statement (by a child, who later recanted, and then disappeared) that Hans and Nina argued on the last day anyone saw her alive; and drops of her blood in the house, and in his car.

      It's not a lot of evidence, and it's very circumstantial, and some of it is easily refutable... but it is evidence.

      We watched the show. Before, I thought he was probably innocent, and she thought he was probably guilty. After watching it, we've each changed our minds. (Although I think it more likely he paid someone to get rid of her.)

      I'm very glad I am not involved in the case in any way.

    10. Re:No body by ewieling · · Score: 1

      I don't know about convicting them in the media, but I do know that DAs in the USA can be real scum. One of my former clients is a law firm that provides legal defense for poor people on death row. They discovered (and proved) that the police and DA knew the accused could not have committed the murder because he was caught on a security camera miles away. He could not have physically been present near the time of the victim's death. They hid the evidence and continued to try the case. The accused had an extensive criminal record. I guess the DA figured the accused was guilty of something, even if it was not the crime he was accused of. A few months after this their state funding was cut by 50%. I am pro death penalty but provided technical consulting services to them at a discount. Why? Because EVERYONE deserves the best defense they can get -- especially ones facing the death penalty.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    11. Re:No body by risk+one · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed, people without a body have enough to worry about without being convicted of all sorts of crimes.

      Simple discrimination against being unable to manifest on the corporeal plane, that's what it is.

      (I have nothing of value to add to this discussion)

    12. Re:No body by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      > They don't have a body; they do have evidence of a crime.

      What's the evidence of a crime? And which crime? Arguing with his wife -- something the child strenuously denies *ever* having said? Groceries in disarray in the car? If that's a crime then my wife deserves a lethal injection...

      You can find drops of my blood in my house, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean my wife is a murder (yet)...

      None of this alleged evidence suggests murder, let alone definitively. And *all* of this easily supports a defense claim...

      And in terms of the prosecution holding "secret" evidence -- they can't -- it had to be disclosed already.

      Note that I'm NOT saying he didn't kill his wife -- it's possible -- just that the prosecution doesn't have a case.

    13. Re:No body by doom · · Score: 1

      We watched the show. Before, I thought he was probably innocent, and she thought he was probably guilty. After watching it, we've each changed our minds. (Although I think it more likely he paid someone to get rid of her.)

      If he paid someone to get rid of her, than you wouldn't expect his own car was used in any way, and if so, a good half of the circumstantial evidence in the case just fades away -- e.g. the missing car seat, the supposed concealment of the car, all of that has nothing to do with the case if the car wasn't used to transport a body. And what difference does it make if they had an argument on the day of the disappearence if he's supposed to have hired someone to do it? That's "crime of passion" stuff, it's not part of any "premeditated hit" scenario.

      Myself, I wouldn't want to guess what actually happened, but I have trouble seeing how anyone could believe that the case against Reiser passes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

      I'm afraid what really convicts Reiser in people's minds is that he appears to be a pretty weird guy, but weirdness isn't supposed to be a crime...

    14. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject, but doesn't it take quite some time to completely dissolve a human body?

      By the way, which acid would be best for that kind of job? And how would I go about obtaining it? And disposing of it afterwards?
      Just asking out of curiosity, of course.

      Come on, Slashdot... give me some pointers here!

    15. Re:No body by kithrup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evidence has to be disclosed to the defense. Not to the media. The defense should (by this time) know all the evidence, and all the witnesses, that the prosecution is going to present (and vice-versa).

      That does not mean that we, the public, already know all that evidence.

      You can argue against what they've presented in support of their case so far -- I even said that it was refutable -- but that doesn't mean it's not evidence of a crime. It's just not strong evidence.

    16. Re:No body by phantomlord · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I've seen several lawyers on tv talking about similar cases...

      It varies from state to state, but generally, to charge someone with murder, you need some evidence that a murder actually occurred. A body, a pool of blood so large that it could only be created by someone who died, a direct statement from someone that they murdered another, etc.

      Now, obviously the police and prosecution aren't obligated to provide any evidence to the media (beyond what might come out in a public preliminary hearing showing they have justification to hold the defendant)... but the key problem, from what we know, is there is still no evidence that Mrs. Reiser is actually dead. You might be able to get a conviction for some type of domestic abuse, but murder needs some evidence of an actual death occurring.

      Without a body (or evidence of a death), I've gotta say Hans Reiser should be acquitted of murder. He may be a jackass, but that doesn't make him a murderer. With a body, well, we'll have to look at the weight of the circumstantial evidence pointing to him doing it. Until we get to see all of that evidence and there has been a chance to refute it, I can't say guilty or innocent either way if there is a body. If the body turns up after he's acquitted, it sucks for everyone but Hans that the police/DA acted so quickly since he can't be retried... he'll have his freedom but lose any respect from society.

      Crap, I just made myself sound like an impartial juror... good thing I don't live in California.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    17. Re:No body by evwah · · Score: 1

      according to wikipedia, they have samples of his wife's blood found on a bag and a pillar

    18. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he is weird but more has a killer mental problem

      "And so he finds himself living in his car. Which, for him, seemed the logical thing to do under the circumstances." When Reiser was picked up for DNA testing, he was carrying his passport and nearly $9,000 in cash. "

      Cause you know, weird dudes always live in their car after their wife disappears carrying their passport around and $9,000 in cash.

      Keep turning a blind eye to the real evidence and try to defend this nutcase.

      This scumbag will join Scott Peterson in jail and hopefully some inmate shows him some real spousal abuse in the ass.

    19. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if you owned a business in Russia that required you to travel to Russia, and you were not allowed to go to your home any longer (because the police said so) and had to live in your car keeping all your worldly possessions in your car, you wouldn't take the passport required to get into Russia with the rest of your possessions in your car?

      Good work Columbo.

    20. Re:No body by Sique · · Score: 1

      I am pro death penalty but provided technical consulting services to them at a discount. At least as long as you can built a career on demanding the death penalty, I am against it. (I am also against it for another more basic ground: Sentencing to death means to me that the society has given up on the delinquent.)
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    21. Re:No body by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      You say that like it's unreasonable.

      There are some people who are incorrigible, and society is absolutely justified in giving up on them. Every reasonable effort should be made, but honestly, should society try to correct a murderer for the next 60 years, even if we never intend to release him from prison? What's the point?

      I have no problem with appeals and giving every reasonable chance to a guy who claims innocence, but if there's no doubt the guy did it, give him his due process and fry him. To do otherwise denies the victim's family of closure. Additionally, as long as he's alive, he's an escape risk, as well as a continuing risk to the victim's family should he escape and decide to target them.

    22. Re:No body by tftp · · Score: 1

      A week ago I scratched my hand somewhere, and noticed it only an hour later (the blood already stopped and dried.) There are probably a few places where traces of that blood can be found. Someone's blood in her own house and/or cars is hardly unusual.

    23. Re:No body by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Nitric acid. Applied to pentaerythritol. And then detonated.

      I'd think that an incendiary would be more effective, or at least more expedient, than acid for dealing with bodies. How is biohazardous material (like infected blood) disposed of?

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    24. Re:No body by sciurus0 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Melendi family.

    25. Re:No body by Sique · · Score: 1

      Ok. So tell me what I should do about a woman who lives not far from my house.
      As far as we know she has murdered three times, thirty years ago. The victims were her own children. Just recently (this summer) the remainings of the dead toddlers were discovered in the cellar of a house where she lived at the time. Until then no one ever knew about this.

      It sounds fine if you are far away. It gets quite messy when you know the persons.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    26. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the body turns up after he's acquitted, it sucks for everyone but Hans that the police/DA acted so quickly since he can't be retried... he'll have his freedom but lose any respect from society.
      Why would this be? Just because she died doesn't mean that her husband murdered her. Depending on the state of the body it may prove that somebody murdered her, but it wouldn't prove her husband's guilt.
    27. Re:No body by phantomlord · · Score: 1

      I was just saying that if the body turns up later with evidence that he murdered her (say, with a knife with his fingerprints embedded in her), there won't be anything anyone can do about it after he's already been tried... because right now, he can't be convicted of murder because there is no evidence of her death (at least as far as what the prosecution has mentioned of their evidence).

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    28. Re:No body by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I 2nd this. I've heard of too many cases where some innocent party takes the fall for some high profile crime. The public wants the crime solved, and sometimes the police will frame whoever looks to be the easiest to frame, and if they actually put away a guilty party, so much the better. Anything a person has ever posted to the Internet is data just waiting to be mined for nuggets to make that person seem deviant, creepy, dangerous, criminally insane, prone to flying into uncontrolled rages, you name it. For people who get into some kind of dispute, the dumbest thing to do is escalate it in such a way that either the police have to get involved (someone waved a firearm around or went missing, or some such) or invite the police to get involved. Then the original parties will be really really wishing they could've worked this out amicably as they both struggle to keep the cops from blowing up the whole low grade affair into a ton of dramatic crimes that sort of kinda could be construed to have happened under the worst possible interpretation, but didn't actually come to anything that mattered. Even the most innocent acts and the least little changes from daily routine are viewed with suspicion and as possible evidence. It's like dragging lawyers into an inheritance dispute, and having the lawyers end up with most of the inheritance, only cops aren't looking for money exactly (well, some are, and not necessarily bribes either, but authorities love an enforcement department that brings home the bacon so to speak), but looking to score points for doing their jobs well. Their reputation goes up a tick, the press gets a few stories, and the disputants' reputations (and probably finances too) go in the toilet.

      Keeps would-be criminals fearful of being caught. Makes the police look more effective. There's a lot to be gained from a conviction. 1 innocent person locked up might prevent several murders, be good for the legal business (just like bugs are good business for IT-- remember Y2K), and provides "other" opportunities. More than once, Sherlock Holmes complained to Watson about slow times. The justice system has to be careful it does not become self-serving. I believe it does fairly well at that, but it is unwise to tempt them. Reiser hasn't been convicted, but he's already ruined financially, his health is being hammered, and doubtless he's suffering in all sorts of other ways as well. He's looking a lot grayer in that most recent photo. Monstrously unfair should he be innocent and the justice system knew that but yielded to temptation to keep the machinery running. The show must go on!

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    29. Re:No body by Antarius · · Score: 1

      In a reasonable system there is no way somebody can be convicted of murder without a body
      Indeed. It's a pity that I can't get on his jury. I mean, I won't be convinced that she has been murdered until Speedle, Aiden, Sidle and Cooper find some way to prove it.

      Yup - and I won't compromise. Has to be all 4, or none at all.

      After all, it should be simple for Cooper. He's be able to scan the planet with one of the spy satellites, find her reflection in the reflection of a reflection of a tea-spoon, then run some fancy algorithm to clean it up, getting a full-glamour-shot out of 4 blurry pixels!
    30. Re:No body by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be for me to decide on two sentences worth of data. She should go through the judicial process like any other suspected murderer. At that point, circumstances, mitigating factors, and all sorts of other information can be taken into account. Every case is different, which is why we have judges and juries.

      That said, my God, she murdered three of her own children? Granted, she's apparently not the generally-dangerous criminal type, but I think she needs to pay for that somehow. My post above was referring to hardened, incorrigible individuals, which this person apparently is not, given her behavior after the event. There are plenty of murderers that do time and are released because their circumstances say that they aren't a danger to society at large (crimes of passion, for example). Very clearly, I was talking about serial killers and unstable people who would be an ongoing danger to society.

    31. Re:No body by Sique · · Score: 1

      This is one account of the discovery of the corpses (it's german, I am living in Austria after all). I guess you will understand that I won't give more details on a public website.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    32. Re:No body by BuildMonkey · · Score: 1

      Exculpatory evidence has to be disclosed to the defense by the prosecution. Incriminating evidence can be held until trial. IANALBIAMTO. (I am not a lawyer, but I am married to one.)

    33. Re:No body by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Babelfish did a sufficient job of translating. It sounds like they're not even sure that she did it or that they're hers.

    34. Re:No body by ewieling · · Score: 1

      I don't build my career on it, I just helped out one of my many customers.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    35. Re:No body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a reasonable system there is no way somebody can be convicted of murder without a body. Counterexample: John George Haigh.

      Not that Haigh's case is similar to Reiser's. There does seem to be a real lack of material evidence in Reiser's case, unless the blood splatters were very extensive. I do think that he murdered her, but without a body, there is some doubt.
    36. Re:No body by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that the better way of putting it is:

      No reaspnable justice system would allow a conviction for murder without conclusive evidence that the alleged victim was actually dead.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    37. Re:No body by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I think that the death penalty should be reserved for those who are unusually likely to re-offend based on objective factors (I would actually consider premeditation an objective factor), and for whom we can't afford to keep piling up victims.

      Is the role of the criminal justice system to make people "pay" for their crimes? Or to provide the right amount of punishment necessary to give that individual a chance to change? I.e. do we want vengeance or do we want the ability to make former criminals able to become productive members of society. (Obviously the question is one of degree and focus, more than structure.)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    38. Re:No body by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Define "conclusive evidence." What type of evidence has to prove the conclusivity of the evidence of the victim's actual death? Etc. It ends up meaning the same thing as requiring the jury to be able to personally touch the victim's body in open court.

    39. Re:No body by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Some examples of such conclusive evidence:

      1) Eye witness sees an individual pushing the victim into a car at gunpoint. Hears what he thinks is a gunshot.
      2) Forensic team finds evidence of a substantial pool of blood which is almost certainly related to a cause of death. DNA evidence suggests it is the victims.
      3) On a tip, police search a workshop containing barrels of sulfuric acid. In the bottom of one they find sludge consistant with the distruction of animal tissue and also find intact human gallstones. The defendant is also in possession of valuables the alleged victim had last time she was seen.
      4) Defendant freely confesses to the crime
      5) a substantial bone, such as a femur, rib, skull is found, and DNA tests link it to the victim.

      The problem is that, as a jury, the first question you have to ask is "Is it reasonable to doubt that she is dead?" If so, there is reasonable doubt as to the murder, isn't there? Once you have established that, the next question is "Is there reasonable doubt that Hans did it?" If either question has reasonable doubt, it seems not to reach the question of whether there is reasonable doubt that Hans is guilty of the crime.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    40. Re:No body by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Is the role of the criminal justice system to make people "pay" for their crimes? Or to provide the right amount of punishment necessary to give that individual a chance to change? I.e. do we want vengeance or do we want the ability to make former criminals able to become productive members of society. (Obviously the question is one of degree and focus, more than structure.)


      I'd say a bit of both.

      Consider the person who kills, but for circumstances that will not arise again - an argument that got unusually of of control or something. The assumption is that this murder was a one-time deal for whatever reason. So one could say that the person has changed, or was never really in need of change -- the murder was a one-time event. Does that mean the person should not need punishment, since the change has either already been enacted or was never really necessary, depending on how you look at it?

      Criminal justice is intended to be punitive as well as rehabilitative. We want to provide a disincentive to commit the crime again, as well as return a functioning member of society. For people who are likely to re-offend, or have offended in many cases already, I think the death penalty is the only solution. You can't let them back out, so why keep them around? For people who kill for dubious reasons, but are not likely to do it again, I'd say a bit of retribution is required for the sake of additional deterrent, and then release them as marked members of society.

      The other aspect to consider is the victim's family. Most people don't want to hear that Dad's murderer is free because he's learned his lesson and promises not to do it again. Again, I think circumstances play a big part in this -- the intention. Was it premeditated? Was it an accident? A bar fight that went too far? These things all play a role in how forgiving the family will be too. Knowing that the bad guy is being punished is a major part of the healing process.
    41. Re:No body by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      If the murder has occurred, then you have to ask why it happened, and what can be done to prevent similar circumstances from happening again. If it is due to mental illness, the proper response is to confine the individual to a mental health institution until it is determined that there is no further threat (could be very soon or never-- suppose it appears to have been caused by a frontal-lobe brain tumor). In that case, this is treatment, not punishment. Another great example would be postpartum psychosis causing a mother to kill her child or children (if this has happened more than once, court-ordered sterilization might be necessary).

      Suppose on the other hand, that something unusual happened (for example coming home, finding one's wife having an affair, and murdering both individuals). The key to understand is that this example is traumatic for everyone, and that the murderer will also need both punishment and therapy in order to help prevent this from becoming a cycle. Unfortunately, people have a way of recreating unusual circumstances around them through their own actions, and so I would question what would qualify as a one-time murder which would certainly not repeat.

      We should be looking at punishment as a form of therapy and look at how the length of incarceration affects recitavism rates.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  12. He couldn't get a hotel room? by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
    "And so he finds himself living in his car. Which, for him, seemed the logical thing to do under the circumstances." When Reiser was picked up for DNA testing, he was carrying his passport and nearly $9,000 in cash.

    Yeah, right, he had to live out of his car. He's supposed to be a genius? I guess just in math: not a criminal one.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For several years prior to his wife's disappearance, he's been very strapped for money. He basically bankrupted himself to keep paying the russian programmers who were working on the reiser4 file system. His wife or friend may or may not have been involved in his money problems.

    2. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've carried large sums of cash and my passport. Does that make me a murderer on the run?

          It's completely circumstantial evidence.

          But, if you put enough pieces together, circumstantial evidence can be damning in front of a jury, regardless if the truth is there or not.

          From what I've seen, there are several ways it could have gone.

          1) He killed her (the presumption of law enforcement)
          2) Her new boyfriend, the drug and kinky sex fiend, killed her.
          3) She's a sex slave, living in a crack house somewhere in the less friendly neighborhoods of any major US city.
          4) She left town, and is living somewhere else in America or Canada.
          5) She left the country, possibly for Russia.

          As someone else said, they don't believe she could be in Russia. Any country with enough land and population, provides a place for anyone to hide comfortably, even in plain site. She could be working as a doctor, using her own name, with enough clients to be very comfortable, and still no one would notice.

          I don't know all the facts, just the ones that have been presented in the media and in interviews. I'm not following closely though. I just know, none of us have all the evidence at our disposal, so none of us can make really educated opinions on it.

          For all we know, it was some one-off killing, where some random lunatic saw a crying woman in a parking lot, killed her, drove her 1000 miles away, and buried her in a shallow grave. Heck, we've all done that once or twice. (j/k)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by doom · · Score: 1

      And so he finds himself living in his car. Which, for him, seemed the logical thing to do under the circumstances." When Reiser was picked up for DNA testing, he was carrying his passport and nearly $9,000 in cash.

      Yeah, right, he had to live out of his car. He's supposed to be a genius? I guess just in math: not a criminal one.

      Their explanation is that this was money for some sort of business payments in Russia -- either, payroll or possibly, some sort of bribes (things are weird in Russia). I know teenagers have a hard time grasping things like this, but $9000 isn't really a lot of money, however weird it is to carry it around with you.

      You want a real example of a genius doing something stupid: what was he doing trying to do business in Russia? He doesn't speak the language: note that Nina was brought in as a translator (speaking of which, if she's supposed to be a hotshot doctor from a rich family, what's she doing working as a translator?). And trying to use a Russian dating service is mildly crazy in itself -- Russian mail-order bride scams abound on the internet at the moment, by the way, and I doubt it's much better doing face-to-face meetings on the ground.

    4. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      "by the way, and I doubt it's much better doing face-to-face meetings on the ground."

      I'm willing to bet Hans agrees with you on that.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by oliderid · · Score: 1

      I've carried large sums of cash and my passport. Does that make me a murderer on the run?

      No but if you plan to pass the Russian borders with a large sum of money, you are crazy person.
      There are plenty of western banks branches in Russia.

      I have worked in Eastern Europe. If you are found with a large amount of cash while passing the customs: Even if the amount isn't over the maximum, you will face problems. You will have to give a good reason. They may suspect an illegal activity. Paying your oversee employees in cash (unregistered job?) is extremely suspicous.

      I have never been paid in cash nor I have paid in cash over there.

      What Hans Reiser says is possible but it looks weird.

    6. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      So lets take a look at the whole case.

      The three most likely possibilities seem to be that Hans killed her, Sturgeon killed her, or she left for Russia herself.

      Now lets look at some weird aspects of the case: (most of these taken from other posters, and are not original).
      Why would Hans go to Russia for programmers when he did not know know Russian? That seems a bit odd.
      Why would a smart guy like Hans want to use a Russian dating service?
      Why would Nina (an obstetrician) be working as a translator for a russian dating service?
      Hans was found with a passport and $9,000 cash. While that is an unusually large amount of money, it is not too large. His
      explanation seems to be that he was going to travel to Russia to pay the Russian programmers he hired. Why would
      he travel to Russia to pay them in person?

      More weird things:
      Nina was having an affair with Sturgeon.
      Sturgeon is a much more unusual fellow than Hans, as evidenced by his wearing drag during the wedding,
      his practice of "death yoga", and his claims that he is a serial killer. If somebody
      should be convicted solely because they are really weird, it should definitely be Sturgeon.

      He may have had books on murder investigation, but seeing as he bought these after the police said they suspected foul play
      implies to me that he knew he would be a suspect, and wanted to know how the whole process worked. Many of us would have done the same thing.

      As for the blood traces in the house and in the car: Without more information about the exact nature of these, I'm unsure how significant they are.
      After all, she was his wife. Heck, my shoe has a bloodstain of a random person. (I'm thinking they had a bloody nose, but I really don't know how it got there. All I do know it that it is not mine.

      Other stuff:

      Nina divorced Hans as soon as she had American citizenship.
      She had custody of the children, and was working on moving them to Russia when she disappeared.

      ---------

      Conclusion: A very weird case. Without more evidence there is definitely significant doubt. Procecuting a murder with no eyewitness and no body is a difficult thing to do successfully.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    7. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hans thought that the opening Russian market would be an efficient means for him to develop complex software inexpensively.

      1. Come up with great filesystem design.
      2. ? = Pay Russians peanuts to implement it.
      3. Profit.

      The mail-order bride was probably more about opportunism. Hans was a nerd. Nerds aren't highly-sought prizes among the female contingent because of low social status. Hans is clearly a bit crazy, so that doesn't help matters any.

      Of course if you've seen those lame crime shows, you know that the mail-order brides always cheat on the people that buy them, resulting in their death at the hands of a man emotionally crippled enough to buy a wife.

      USD9k is peanuts there. It might seem like a lot to have on you at one time, but Hans is a little crazy, and he was having a lot of financial problems. He may have been concerned that if he left the money in a bank a creditor would lay claim to it, or Nina might try to take it. It's not like USD9k is fleeing-the-country money, so if that was his great plan then he certainly didn't contemplate this murder very thoroughly beforehand.

    8. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      some random lunatic saw a crying woman in a parking lot, killed her, drove her 1000 miles away, and buried her in a shallow grave. Heck, we've all done that once or twice.
      I for one have never done that, neither do I think that any significant percentage of the population have ever done that. But maybe that is because I'm not a lunatic, I do occationally wonder if most people are.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    9. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Its fairly well known that Russian programmers are the best for outsourcing highly technical jobs, and ReiserFS would seem to fit the bill.

      I used to live in the same neighborhood as his mom, and he would stay there a lot. At the time my girlfriend was fairly well convinced that he was a probable psycho-killer (not that this proves anything). This was about a year before Nina disappeared. I had no idea that it was Hans until the news broke.

      Coincidentally I was also running ReiserFS on my system at the time and remember having a hell of a time getting the recovery tools to work...

    10. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          That part was a joke.

          And for the sake of all the law enforcement folks who are bound to be drooling over the prospect of an online confession,

          It was a joke. :)

          There are no bodies buried in my back yard (that I know of).

          There's only a few blood stains in my vehicles, but those people are still alive.

          And most importantly, as far as I know, no one I've known has gone missing. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by schon · · Score: 1

      my girlfriend was fairly well convinced that he was a probable psycho-killer (not that this proves anything). Actually, I'd say that if anythig, it proves the reverse.

      When a psychotic killer is uncovered, it's it standard procedure to visit their neighbors, who all say "I had no idea - he was the nicest person." :)
    12. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Hah, good point. :)

    13. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      That part was a joke.
      Phew. After hitting Submit before I suddenly got worried if I was entering an argument with a lunatic serial killer.
      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    14. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by tftp · · Score: 2, Informative
      but $9000 isn't really a lot of money, however weird it is to carry it around with you.

      Most people don't run a business. Those who do, however, understand very well that $9K is nothing if even a tiny business can easily burn through $100K/yr. It would be indeed a reasonable pocket money; an airplane ticket to Russia would cost about $2,500 probably, and he planned to fly there. We can debate why he wasn't using his credit cards and bank accounts, but when you are travelling hard, cold cash usually works better. Besides, it is not unreasonable to assume that he was planning to skip some of Russian payroll taxes.

      He doesn't speak the language

      Many, if not most, Russian programmers can speak English - it's pretty much required in the trade. A translator might be useful when the discussion shifts from technical subjects to financial matters.

      a hotshot doctor from a rich family

      I wouldn't bet on that. Doctors were dime a dozen in the old USSR, and this was just the time when things got worse in the medical professions. Chances are she has a diploma, but that's about it; she would not be allowed to practice in the USA without jumping through many hoops and basically retraining for the local realities. That's probably why she did not work as a doctor - whe was not eligible.

    15. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by straybullets · · Score: 1

      Any country with enough land and population, provides a place for anyone to hide comfortably


      Yes that's a problem. Truly, the population should be implanted RFIDs at birth and all parcell of land CCTVed 24/7.

      Only that way can we be completly safe from murder.

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    16. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by doom · · Score: 1

      a hotshot doctor from a rich family
      I wouldn't bet on that. Doctors were dime a dozen in the old USSR, and this was just the time when things got worse in the medical professions. Chances are she has a diploma, but that's about it; she would not be allowed to practice in the USA without jumping through many hoops and basically retraining for the local realities. That's probably why she did not work as a doctor - whe was not eligible.

      If you look at the article, however, you'll see that some of her defenders say it's absurd that she would've embezzled money from NamSys, because her family is so wealthy.

    17. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by Mickluha+McLay · · Score: 1

      Her mom has been actually recommended by her client as a discount abortionist in a far-away clinic (www.juventa-spb.ru), where a Colposcopic Procedure costs 8 bucks (hundreds down here perhaps?) She is probably making a grand a month. http://detochka.ru/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t13161.html If it is true that Hans has been ordered by the court to pay her support of $8000 a month and to leave her his million dollar house, that would make a difference to them, once they have kids in there custody. Irrespective if she is alive or dead. If you can read Russian: http://owl.pp.ru/ipb/index.php?showtopic=17266 `

    18. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      :)

          Hmmm, with over 1/4 million users on here, the odds of that are slightly higher than any of us would prefer. At least I'm careful not to put my real information out there. You wouldn't be one of those guys who put their phone number and CV right on the site linked from here, would you? :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    19. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          {cough} {cough}

          There's a way to commit any crime, as long as the criminal is intent enough on doing it.

          Swap RFID's out (painful, but worth not spending life in prison) with the person you wish to frame, wear something so you appear like them (hat, mask, whatever), do it, and then swap your chip back. RFID and CCTV is worthless, for the pain of a pin prick.

          The computers have it right, the only way to save humanity from itself is to kill it all.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    20. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by straybullets · · Score: 1


      Ahr, then let's just *pretend* it solves the problem and still sell thousands of units to corrupted governements.
      And weapons, too. They help bring peace to the world.
      /cynical

      --
      With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
    21. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by balthan · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally I was also running ReiserFS on my system at the time and remember having a hell of a time getting the recovery tools to work...

      So Hans murdered your data as well?

    22. Re:He couldn't get a hotel room? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Governments love this stuff, don't worry.

      Hell, look at some of the efficient projects they have going now. The TSA is the latest and greatest. They're defending against a non-threat, and costing billions every year.

      "Consequently, airlines will be confronted with the worst of two worlds -- a national security tax increase added to an already crushing $3.2B tax which holds no promise to enhance aviation security."

      - James C. May, President & CEO - Air Transport Association of America, Inc.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  13. .. In Soviet Russian they find you. by Mickluha+McLay · · Score: 1

    Can't hide over there. In the land ruled by KGB. Its either Hans, Sturgeon, or a some crazy rapist. Happens all the time: this is a big county. A disadvantage of being a pretty girl walking the street in a land with no burka laws, high crime rate, and fat ugly girls.

    1. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused are you suggesting women wear burkas to help prevent rapes?

    2. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Can't hide over there. In the land ruled by KGB.

      Russia a pretty big place.
      If you had connections, you could hide out east in a Siberian Oblast and no one would be the wiser.
      Then again, your connections would need to have a reason for hiding you but money could always be that reason.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by Mickluha+McLay · · Score: 1

      Depends on the bay area location: in SF wearing a burka one can be a drag queen; in Berkley, a ugly old fat chics prepared to undress to support hamas. In Germany, wearing a burka can be an opportunity for a band to become successfull: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zCzWwIsMR4

    4. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by yoprst · · Score: 1

      Can't hide over there
      Nowdays KGB is ruthless, corrupt, barely competent and have absolutely no respect for the law. If she's got someone with some serious money (or better with money and brains) to care about her, she can hide for as long as she likes. Provided that she's really in Russia, which I find really doubtful. It's kind of hard to slip to the other side of the globe unnoticed, especialy when there's no overland route

    5. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by eneville · · Score: 1

      worst

      song

      eva!

    6. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by Mickluha+McLay · · Score: 1

      $25000 that has been offered for information about her alive are perhaps reasonable moneys out there for investigative types to look for her.

    7. Re:.. In Soviet Russian they find you. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Can't hide over there. In the land ruled by KGB.

      Just because the KGB knows you're there doesn't mean they'd tell US law enforcement.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. Re:Well... Let's admit it... by skoaldipper · · Score: 0, Troll

    When the police attempted to question him, Reiser tried to evade them, once even jumping out of his car and running for blocks.
    I saw Hans on a recent episode of Cops 2.0.

    Once several police officers finally pounced upon him, he shrieked back, "Don't taze me, comrade!"
    --
    I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
  15. Soo... by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So Reiser's best friend had sex with Reiser's wife, confessed to the cops that he is a serial killer, but conveniently says he didn't kill Nina...and yet the cops don't arrest him. Sounds like we got the smart ones on that force.

    1. Re:Soo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The friend sounds a little bit insane...
      If his claims don't pan out (I'm sure the cops did follow up on them - at least for previous murder's not related to Nina) then they would think he is just full of shit and a bit crazy (in the literal sense). Although imho the cops should be focusing on both, not just Reiser - but that's what cops do. They focus on one subject at a time, which I think just shows cops are lazy assholes.

    2. Re:Soo... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Police frequently focus on more than one subject at a time. There have also been cases where they will stop public focus on one suspect while monitoring him for changes in behavior. This doesn't mean that they've ruled out whomever they're publicly talking about, but if the pressure is removed from one that is deemed more likely, then that person may slip up. Details of ongoing investigations are often not public records, so we won't know until after any trial is finished.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:Soo... by kithrup · · Score: 1

      The implication by the narrator was that the "confessions" so lacked credence that the cops don't feel a need to do anything. (For example, if they checked on one of the alleged victims, and found that he's still alive -- or died in a different manner than the wannabe-killer described -- then he's just a nut.)

      Don't get me wrong -- I read about the confessions when Wired reported it, and thought it would be immediate reasonable doubt. But this show pointed out that the judge has barred them being mentioned during trial. (Which, depending on the reliability of the guy, may end up being grounds for an appeal.)

    4. Re:Soo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watch a lot of Law & Order too, and while this reads like a bad episode of Special Victims Unit, it turns out to be real. The trial is a bit too far along to suggest that they're just "moving media attention away from the real suspect." They got an indictment in March, and opening statements for the trial start tomorrow.

    5. Re:Soo... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      So if I'm ever accused of a crime I admit to killing 40 people, name names, and when those people turn up alive or having died in a different way than I have described I'm let go and all suspicion is dropped?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Soo... by kithrup · · Score: 1

      No. If you're ever accused of a crime, and a witness in the prosecution's case admits to killing 40 people, all of whom turn up alive or having died in a different way then he described... then suspicion on you is not dropped.

      Why would you think you would be?

      (Again, I don't know what's going on with this. It's all very weird. However, if the police did not arrest him, and the judge barred any mention of his confession in the trial... that makes me think that it was so off-the-wall that the judge had to block it in order to get a fair trial.)

    7. Re:Soo... by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Actually I see nothing unusual about that. It is not unusual for a friend of a suspect to confess in order to the suspects trial more confusing and to introduce reasonable doubt, etc. Especially if there really isn't enough evidence to convict the friend.

      In this case the friend confesses that he is a serial killer but he did not kill that particular woman. Well, guess what, that means that he does not have a murder confession that can land him in jail but he can still go to trial talk a lot about how he loves to kill people and cause reasonable doubt in the jury's mind (without creating sufficient evidence to get him in trouble).

      If he actually pointed out anybody he could have possibly murdered to the police, he would be in jail now. But he isnt, so it is safe to say he has not shown any plausible victims of his serial killing.

      So it seems pretty reasonable for the police and the judge to assume that he is just trying to act out and confuse things to get his friend off.

    8. Re:Soo... by geschild · · Score: 1

      If this turns out to be true then that would be particularly cruel towards Hans Reiser:
      losing your kids without the slightest possibility of ever seeing them again because you are in jail and cannot reasonably defend your parentage, seeing them being whisked away abroad, because the police want what they consider the real killer to slip up while you're suffering in jail innocently?! Besides, isn't this 'serial killer friend' of his already in jail? How is he supposed to slip up?

      I think the idea of 'stupid cops' goes much further in explaining the behaviour of the police department.

      There are at least two quite reasonable, even plausible explanations for his estranged wife's disappearance, both not involving any guilt on Hans' part. Merely on those grounds the man should have been free on bail a very long time ago.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    9. Re:Soo... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of everything that the Oakland Police did, sending the kids to Russia is by far and away the most bizzare and perhaps even illegal (on the part of the Oakland Police) action in this case. In spite of the fact that the children were born to two (at the time) American citizens... Hans and Nina... and that they were also born in the USA, Russia is claiming that they are Russian citizens and refusing to grant a "passport" for either child or an "exit visa".

      On this particular issue, I think Hans has a reasonable chance of a successful lawsuit against the Alameda County prosecutor's office, particularly if he is acquitted. By California State law and U.S. Federal guidelines on the subject, those children should not have been allowed to leave the state of California, much less been granted a U.S. Passport to leave.

      It is also quite reasonable that after the children testified in the pre-trial hearing, that their testimony was not considered "good enough" for the prosecution, and could have even been used as a part of a successful defense in support of their father. If that isn't potential tampering with witnesses, I don't know what that means. This may also be something that could be a subject for an appeal even with a conviction, and shows a level of incompetence on the part of the prosecutor.

    10. Re:Soo... by camusflage · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we got the smart ones on that force.

      "That's some fine detective work there, Lou."

      --
      The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    11. Re:Soo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound analysis! You made only one mistake. You assumed competence on part of the government.

  16. Read the comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the comments on the article page, it's disgusting.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. The dudes in never never land by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Have you seen the pre-interview? The guy seems to be on a permamnet mushroom trip.

    As for marrying a Russian woman, I can say one thing about them, they know how to make money.
    They aren't meak I'll tell you that.

    If you are a weak man they are going to leave your ass.

    1. Re:The dudes in never never land by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the pre-interview? The guy seems to be on a permamnet mushroom trip. Or maybe, you know, the stress of being accused of murdering his significant other is having an effect on him?
    2. Re:The dudes in never never land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "logic" and "facts" are not welcome here!

  19. Attractive women often think rules are for others. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hans Rieser's explanation is at least plausible. Very attractive women often begin to believe that no rules apply to them.

    Another question: What are the merits of the Rieser file system?

  20. Re:No body...yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who ever implied that the justice system in the United States is "reasonable"? Where do YOU live?

  21. Correction and link by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Error: It is Reiser, not Rieser.

    Reiser File System.

    Note that the Slashdot story misspells Reiser's name.

  22. Doctor and translator? by fast+penguin · · Score: 1

    A dating service arranged a meeting at a café in St. Petersburg, but Reiser didn't fall for his date -- he liked the woman who came along to translate.

    I don't get it. She has a medical degree and works as a translator for a dating service?? Are there so many medics in Russia and so few people that speak English that it actually pays better to work as a translator?? The all story smells fishy...

    --
    My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
    1. Re:Doctor and translator? by Cassini2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Translators get paid in foreign dollars. Doctors are civil service positions in Russia, so they get paid poorly. A Doctor could moonlight as a translator in Russia, and make more money from translating than from saving people ...

    2. Re:Doctor and translator? by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Hmm... isn't a "doctor" a person who has a PhD? You don't have to be a medical industry employee in order to be called a "doctor".

    3. Re:Doctor and translator? by Bradmont · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, she's an obstetrician.

      Perhaps she was working as a translator to pay her way through medschool, or something similar? (of course this is entirely conjecture)

    4. Re:Doctor and translator? by fast+penguin · · Score: 1

      I guess... English is not my native language...

      --
      My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
  23. suicide is murder by acidrain · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    way off topic here, but at least in canada, when you try and commit suicide that is considered attempted murder. of course trying to kill yourself is crazy so you also have an automatic insanity defence.

    --
    -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
    1. Re:suicide is murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      of course trying to kill yourself is crazy so you also have an automatic insanity defence.

      Sometimes killing yourself is the rational thing to do, not that you'll ever see a bible thumper admit it out loud except when they get to be publicly flaming hypocrites and tell everyone how various criminals should do the world a favor and just kill themselves.

    2. Re:suicide is murder by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about laws. We're talking about morality. Sure, for insurance purposes and others, it's good for the laws to disincentivize suicide. But it ain't as bad as murder, and if that's not self evident to someone, that person is psychotic (seriously, they would have to be mentally ill).

      You own yourself. You don't own other people. Therefore, whatever is wrong with ending your own life is totally different from destroying someone else.

      Turing is a genius, and often geniuses are tortured. And probably suffering from an illness. It's even possible to say Turin did not kill himself, but rather died of insanity. That is why he is still loved.

      Reiser (if this story is true) is a bastard.

    3. Re:suicide is murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You own yourself. You don't own other people.

      That is highly dependent on culture - In many cultures, you don't own yourself, the land or community owns you. If you suicide, you're stealing from the community you exist to serve.

    4. Re:suicide is murder by empaler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Turing was also gay. Horrible habit, that.

    5. Re:suicide is murder by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, back then "gay" and "tortured" were not too far from each other.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:suicide is murder by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Things haven't changed too much if you look at it from the sphincter's perspective.

      Oh yeah, I went there. ;)

    7. Re:suicide is murder by krog · · Score: 1

      In Turing's case, the torture which propelled him to suicide was Britain's forced chemical treatment of his "condition", homosexuality. He had the choice between prison, and a program of estrogen therapy.

    8. Re:suicide is murder by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      In my view, no, it's not a matter of your culture's consensus. Either you positively own yourself or you do not. I asserted that you do, and I'm right. The cultures you are talking about are wrong. Your society only has a right to your help insofar as you join society and benefit from its laws and goods. If you want out, that's equitable.

      And even if you're right, there is no fair comparison from suicide to murder, as even in those cultures that you reference, you still are the primary victim of your own death, and to murder is simply morally worse than to kill yourself, on the basis of damages.

  24. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by maop · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know. Meg Ryan was the real genius.

  25. Things don't add up on both sides of this story... by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I RTFA: This just doesn't add up. Why did the children get sent to Russia?!? I assume that Hans is capable of taking care of them, how did the kid's grand parents get custody of their natural father is still alive and kicking? The kids were growing up here and how they were transplanted to a culture remarkably different?

    I don't believe that Hans showing up at the school to see the kids and give them a telephone number is 'suspect'..like come on. Did Nina orchestrate these events? Or was Hans so upset about her decision for divorce once she became a US citizen, and that she screwed his best friend, that he had to kill her?

    Seems to me like Nina took off for the homeland, and has her kids there too. Hans is left holding the bag...

    Now I probably won't get updates for my ReiserFS....damnit.

  26. Weird: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Quote from the 20/20 story:

    "Sturgeon won't talk publicly until after the trial, but after Nina's disappearance he made a bold confession to police, so outrageous that the judge won't allow it to be mentioned in court. He claims to be a serial killer, but said he is not responsible for Nina's death."

  27. OT: two job familes bad? by doom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Partly for that reason. In my opinion, it's rare for a maladjusted child to come from a home where the father works, and the mother cares for the children, but it's common for maladjusted children to be latch key kids with both parents working 2 jobs.

    Do you have stats to back that up, or are you living your life based on what you've seen on television?

    1. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I would consider that as a single parent home. It would almost be the same as when one parent just wasn't around.

      On a personal side, I didn't start getting into trouble at school and such until my mother took on a job for extra cash during the carter years. Then when they split up, I got into even more trouble. I account this to a lack of parental supervision coupled with extreme boredom. It's not like I had bad parents, they did what they could, but that started becoming overwhelming. I would say that from what I have seen and in my own personal experiences, that two parent families with a competent stay at home parent produce better behaved children that are less likely to commit a crime on the whole and it goes downhill once you start taking levels of parental guidance out of the picture.

      And we hear this all the time as a defense for why people are the way they are and commit crimes and such. It goes from daddy didn't hug me enough to a parent abused them to they came from a single family home to their parents weren't around much and they were left to their own devices. I guess the idea of a competent parent means a lot in this too. You could have two incompetent parents doing worse then a single mom working two jobs.

    2. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should attribute it to increased testosterone.

      Or I guess you could blame your mom for working. I'd think that would tell me you have mommy issues, though.

      If both of your parents neglected you or beat you then you could possibly whine about the claims of others. Otherwise you're trivializing their problems, which seems to be your intent. Dick.

    3. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is being trivialized, at all. And no, it isn't mommy issues or testosterone. I was 7 when it happened but it doesn't really matter when or who it has happened to. I see it quite often, you have perfectly good kids that go sour with varying degrees and this usually happens when competent parent oversight starts missing from the picture.

      Besides, whats wrong with that? I mean they are kids. Kids need supervision and guidance. They say that the part of your brain that rationalizes informed decisions isn't considered mature or fully developed until you are about 20 years old. I guess this is why the older people get, the less stupid stuff you accept from them or expect from them.

    4. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it was true for you, obviously it must be true for EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. I bow to your superior logic.

    5. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are stats about how much time children has spent with their parents (and/or family) and how maladjusted they are. I will not point you to the stats, you may have to leave your computer (and YOUR television) and go to you local institution for cultural studies to get them. But generally they point to that the more time spent with different adults, the less maladjusted the children gets. And the adult with the most positive impact is a loving mother, especially for children in the age of 0-5 year or so.

      Then there are mothers and families so overprotecting that it can become a negative impact instead just because their children does not get enough experience to handle a normal society. In that case you can almost call the family maladjusted according to me. And that is why it is good for a child to meet many different adults, to learn to interact with different people.

    6. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by schon · · Score: 1

      I didn't start getting into trouble at school and such until my mother took on a job for extra cash during the carter years. Then when they split up, I got into even more trouble. I account this to a lack of parental supervision coupled with extreme boredom. Funny, I come from a poor single-parent household, have 5 brothers and sisters, and have never "gotten into trouble" even though there was a lack of parental supervision, and grew up in a small town with nothing to do (extreme boredom.) In addition, lots of kids (I'd say most) in my class, who had two parents at home (one of which stayed home) ended up "in trouble".

      Maybe you should stop blaming others for your past mistakes, and admit that the fault lies with you?
    7. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have stats to back that up, or are you living your life based on what you've seen on television? I've seen the stats before, that said kids were more likely to do worse in school and get into more trouble. But I'm not the GP and too lazy to look it up for you.

      Are you of the opinion that a parent's lack of influence for extra hours of every day is somehow GOOD for a child? Bizarre.

      BTW, TV seems to promote both parents working and/or single parenting...
    8. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. the key was competent parental supervision. Some are challenged by the competency of their parents in the first place let alone when you state taking them away from the picture. And I don't think wealth has anything to do with it.

      And no, I wasn't blaming others for my mistakes. What I did was of my own free will, purposeful at the time and I wouldn't even consider those actions as a mistake because of the deliberateness in which I employed. Pointing out that there was no one to say "that ain't right" is just an observation of how far it got before I was "in trouble". This isn't about passing the buck. It is about how good parents or supervising authorities make a world of difference in the behavior and outcome of a person during the ages most impressionable on them. the more then better to a point. The less or less quality of them, and so goes the behavior of the child.

      One instance of in trouble was at a function at a local Christian school where I was more or less forced to attend. I didn't actually attend this school for learning, it was just a function that served as a baby sitter for a while. I think I was about 10 or 11 at the time. I remember watching Mchale's navy where they were using Co2 fire extinguishers to cool beer. So after being left to our own devices, I got bored and started playing with one, It was liquid and didn't have the effects I envisioned. I then took another and sprayed it to see that it wasn't cold but a power came out. So we shot it in th air acting like the fallout was snow. we then went to another room that we later found to be the art room. I went through the two in the Gym room where I was left unsupervised and proceeded to walk the hallways gathering up as many as I could find without having to break glass or anything to get access to them. I think I empties around 4 or 5 more out in the art room and no one noticed a thing until two days later. No one asked me a thing until one of the teachers at that school remembered be walking down the hall with two fire extinguishers under my arms (but she didn't say anything when it was happening). So it wasn't anything super serious, just super stupid that probably should have never happened if someone would have been supervising us. And it wouldn't have gone near as far as it did if the one person who saw me with the "goods" would have asked what I was ding with them at 9pm on a Friday night, in a school I didn't attend, that had some event going on that she was chaperoning.

      Other examples of getting into trouble was watching TV instead of doing home work, getting detentions for stupid shit and stuff like that. I didn't get into serious trouble until I was 12 or 13 and took my dad's pickup truck for a joy ride and did a donut in someone's front yard because I couldn't push the clutch in far enough to get it in reverse when I was attempting to turn around. And I think that was about the extent of the serious trouble while I was in school. Of course there was the time when I was 9 and grandpa told me about skipping school to go hunting in one of his sane moments before dieing of cancer so I figured I would do the same. I took dad's .357 with no shells and my .22 and walked all the way across town to the rail road tracks and then followed them for about 4 hours before turning back. I got some target shooting in but didn't see any rabbits. I was tired on the way back so I went to my aunt's house who saw the guns and called my dad at work causing a big ruckus.

      So yea, nothing major, just stupid shit that if someone was around to say what the fuck are you doing, it never would have happened.

    9. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just list the journal reference where some stats are published? No need to go to some "local institution for cultural studies", when I have access to thousands of research journals through my university library.

      Without reference to evidence, it is mere assertion, as is this: "Children who are raised by two parents with full time jobs have better college outcomes than children who don't". Sounds reasonable, and I claim there is research to back it up, but without actually referencing such research, how do you know I'm making the whole thing up (I am).

    10. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Well, if it was true for you, obviously it must be true for EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD. I bow to your superior logic.

      I know from experience, working in schools and dealing firsthand with children and their families that there is a strong correlation to the presence of competent parenting and better adjusted children. I have also seen in a few situations a very well adjusted child come from a bad family situation. Though, that would definitely be the exception, not the rule. I can not give you hard statistics, but I can tell you that a majority of the poorer performers I dealt were from families where proper adult supervision was not present as much. I have also seen narcissistic wannabes come from families where one of the parents did stay home, but was not a good parent.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    11. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is making it up. There are no studies that show kids of dual income families have mal adjusted children more than single income families. At minimum mal adjusted would be extremely difficult to quantify. The data does indicate that kids in childcare (dual income families) are more aggressive than those who are not but as they age in gradeschool this disparity goes away.

      The main statistical evidence seems to show that the best predictor of success of a child is the success of their parents regardless of how many incomes there are.

      In large part the combination of poverty and single-parent homes is among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future.

    12. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      there is but one root factor here dipshit, it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc

      two parent families with a competent stay at home parent produce better behaved children that are less likely to commit a crime

      I think you're defending something you don't quite agree with. For instance as a single parent I find the above quote highly offensive as it automatically connects "single parenting" with "bad parenting".

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    13. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by doom · · Score: 1

      There are stats about how much time children has spent with their parents (and/or family) and how maladjusted they are. I will not point you to the stats, you may have to leave your computer (and YOUR television) and go to you local institution for cultural studies to get them.

      Now that's a horrible thought. Are you saying that there's oodles of data supporting the traditional American nuclear family, and there are no conservative groups trumpeting it on the web?

      But generally they point to that the more time spent with different adults, the less maladjusted the children gets.

      Except that it appears that: Children spend more time with parents:

      Despite a sharp increase in the number of dual-career families, children spend more time with their parents than children did two decades ago, according to a U-M study.

      The study, forthcoming in Demography, finds that children ages 3-12 in two parent families spent about 31 hours a week with their mothers in 1997, compared to about 25 hours in 1981. The amount of time spent with fathers increased from about 19 hours to 23 hours a week.
    14. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by doom · · Score: 1

      Well going by this review, it looks like the working mother role-model has a definite positive effect on daughters, but there might be a problem with "middle-class boys" for some reason:

      Further studies have demonstrated that a mother's employment status and occupation tends to be a good predictor of the outcome of the working mother's daughter, since daughters tend to follow in their mother's footsteps. Typically, working mothers held higher educational aspirations for their children and furthermore, most daughters tend to achieve higher grades in school. (Spitz 606) It is also important to note that both male and female children acquire more egalitarian sex role attitudes when both parents work. Boys with working mothers showed better social and personal skills than boys of non-working mothers. On a negative note, middle-class boys tend to do worse in school when their mothers worked. (Shreve 118)

    15. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not have any stats to back that up but you bet that lower band (band: school rating system) Hong Kong schools seem to be full of maladjusted children and incidentally most of the parents of problem children here both work. Contrast that with the children involved in a recent tragedy in a poor neighbourhood.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4238589a12.html
      http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=55157&sid=15812229&con_type=3&d_str=20071015&sear_year=2007

      Those links however do not have any of the positive comments that the SCMP quoted from the officials of the school where the children attended. They say that the children were well behaved top students in their class and they are that in spite of a mother who was not very stable but at home and being part of a poor family.

    16. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me explain this to you, my mom was a drug addict when I was that age and I would have told you were a fucking idiot for stealing those fire extinguishers. Which isn't to say that I haven't broken the law far worse than you have (and wealth had everything to do with it, so don't be a fucktard), it's just that I'm not an asshole that goes around destroying shit cause I'm bored. Yes supervision matters, but at the same time you're a certain kind of stupid that I'm not.

      I'd say you were absolutely normal regardless of your parents splitting up, I think it had zero noteworthy life altering affects on you. You're arguing the classic "Nature VS Nurture" cause of criminality here and making very broad generalizations tailored around the idea that life is better with a two parent household where one parent stays home. It's just not so, I remember growing up with this one kid, I swear he was the most neglected kid (worse than I, his parents were both accountants if interested) I had ever known, you know why he didn't ever get into trouble? It just wasn't in his nature to take his aggressions out on the people around him, that and he always had food and clothes. Another friend I knew was the opposite, good parents, good house, enough money for clothes and food, but the kid was a total asshole, why? Because some people are just good at being assholes.

      Now I'm not saying that your parent's divorce didn't have a negative effect on you, I'm just saying you were probably the kind of kid that needed a little extra supervision anyways and that supervision tends to lax a little as you get older especially for the ages you started getting into "trouble".

      On a more personal note, the level of supervision I was under had very little effect on my upbringing. It was eventually my mom's words and advice that pulled me back in from the shit, that and her ability to put her money where her mouth was and get clean. I was completely unsupervised though, which by your theory should make me some bloodthirsty crook, this is not the case.

      You cannot summarize the ingredients for a happy home in one sentence without offending everyone that doesn't fit that mold. All you can say is that when YOU were a kid YOU were affected adversely when YOU went unsupervised.

      Not to mention the fact that the idea of having one parent at home taking care of the kids is actually rather new in the scope of man's history (industrial age on), traditionally the kids worked with their parents or often for someone else if needed. Personally, I think a lot of men that grow up this way wind up expecting an awful lot from the women they meet, they are typically spoiled to the point that they believe a woman they date ought to be their servant, even if she works.

    17. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Are you bitter about your life? Money is not the only factor, nor is being single. There are plenty of well off couples who simply both want careers, are not good parents, have their own set of overwhelming issues...

      You can find the comment as offensive as you want. It was not meant to be. Your reaction and language back up what I was saying. Single parents have a statistically higher chance of having troubled children and being troubled themselves. It has a lot to do with the extra stress, self-doubt (many times stemming from whatever caused the person to be a single parent, and what they had to give up to become a single parent) not whether or not they are bad people. Whatever blanket reason you might want to give, there are many factors, money only being one. There is a reason advertising campaigns like "Parents, the anti-drug" are out. They are true. And for parents to be able to parent, they have to be there. A one parent family is not so different from a two parent family with both parents working (especially in retail or some other job when your hours do not mesh with your childrens' hours).

      Married parents can have just as many issues as well. If your spouse is not there for the children, and constantly gets in your way while you are trying to help the children, then the net is a greater negative for the children. Life is not perfect, and neither are people. Things happen, we loose ones we love and wind up alone, those we marry turn out to be horribly wrong for us, etc... Being disadvantaged does not make us bad, it merely means we have a harder fight than others (but normally not as hard as others still).

      As a single parent, are you able to be with your children from the time they get out of school until the time they go back the next day? Are you able to leave work at a moment's notice to deal with their issues that need attention? Are you able know all of their friends, and their parents as well? Are you able to sit down with them and assist them with their homework, ensuring it is not only complete, but well learned? Are you able to volunteer in their schools to know what is going on in their classes on a weekly basis? Are you able to take them on trips to teach them about the world around them? Are you able to have a social life they can be part of to see how good healthy relationships work? Are you able to...? Just in case you were thinking I am attacking single parenting, there are many married couples who can not answer yes to these questions! The best parenting starts with being there, but not being able to be there does not make you a bad parent, it just makes you not there. If you can not do that, you are already behind. Single or married does not change that. No matter how good you are (I am or anyone is), you can't make up for not being present.

      Most important of anything is what kind of example do you set for your children? Not what you say (maybe how you say things), but more importantly, what you do, what promises you make *and* keep, what bad habits you have, how much you know about them (they need to know they are important to you), how you follow the rules you set, the laws around you and so on. Being married does not make you better at these things. You have to really want to be a good parent to hit all these things. Anyone can do it, most do not.

      Being a single parent is tough. I know. But, you can not put your head in the sand and pretend that you can do the same job as two parents working together (and I know that for people who are divorced, more often than not, the parents were not able to work together or provide a good example of marriage because one or the other or both would not commit and keep their part of the marital promise/commitment). We all have 24 hours per day, whether we like it or not. You can only do the best you can do. Is it good enough? You will know in thirty to fifty years. Until then, ranting like a child and swearing like a child only shows you have issues that belong to you. The childlike

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    18. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to go into how people grow up expecting too much out of their women when they had a stay at home mom. That is an entirely different concept.

      But like you, I grew out of my bullshit and like you, it took one or two defining moments to make that happen. Yours happened to be a talk or series of talks with your mother and mine was a situation where I almost died and about took a good friend with me. I guess if they don't raise you good, you can always get the hell scared out of you (and no, I'm not pushing a religion). But as you admitted, you have done some stuff (maybe worse then me within respects of the law)

      It isn't that you cannot change, everyone can do that. Even some of the most vile criminals have the capacity to change. It is that you were a certain way until you made that change. And you were probably more "that way" because of the lack or good, quality parental supervision. And when I say quality parenting, it goes to say that type of parents too. I also used to know a rich kid who had everything. His parents would just throw money at him to keep him occupied and out of their hair instead of being a competent and quality parent. You might look at this kid's upbringing and think he had everything, but the fact of the matter was he had everything but good parents. His father is a dentist, his mom was more or less a trophy wife who was always busy doing things with people. Bottom line is that he got into drugs really bad, Held a shotgun to his head to pressure his parents into putting him into paying for and placing him into rehab, he got out and with one relapse, never woke up.

      I'm not saying that you will be a blood thirsty deranged lunatic either. You could end up being a stupid ass like me who's biggest crime was minor property damage or you could end up in trouble with the law. The bottom line is that to some degree, you are a product of your environment. It takes either solid values and ethics instilled into a person for them to be "good" or something to make them want to be "good". A lot of instinct that is inherent to the animalistic nature of humans is considered to be "bad" in modern societies. You don't learn that these bad things are bad without either being taught and having those values instilled. The only way to do that is to either be raised that way (competent parents) or to have something happen that makes you want to be that way.

      Oh, and one more thing, parental supervision doesn't have to be mom and dad. It can be grandma or grandpa or anyone taking on the guardian role. Lacking parents doesn't mean you won't have the equivalent of a parent. Often it means you end up with an experienced parent like a grandparent. Your right though, it isn't a cut and dry mommy didn't love me or daddy was never around thing. It is way more complicated then that. But having a (stay at home) parent that is competent enough to instill what society considers to be good values and is around enough to devote enough time needed to make this happen is a leg up from not having the same quality of parents.

    19. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by AVee · · Score: 1

      Is it really that hard to understand or are just trying to silence your own conscience here. Children who are growing up need care and attention, preferably from their parents. Now, I don't give a shit if that is mom or dad or both of them half the time, but people are responsible for their children and should look after them. You just can't walk away from that with lame excuses about needing to get out of the house (go to the playground and the zoo, it's fun) and you can't compensate not being there by buying a playstation. And most of the time you don't need the extra income as well when you stop paying for daycare and stop buying playstations.

    20. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Are you bitter about your life?

      Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?

      Single parents have a statistically higher chance of having troubled children and being troubled themselves.

      Show me some numbers.

      As far as poverty causing the problems you are mentioning, you might find that the problems you are mentioning are more so a cause of the poverty.

      It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.

      Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.

      I would say that from what I have seen and in my own personal experiences, that two parent families with a competent stay at home parent produce better behaved children that are less likely to commit a crime on the whole...

      This is the sentence you're defending, it's simply stating that two parent families with a competent stay at home parent are typically better/more productive than all others. I call bullshit, if life is so peachy keen this way why do so many people get divorced? Another way to put it is that the "two parent family" bit has far less to do with it than the "competent parent" part. Go ahead, look up some numbers.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    21. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great statement, and does a lot to clarify your position, but...

      The only way to do that is to either be raised that way (competent parents) or to have something happen that makes you want to be that way.

      The professional community holds that this is not necessarily true, people are also considered to have a genetic disposition for social pleasing or anti-social behavior. For instance your anti-social behaviors may be predominantly rooted in genetics, whereas mine might be more attributable to environmental conditions. Otherwise, your statement about two parent households doing better than single parent households is something I have NEVER in my life found to be true, through friends family and what not.

    22. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?

      No, you just come across that way.

      Show me some numbers.

      Okay, you asked for it, here are some links. There are thousands of entries in the databases and journals that are not outdated research. Many of which you can not access directly form the web (subscription required). Here are a few links I glossed over quickly:

      Do you really want me to go on? As I had said before, there is a ton of research that shows this. There are many reasons, poverty being but one. Children of single parent households are at greater risk (risk means chance, as in it might be, but might not be), but not doomed. And, I was not making a comment on yourself (just the language you used and the attitude which you came across with.) I have studied and worked in psychology, sociology and recovery. Have you? If you have, what has caused you to believe that economics are the sole foundation of family's woes. That sounds like a very narrow and personal understanding of the issues at hand. I have seen mental health, drugs, accidents, abuse, life crises, market changes, job shifts, marital issues, and many others things cause the issues you so conveniently blame poverty for. On the flip side, I have seen outstanding leaders, students, writers, managers, researchers, etc come from poverty stricken homes. Our world has a fine history of great individuals growing up in poverty to lead and become icons of success.

      Poverty is a societal crime anymore in my opinion, but it is not the cause of all of these issues. Having worked in schools, I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the attitude of the parent(s) that make the crucial difference. And, there is also a great deal of research out there to explain to you as well.

      It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.

      And you are making a gross simplification of an enormous problem touching on a multitude of issues from mental health to parent's values. How do you explain so many children of well off parents winding up in poverty, so many children of poverty stricken parents winding up great successes? Poverty has something to do with it, but not as much as things have to do with poverty. One of the reasons I support public education over private is poverty discrimination inherent in private educations. Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with. That is another reason I asked if you were bitter about your life. The way we use language and the way we disparage others is a very big clue. The more bitter we are on the inside, the more we lash out on the outside. At others we do not know and even more so at those who are close to us.

      Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.

      I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?], it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc Uh, yes it does. If you have experience researchin

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    23. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      * Research [bmj.com]
      * More research [sciencedaily.com]
      * More Research [opfs.org.uk]
      * Oblig wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
      * Someone almost any father should know about [copss.org]
      * More research [hrsdc.gc.ca]

      None of these relate crime rates with single parenting. You can go on, if you intend on looking for something relevant.

      Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with.

      You'd think you'd notice that as your own social ineptitude and correct the condescending manner in which you speak to people that you feel you have pegged as less emotionally stable than you.

      I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?]

      It's not possible you said something to piss me off? Why is everything my deep seeded issue? God I hate psychologists, isn't it also possible that you're an inept quack? I mean seriously, how would we ever know? You're definitely not making me feel any better making snide little remarks and negative insinuations about my family life.

      Money is not the only factor, nor is being single. ... A one parent family is not so different from a two parent family with both parents working (especially in retail or some other job when your hours do not mesh with your childrens' hours). ... Married parents can have just as many issues as well. If your spouse is not there for the children, and constantly gets in your way while you are trying to help the children, then the net is a greater negative for the children.

      This is where you essentially agreed with me, competent parenting is by and far more indicative of a healthy upbringing than any other factor. Likewise, poverty is generally held as the #1 determining factor in a child's disposition for criminality.

      You have to really want to be a good parent to hit all these things. Anyone can do it...

      A far more benevolent statement than...

      ...two parent families with a competent stay at home parent produce better behaved children that are less likely to commit a crime...

      This sentence you're defending implies that all other family types are in some way not as healthy, you can't see the logical flaw here? Or are you too busy arguing for a family model you grew up with and have advocated for the past 25 years? Emotionally attached to something? Certainly, you can't claim to be unbiased.

      Your reaction and language back up what I was saying. Single parents have a statistically higher chance of having troubled children and being troubled themselves.

      You're a fucking quack.

      Until then, ranting like a child and swearing like a child only shows you have issues that belong to you.

      Swearing is not a fucking disease anymore than psychobabble is, and your use of said psychobabble (as a professional) to demean me and call me simple, is something I find far more offensive.

      Your defenses may be up as you perceive that I am blanketing all single parents as bad parents, but that is your interpretation based on your fears, your expectations and your shortcomings, not mine, or any other parents.

      My defenses are up, because telling people they are at a disadvantage and more likely to fail is one of the most damaging psychological things you can do to people, and you a self proclaimed expert, seems to defend this stance (by blaming those offended), rather than having the patience to provide a lucid description of the situation as it really is. And you act as if you have no clue how many "lay people" honestly believe (more past tense in the past ten years or so) that all single parents are bad parents. You might as well tell a black man that his problem with the word "Nigger" is his problem and he shouldn't feel defensive the term is

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    24. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and there's more crooks in church than in prison.

    25. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to harp on one thing - but...

      As a single parent, are you able to be with your children from the time they get out of school until the time they go back the next day?

      There are two terms for parents who do that: Helicopter parents, and BAD PARENTS.

      Children who have parents who are constantly there are NOT going to be able to become independently thinking, productive, happy adults. Please don't do that to your children, and if you think you couldn't avoid it, please never have children.

    26. Re:OT: two job familes bad? by cyphercell · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry that was out of line and hypocritical.

      Bitter is a bad word for my emotion. Probably more disturbed, I grew up in a single parent home, and now that I'm divorced (a good thing tm), I'm also a single parent, both me and my sister are college graduates, have rarely taken welfare, and are reasonably successful in most everything we attempt. My children, though affected by the divorce, are emotionally literate, emotionally stable, and well educated for their ages (me). As a parent looking back on my childhood I don't see a lot of issues that arose from anything other than the "perceived" difficulties of single parenting. The "perceived difficulties of single parenting" had a profound effect on my mother at the time (by proxy me and my sister also), which is something you don't see so much today (probably more so where you work than I), but it is still there. And I'll be damned if me or my kids will ever feel inferior because of the structure of our family, it's "quality not quantity".

      You would probably consider me to be an exception but, let me say something I think of as a fact of life, "there's no such thing as single parenting". Only after the nuclear family was there this notion of "single parenting", all throughout history children have traditionally been raised as part of their "families", now if a single parent doesn't have any family that can jump in, they still choose and interact with everyone that watches their children. A single parent may have to coordinate something where friends, babysitters, and teachers are dealt with at a more intimate and selective level, but a caring parent will compensate for any gap in their children's lives with just a little bit of encouragement, so long as there aren't any self esteem issues.

      Now you can take that for what it's worth, or go back to spitting out some flimsy assertion based on some vague study that relates family structure to crime, but who is to say that criminals aren't more likely to be single and their children aren't more likely to commit crime? It's something you see often around here, "relation != causation". Not to mention the fact that every human added to a study is a potential for a fuck up (whether they are the test subjects or the testers), I mean you can't even give people placebos without them screwing with the results for Christ's sake.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  28. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by fwr · · Score: 1

    It's kind of hard to give the natural father custody of the kids if said father is in custody himself.

  29. Re:Death Penalty! by Eternauta3k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, the most convenient way to put money in the hands of a Russian programmer is electronically.
    Well, it's the best way, but some russians are kinda ass-backwards when it comes to that.
    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Re:Death Penalty! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This kind of thought is the reason that we have the system that we do. Just because someone is a complete and utter dick doesn't mean that they're guilty of murder. Controlling? Probably. Abusive? Perhaps. But there are a lot of controlling, abusive dicks that don't murder their wives. There's evidence against him, but it has to go through a court first. I was saying this to others in the Scott Peterson case, too, and it's important that it not just be a formality.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    his kind of thought is the reason that we have the system that we do. Just because someone is a complete and utter dick doesn't mean that they're guilty of murder.

    You need to educate yourself on this issue. We have this system the way we do because it is true. Dicks that abuse their wives are statistically likely to kill them. In fact, there's a better correlation for that than there is for linking manmade CO2 to global warming. Just look at it logically. If you so little regard the mother of your children that you beat her and ruin her life when she's trying to help you, why wouldn't you kill her if you think she actually betrayed her. It's total sociopathic logic - good == beating, bad == kill. Nina was bad, and so he killed her.

    Even look at his whole defense argument - Nina was bad, Nina was bad... not one shred of remorse or loss for her. And really, honestly, you could probably make an argument that even if he wasn't even 90% guilty, he's just such a dick that he should be executed. The guy treated his whole family like shit, and his much hyped file system wasn't even all that original to begin with. PICK was doing his stuff way before he even thought of it.

    --
    This is my sig.
  34. Re:Death Penalty! by pipatron · · Score: 1

    he still ultimately must wind up on death row

    How come? Do you think it's likely that he will murder someone else?

    You actually want to end a persons life, with no means what so ever to undo your judgment if it happens that these circumstantial evidence are proven wrong?

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  35. Yes, Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Because anyone who loves his wife that blindedly should be put to death! He's guilty that he didn't see the signs stacking-up before her disappearance act! I'm sitting here typing this, next to two soon-to-be-married people that have only been together for 1-year, and everything the male is doing and saying to the female would be thought of as dominating in script-written form if not the acknowledgment of the female was skewed and sarcastic.

    Geeks should not date non-geeks.

    I think it is a pretty clear cut case that Reiser is guilty. By his own admission, Reiser was a very controlling husband who dominated his wife. In all of his interviews, he doesn't even seem to grasp the sacrifices that he asked his wife to make. She's a non-person to him. He trashed her career so he could work on his, would disappear for months at a time in Russia, and then, by other witnesses, often screamed at her over the phone. No wonder she slept his with his best friend. Thus, you already have all the patterns of domestic abuse in place - and for that, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that predicts Reiser would in fact kill his wife.

    I'm sure its easy to believe that Reiser's just "a little weird" and being persecuted, but what you have here is a control freak in his software, and ultimately, a control freak in his personal life, and when his wife slept with someone else, he flipped out and killed her.

    His story doesn't add up at all. I've had to live in my car, but I've never been in a situation where I felt like I needed to remove the passenger seat. And, if I had $9000 in cash, I would think I would at least find myself a room. Usually, people with $9000 in cash can put together a place to stay. Even in the USA, Reiser could have rented a room for like $200-$300 a month, an apartment for $500-$600, if he was looking on the cheap. Finally, the most convenient way to put money in the hands of a Russian programmer is electronically.

    Reiser killed Nina in the car, and cleaned it out thoroughly, which explains why it was wet, except for the seat she was sitting in, which had to be removed. The seat is probably with the body, most likely. The $9000 in cash and passport were to allow him to leave the country and go to Russia, and the reason he ran from the cops, to begin with, is that he knew that he did it.

    REISER, wife abusing bastard who is guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and I'd say, that's a capital offense. Hell of a file system he made, but, he still ultimately must wind up on death row.

    I'd have no problem signing the warrant myself.
    1. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because anyone who loves his wife that blindedly should be put to death!

      If he loved his life so blindedly, why didn't he pay child support?

      Why the restraining order(s)?

      He didn't love her, and he killed her.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      "Child support" was never dictated - the custody battle did not get to that level. She alleged that he failed to support the children, but he disputes that. He was under serious financial hardship, but he claims she stole from him. As for the restraining order, it means nothing. There was no proof, and a huge percentage of divorce cases have the woman getting a restraining order. Twas a good troll until the last sentence. I mean come on, who in this day and age is so naive to believe a woman in a divorce case? I guess, maybe if you are like 14 and living under a rock - but me, I was well aware of these shenanigans even when I was in high school.

    3. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Twas a good troll until the last sentence. I mean come on, who in this day and age is so naive to believe a woman in a divorce case?

      Boy, that's an openly sexist admission, if I ever heard one. So, that's really what we have here, is that, ./ has a lot of international posters that pretty much buy into Reiser's "she was terrible" defense, as if, she deserved it. So, that's what liberalism -really- is!

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it's just coincidence that she had an affair with a confessed serial killer (and said affair was supposedly the basis for the breakup of their marriage.) And it's ALSO a coincidence that Nina managed to secretly obtain Russian citizenship for her son two months before her disappearance (she secretly obtained Russian citizenship for her daughter years prior.) And it's also a coincidence that both children are now in Russia under the care of their maternal grandmother, who refuses to send them back to testify even though they were with Hans at the time during which he was supposedly committing this murder.

      I don't know if Hans ever loved anybody. And I don't know whether or not he's an asshole like so many people claim. But to claim, without qualification, that he killed his wife in the face of such insanely suspicious circumstances is reprehensible. Maybe the police are hiding some crucial piece of evidence, but so far the only evidence they've presented is that Hans was a dick, and that he was living out of his car.

    5. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, and that Nina was in his car while suffering a hangnail or recently-popped bleeding pimple or some such. (i.e. Single-drop blood detection means NOTHING.)

    6. Re:Yes, Death Penalty! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Reiser's defense isn't "she had it coming", it's "she's not dead, she's hiding out somewhere."

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  36. Re:Death Penalty! by Ant+P. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know what fascist dictatorship you live under, but in my part of the world it's "innocent until proven guilty".

  37. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to educate yourself on this issue. We have this system the way we do because it is true. Dicks that abuse their wives are statistically likely to kill them.
    No, the statistics show that domestic abuse is shockingly common - and they also show that (thankfully) murder is not. Ergo, you're wrong. If it was "statistically likely" that domestic abusers killed their spouses, there'd be a lot more dead spouses out there. Bah, you're probably a troll anyway. You've replied at the top-level with 2 posts that say essentially the same thing.
  38. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by doom · · Score: 1

    Now I probably won't get updates for my ReiserFS....damnit.

    Don't give up too quickly. Last I heard NameSys still had programmers working on both ReiserFS 3 and 4. And even if NameSys goes under, it's at least possible that some other people will step in and pick up the ball on ReiserFS 4, which despite the competition for "mindshare" in file systems, sounds like it's got some technically neat features...

    (And I hate to kick Hans when he's down, but all accounts agree he's not the easiest guy in the world to get along with. ReiserFS 4 might gain some wider acceptance if there's someone at the helm who can talk to the kernel developers without pissing them off.)

  39. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Suicide, while deplorable... Freedom is based on ownership of your own body and mind. You get to define what your life means to you, and no-one else. To state that suicide is deplorable is to deny an immediate consequence of the most basic principle of freedom.

    Suicide is usually distressing for family and friends. It is sometimes the result of mental illness. But it is not "deplorable".
  40. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    How come? Do you think it's likely that he will murder someone else?

    Nope, don't care if he murders someone else. He's just a dick, has been a dick a number of times, and ultimately finally did one dickish thing. So yeah, he killed his wife, and yeah, there's a chance that he could kill someone else. But really, its more like, he's a shitty person from the get go, and therefor, off the island of life with him.

    Maybe he can sort things out with Jesus or something, or, if his religion has no resurrection ship, his death will be permanent. Either way, I don't care. He should have treated his family with the respect that it deserves and he should not have killed his wife. He made his choices, and now I and other American citizens will make ours.

    Death Penalty.

    --
    This is my sig.
  41. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, the statistics show that domestic abuse is shockingly common

    So, in essence, what you are saying is that domestic abusers should be allowed to live.

    --
    This is my sig.
  42. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's just a dick, has been a dick a number of times, and ultimately finally did one dickish thing.
    Being a proven dick is all it takes to get the death penalty? (He's not proven to have murdered anyone - you're just slinging accusations from the comfort of your demented corner of the interwebs).

    If that's all it takes, then trolls who go around saying the following

    Europeans are all whores.
    will be dead quite soon. Sign yourself up for the needle, TJ. Death penalty.
  43. Re:Attractive women often think rules are for othe by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    It's very fast at handling large numbers of very small files (at least, this is what they claim, I never tried it for myself). It also has some rather funky design changes from a normal filing system, like eliminating the file/directory duality (ie, you can read and write to a directory as you would a file). The basic design is described in a document on the namesys.com website - the end goal is about "namespace unification", in a Plan9-esque manner. You should read the white papers, they aren't all that heavy and the man - criminal or not - clearly has thought about the design of computer systems in a great deal of detail. His thinking around namespace design has certainly influenced my own.

  44. merits of Reiser FS by doom · · Score: 1

    Another question: What are the merits of the Rieser file system?

    Well, off the top of my head, the main distinguishing technical feature of Reiser FS is that it has optimizations for the case of many small files. Most of the other systems you might hear about (XCF and so on) sound to me like they're tanks intended for industrial use: they're great for something like big database servers where you'll often need to deal with huge files, but Reiser FS alone was intended to be able to scale down as well as up.

    Note: the distinguishing feature of ext3 is that it is backwards compatible with ext2, and there isn't much reason to care about that now, if there ever was.

    The thing that I really like about Reiser 3 as opposed to ext3, is that there's some relationship between the listed size of a directory and it's contents. In ext3 everything is rounded up to an even number of blocks, in Reiser 3, empty directories look empty.

    As for Reiser 4, I haven't used it yet, but it sounds like there are a lot of interesting ideas there. As I understand it, there's a system for attaching metadata to files (like ID3 tags for mp3 files, except that you can use them on any file, and they're stored externally, not inside the file).

    There's also some way of writing extensions to the filesystem that sounds cool...

    1. Re:merits of Reiser FS by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Note: the distinguishing feature of ext3 is that it is backwards compatible with ext2, and there isn't much reason to care about that now, if there ever was.

      I still use ext3 when i need guaranteed reliability. It's slow (very slow when compared to ReiserFS), yes, but being ext2 with journaling tackled on means that you get all the years of developement ext2 took plus the consistency of a modern journal system.

      I've lost data using a number of filesystems, but never on ext3. Not that they're bad (most cases were related to hardware malfunctions), but after a few times i moved to ext3 for archiving.

    2. Re:merits of Reiser FS by doom · · Score: 1

      I've lost data using a number of filesystems, but never on ext3. Not that they're bad (most cases were related to hardware malfunctions), but after a few times i moved to ext3 for archiving.

      Great, dueling reliability anecdotes.

      Anyway, I never said ext3 wasn't reliable. I'm not aware of having ever lost data to any filesystem bug, myself (disk hardware problems, or course, but not the filesystem).

    3. Re:merits of Reiser FS by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Another nice thing about ReiserFS is that it works nicely together with LVM, i.e. you can do an online resize in a matter of seconds, last time I looked ext3 simply wasn't any competition in that area (offline only, forces you to fsck first, etc.).

  45. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Europeans are all whores.
    will be dead quite soon. Sign yourself up for the needle, TJ. Death penalty


    That's not a dickish comment, its just sort of a statement of fact! :-) Besides, I'm an American, and Nationalism is perfectly acceptable. It's only an insult to you, because you make it one.

    Now, if I beat and killed my wife and neglected my kid, then yeah, I'd deserve the death penalty, but, calling Europeans whores, why that's all good. See, those are just words...

    --
    This is my sig.
  46. I got dibs on the next statute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The advocate is just as guilty as whomever the advocate may have defended without reservation.

    When O.J. Simpson finally goes down, so will Shapiro and Cochran; we'll even dig one out of the grave just to tar and feather his dead ass, while the other two will just get dragged behind a truck while alive.

  47. Re:Reiser Must Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Your angry ranting leads me to believe you're one of:
    1. A troll - in which case, a very bad one, as you've had to post many times to maintain this thread;
    2. An abuse victim - in which case, unable to bring your tormentor to justice, you take out your anger on a man you only know from press reports;
    3. An abuser - so ashamed of yourself and in such denial that you're condemning your fellow abusers to death to assuage guilt. Like a gay Republican, except that there's nothing wrong with being gay.

    Whichever it is, I'm happy to have had the chance to serve on a jury; I had the opportunity to diplomatically convince my fellow jurors to ignore the preconceived rantings of one prejudiced hick in our group and instead look at the evidence for the crime under consideration. Indeed, this hick happened to conclude guilty as I did - the difference was that I came to the conclusion based on what was presented to me throughout the case and after hours of discussion with my fellow jurors; this dolt had come to the decision by first recess on day one.
  48. Re:Death Penalty! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    Oh, I get it. You're trolling. You almost got me there.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  49. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by doom · · Score: 1

    I RTFA: This just doesn't add up. Why did the children get sent to Russia?!?

    Nina's mother was taking care of them -- whether she had legal custody or not, I don't know, but obviously, both parents were unavailable -- and she walked, taking the kids with her to Russia. Whether the kids wanted to go to Russian, I have no idea, and I doubt they were asked -- but if I remember right their grandmother said they were scared of the USA and so on.

    One of the contrary theories is that Nina is still alive and well and hiding out in Russia, having embezzled a pile of cash from NameSys, she's setup Hans for her murder. The fact that her mother and kids are over there now helps support that theory.

  50. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh, I get it. You're trolling. You almost got me there

    Is that your lame answer? Answer the question - do domestic abusers to live. Go ahead and type that baby out, "domestic abusers deserve to live!"

    --
    This is my sig.
  51. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Oh, I get it. You're trolling. You almost got me there

    Actually, I'm genuinely outraged at people who are staring at the obvious and don't want to believe it. The guy killed his wife. And I read his interview, and the interview in wired, and honestly, each time I hear what he has to say, the more I am completely convinced he is guilty. He killed his wife! Just, I'm viscerally disgusted by this guy.

    --
    This is my sig.
  52. Re:Death Penalty! by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

    "... overwhelming statistical evidence that predicts Reiser would in fact kill his wife." The thing about statistics is that they do not model the real world; they model a world in which almost everything works according to logic, and patterns actually make sense. So (for example) there is a 99% statistical probability that, in the situation Reiser was in, any given person would murder his Wife. That just means that 99% of the time his wife would have been murdered. When you start using statistics to determine guilt, you are beginning to move into the world of the Minority Report, where people are locked up for crimes that they would probably have committed. "REISER, wife abusing bastard who is guilty of first degree premeditated murder ..." That's another problem with basing things on statistics: you move from "he probably did it, based on the knowledge we have of what other people in a similar situation have done" to "he did it, because the computer/expert/math says so. All hail the computer/expert/math!" I will admit that all of the things you are saying make a bit of sense - enough to confuse an average American into killing someone who is not technically guilty (guilty until proven innocent, remember?), and that it would all make sense in a perfect and logical world. But humans do not act logically most of the time - or, for some people, any of the time.

    --
    Everything is subjective.
  53. Stick by your kind. by sneakerpimps · · Score: 1

    Meh. From what I've read I'm just slightly off of being in the middle on this issue. What I mean by 'slightly off of being in the middle' is that I lean towards Reiser being not guilty for two reasons. First, the case and 'evidence' are just all over the place. It's all too weird and really doesn't prove much to me. Last, I have this weird notion of sticking to fellow nerds and giving (most) of them the benefit of the doubt. :)

    1. Re:Stick by your kind. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      I have this weird notion of sticking to fellow nerds and giving (most) of them the benefit of the doubt. :)

      I guess I was under the false impression that the law was supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt as well, or at least accept a reasonable doubt as being not guilty.

    2. Re:Stick by your kind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but aggressive, homosexual self-confessed serial killers who abuse drugs and are not sure about the number of people they killed are probably capable of worse. So are married women who leave the former to get screwed by the latter while sharing the drugs. Give the guy a fucking break.

  54. Re:Reiser Must Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tjstork is guilty of murder. He's proven to troll Slashdot like there is no tomorrow. That suggests he has a lot of hidden aggression, so I'm sure he murdered someone in rage sometime. I hope he gets caught soon.

  55. Re:Attractive women often think rules are for othe by argontechnologies · · Score: 1

    It's great until you have any kind of file system fault. Then the total lack of complete recovery tools turns your data into mush! EXT3... so far so good. LVM... Still needs more tools.

  56. now he finally has peace and quiet to code! by DragonTHC · · Score: 1, Troll

    nagging wives of the world beware!

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  57. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by tjstork · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Freedom is based on ownership of your own body and mind. You get to define what your life means to you, and no-one else. To state that suicide is deplorable is to deny an immediate consequence of the most basic principle of freedom.

    Suicide is usually distressing for family and friends. It is sometimes the result of mental illness. But it is not "deplorable


    Suicide is deplorable because people have responsibilities to the family and friends they leave behind, and in choosing suicide, they have abandoned those responsbilities.

    --
    This is my sig.
  58. Re:Death Penalty! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    What you say is true, but you gotta admit that things do not stack up well for this guy, at least as seen from our seats at the peanut gallery.

    So by all means, due process and all that, but I am sure that you realize that utter abusive narcisstic dicks are more likely then other kinds of people to do things ... that utter abusive narcisstic dicks do, which includes rage and spousal homicide.

    Is it possible that a byzantine set of coincidences coupled with his completely weird and kooky behaviour, accompanied by Tom Clancy-nesque plots by the Russian Mob, hitherto unknown serial killers and Houdini-like spiteful wives all conspired to make poor Hans look like a murderer? Sure, but in my view that is just a tiny, wee bit improbable.

    What gets me here is something that could be a fruitful field of sociological study: for some reason Slashdot crowd appears to show some unreasoning, instinctive sympathy towards this guy. Is it because he is a programmer? Or a socially-misfit nerd? Or because he did post on lklm? Is there some sort of deep-seated, subconscious resonance that some here feel with him which results in their need to defend him?

  59. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how funny is it that Nina is totally trolling here

  60. Re:Reiser Must Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really dont care... jeez... faggit ass... outrage... outraged... crap That's some angry, frustrated language there, buddy. I hope you restrict this verbal abuse to tough-skinned Slashdot users who won't extrapolate from your language that you're a murderer.
  61. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In society people are not made to justify living. The default is that people 'deserve to live.' The real question is why do you believe that all of the people that have ever yelled at their wives over the phone be put to death?

    Do you have some great insight into why it is we should even kill the ones that have ever hit their wives or children?

    Keep in mind that you are bestowing on people of minor assaults the death penalty. That tells me that you have a rather perverted sense of justice, and can't fathom what the repercussions to people would be.

    The financial damage to families. The emotional damage to children. The demoralizing number of executions. Encouraging women to stay in abusive relationships because they don't want the father of their children executed by self-important losers on the Internet. The number of men that will be enticed to just kill their wives and children and report them missing to avoid execution for hitting them.

    You escalate situations from bad to life-or-death, and then only see your perverse sense of justice.

    Why don't kill yourself and do society a favor? You have clear signs of a dangerous personality disorder. Physician, heal thyself.

  62. I'm going to wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for the book. "If I Did It" by H Reiser

  63. Hans is guilty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hans shot first, 'nuff said!

  64. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

    But HIS mother is alive and is in this country. Certainly, having them live with their grandmother in the US is preferable to the grandmother in Russia.

  65. Whoosh! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hint: check the spellings ... carefully ... very carefully ...

    1. Re:Whoosh! by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      That is quite sinisterly subtle indeed. And that you of all users should be the one to clarify that... Quit messing with my head.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  66. Contradictions abound by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One defense is that Hans was taken by a woman looking to get out of Russia and move to America. Look! She divorced him as soon as she got her papers!

    Another defense is that she moved back to Russia to get away from him.

    Then there's the Russian gangster defense.

    Don't forget the serial murder freind defense.

    1. Re:Contradictions abound by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      How about the "she was fucked by the serial murderer friend who introduced her to drugs after being refused a homosexual fling with her husband" defense? It's actually true, or so claims the article. While it may not be clear how that is in his defense, I think it slightly increases the chances of his having nothing to do with this little bit of strangeness. The woman is clearly capable of something like a disappearance act.

      Another part of his defense would be how there was a book on murder investigations in his car. A man with the intelligence to pull this off right, let alone the intelligence of Reiser, would probably not leave a how-to book in his car if he was guilty. If the jury is smart, that should be evidence for him, not against him.

    2. Re:Contradictions abound by jcr · · Score: 1

      Seems like the prosecutor's going to have quite a tough job meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Based on what I've seen so far, if I were on that jury, I'd say he probably did it, but probably isn't good enough to convict.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Contradictions abound by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      If she got her citizenship (not just her green card), she could have moved back to Russia for a short while and still be free to move back to the US whenever she wants.

      I am not saying the guy is guilty or not. Just that international marriages can be complicated things sometimes. (My wife is from Indonesia, like Nina, she deliberately got pregnant before we were married, etc. In my case I don't think it was just to come to the US and if we divorce, I am pretty sure she would move back to Indonesia). I also know a number of US citizens (some by birth) who were raised in other countries and tend to get homesick. The idea of eagerly coming to the US is not entirely at odds with wanting to go back home.

      I don;t see anything in the evidence currently disclosed that strikes me as beyond any reasonable doubt. Unfortunately it is also reasonable to assume that he may have killed her (divorce can make otherwise good people do bad things and Reiser has a reputation for having a bit of a temper anyway), but nothing that says that that is true beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that I would predict that he willb e acquitted, but that there will always be doubt as to his role in her disappearance unless and until hard evidence is discovered.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Contradictions abound by Darby · · Score: 1


      Another part of his defense would be how there was a book on murder investigations in his car. A man with the intelligence to pull this off right, let alone the intelligence of Reiser, would probably not leave a how-to book in his car if he was guilty. If the jury is smart, that should be evidence for him, not against him.


      The thing that almost everyone leaves off about this is that he didn't get the book until *after* he was already a suspect in a murder investigation.

      So his argument that he wanted to know what he was in store for is at least reasonable. The argument many people try to make out if it is that he was using it to plan the murder without getting caught, which clearly isn't reasonable given that he didn't have it yet.

  67. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    how funny is it that Nina is totally trolling here


    No, she's dead, because Hans killed her.

    --
    This is my sig.
  68. Let him go by cythrawll · · Score: 0

    This is entirely tongue in cheek but...

    They let OJ go, and he was a worthless individual.

    They should let Hans go on the fact that he actually had something revolutionary to contribute to the world.

  69. Great. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Last, I have this weird notion of sticking to fellow nerds and giving (most) of them the benefit of the doubt.
    Yeah... because an isolated, introverted loner never did anything bad. We should just give those guys an automatic pass.
    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Great. by sneakerpimps · · Score: 1

      So, what? You saying that most nerds are guilty (or will be guilty) of something because they are an introverted loner? That makes a lot of sense... Yeah.

      Giving someone the benefit of the doubt has nothing to do with a free pass. It's taking someone's word on something until evidence comes up that disproves what that person said. So far, as I basically said in my original post, I haven't seen anything concrete enough for me to disbelieve Reiser. The article seems to go to lengths to tell us what his defense is in each of the accusations.

  70. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Suicide is deplorable because people have responsibilities to the family and friends they leave behind Dude, it must really suck to be your friend.

    None of my friends and none of my family have a "responsibility" to me not to end their lives. I support and love them, and I am happy to help them through any tough periods, but I do not believe that any of them should either live or die for me.

    In fact, "as my friend, you have a responsibility to me to live" has to be one of the most nonsensical, contradictory lines you can deliver to a suicidal friend. You might never deliver it, but if you're thinking it yet have to hide it, you've demonstrated to yourself how inappropriate it is.
  71. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Do you have some great insight into why it is we should even kill the ones that have ever hit their wives or children?

    Keep in mind that you are bestowing on people of minor assaults the death penalty. That tells me that you have a rather perverted sense of justice, and can't fathom what the repercussions to people would be.


    Hitting your wife and child is not a minor assault.

    Why don't kill yourself and do society a favor? You have clear signs of a dangerous personality disorder. Physician, heal thyself.

    And you call yourself society? Do you do that before or after you beat your wife and children?

    Just checking.

    --
    This is my sig.
  72. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Suicide is deplorable because people have responsibilities to the family and friends they leave behind, and in choosing suicide, they have abandoned those responsbilities.

    Wow, what selfish family and friends is all I can say. Yes, sometimes it is deplorable, but sometimes life is just not worth living. Consider those terminally ill people in serious continual pain, who decide that committing suicide is better than being in permenant pain and dying soon anyway. Do they really have a responsibility to their family and friends, or do theit family and friends have a responsibility to them? Responsibility like not keeping around the terminally ill person simply because they're unable to let go?

    And back to the GP post about Alan Turing. Have you read about what happened to him? That's deplorable.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  73. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    they were scared of the USA I'm having a hard time imagining children born and raised in the US claiming they were so scared of the _country_, they'd rather be in Russia, and a world away from their Dad, US family, friends, etc.

    Are they his kids (biologically)? Why not their grandmother in the US? This sounds bizarre to me.

    The embezzlement, cheating, mail order bride affiliation, all look pretty damned shady to me. I was highly suspect of Hans when I first heard he bought those criminal investigation books (I think they were first published in the news as "murder manuals"), but this article is saying he bought "criminal investigation books" FIVE DAYS AFTER she disappeared? At that point, when you've just discovered you're a primary suspect in a murder case, EVERYONE should start reading up on the process.
  74. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    None of my friends and none of my family have a "responsibility" to me not to end their lives. I support and love them, and I am happy to help them through any tough periods, but I do not believe that any of them should either live or die for me.

    If your friends do not have any sense of commitment or responsibility to you, and vice versa, then I would question the worth of your friendship. It may suck, as you say, to be my friend, but a friendship with you would be entirely pointless.

    --
    This is my sig.
  75. So kooky conspiracy theories get modded to 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when the subject whose heinous probable crime is being whitewashed is a member of the Linux community?

    Interesting.

  76. Oblig. Fugitive Reference by Dameian · · Score: 1

    Reiser: "I didn't kill my wife."
    Cops: "I don't care!"

    1. Re:Oblig. Fugitive Reference by BlueLightning · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be a pedant, but the "I don't care!" line is spoken by a US Marshal. His job is not to investigate crimes, it's simply to apprehend fugitives, hence his response.

  77. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, what selfish family and friends is all I can say

    Selfish that you want people that you love to live? Selfish for a son to ask his father not to blow himself away but to try and find a job so he can see him grow up? Selfish for a daughter that needs her mother, a husband who needs his wife?

    Those are some lazy, worthless relationships, you advocate. The best of human bonds are unbreakable... what you have, is pure Walmart family.

    --
    This is my sig.
  78. Every oddball defense of this guy gets modded to 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Blood in the home and Reiser buying forensics technique books after the disappearance doesn't faze you guys in the least... any wacky theory that vindicates the guy, you'll latch on to?

    In many ways, this reminds me of the OJ Simpson case and the black community's defend-at-all-costs reactions and "theories". Regardless of the actual evidence, any straw available is grasped at to keep their hero a hero.

  79. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by budgenator · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I know him as the faggot that did as much to save the free world and Russia from the Nazi tyrany as any single human on the planet.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  80. MICROSOFT DID IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because Reiser4 delivers what "winfs" could not

  81. Re:Death Penalty! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    Define "statistically likely" and maybe we can agree. However, there are millions of households that have abusive relationships, but we don't have millions of murders, even over the course of 20 years.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  82. Murder by Open Source by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Even if Hans Reiser is innocent, ReiserFS got murdered as a result of the Police suspecting Hans Reiser murdered his wife.

    How do we know this isn't some plot by Microsoft to murder open source one developer at a time? :) j/k

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Murder by Open Source by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      I used to use Ubuntu and put on Rieserfs by default.

      The nature of opensource is amazing and its our own click. I am not an opensource zealot by any means but I did not feel comfortable using his software after he was arrested. I reinstalled Ubuntu with ext3 a week later.

      Same is true with SuSE after the agreement with ms. I do not have the same ethical issues with proprietary companies like MS and use their products. Mainly its because I have to use them but interesting indeed how the community runs things rather than the software companies in opensource.

  83. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

    I see your point but suicide is simply one possible result when a persons coping mechanisms are outweighed by the situation they are in, be it a result of circumstance, events or mental instability.

    It is of course horrible for loved ones left behind but one of the most commonly experienced feelings is not anger but guilt because people often believe that they could have done something to prevent it, which is not always the case.

    --
    A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  84. ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me assemble your "evidence" here:

    Reiser was a very controlling husband who dominated his wife.

    He trashed her career so he could work on his, would disappear for months at a time in Russia, and then, by other witnesses, often screamed at her over the phone.

    remove the passenger seat.

    $9000 in cash

    That is the evidence. Now, here is where your speculation starts -- and by "speculation", I mean "making shit up":

    I've had to live in my car, but I've never been in a situation where I felt like I needed to remove the passenger seat.

    I've never had to live in my car, so you must never have had to, either, right?

    Just because you never had to remove the passenger seat doesn't mean it's impossible for anyone to, or that the only reason you could possibly ever have is to clean blood from it.

    Even in the USA, Reiser could have rented a room for like $200-$300 a month, an apartment for $500-$600

    So what?

    There are any number of reasons you might be living in your car. Money is only one, perhaps the only you can think of. Or perhaps he needed the money for something else.

    the most convenient way to put money in the hands of a Russian programmer is electronically.

    The most convenient way to put money in anyone's hands is electronically, yet US people write checks all the time. Why should Russian programmers be any different?

    And now we move to the exercise in creative writing...

    Reiser killed Nina in the car, and cleaned it out thoroughly, which explains why it was wet, except for the seat she was sitting in, which had to be removed. The seat is probably with the body, most likely. The $9000 in cash and passport were to allow him to leave the country and go to Russia, and the reason he ran from the cops, to begin with, is that he knew that he did it.

    And you just made all of that up.

    Go look up the definition for "reasonable doubt". We send people away when there is no other reasonable explanation for the evidence.

    Well, fuck you. I've had a wet car, I've removed the seat from a car, I've had friends run from the cops (stupid thing to do, but still, doesn't make them guilty), and I have carried more cash than I should. And I've never killed anyone.

    Maybe he did kill her, but nobody knows. Because nobody knows, and because we're in America, he should walk.

    Unfortunately, because we're in America, you also have committed no crime by being an ignorant hate-spewing fucktard.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, because we're in America, you also have committed no crime by being an ignorant hate-spewing fucktard... And now we move to the exercise in creative writing

      Well, fuck you. I've had a wet car, I've removed the seat from a car, I've had friends run from the cops (stupid thing to do, but still, doesn't make them guilty), and I have carried more cash than I should. And I've never killed anyone

      Ok, so, add to that, two books on how to murder someone to get away with it, your wife has dissappeared after a bitter divorce when she banged your best friend while you were getting blown by little sventis in Russia, that, he goes and tries and hides this car 3 miles away from where he lived... and it wasn't even his car. Then you throw in, he has no alibi. Surely, someone as active on the internet could go and say - here's all these postings, whatever, I was making at the time.... but he doesn't... you see...

      sure, you can arrange all of these bits and pieces into a ptolemaic view of the solar system, but most of the time, the earth just goes around the sun, and most of the time, hans reiser killed his wife, and should die for it.

      Really, yes, by some absolute consideration, unless they had a witness of him actually killing her, then yeah, there's some doubt, but its not reasonable doubt. And, by any other scientic problem, do you have the same standard of evidence? We don't have pictures of humans evolving from lower mammals, but a lot of people argue for evolution. We don't have a smoking gun that shows mankind's tiny percentage of global greenhouse gasses is causing global warming, but a lot of people argue that we need to turn millions of lives upside down (and cause more than a few deaths along the way), by enacting carbon taxes... yet, most reasonable accept that the preponderance of evidence exceedes reasonable doubt. If you look at things objectively, then there is evolution, there is global warming, and hans reiser is a psychopath that murdered his wife, and, from there, evolution should be taught, we should do something about global warming, and hans reiser should be executed for pre-meditated capital murder.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      So what?
      There are any number of reasons you might be living in your car. Money is only one, perhaps the only you can think of. Or perhaps he needed the money for something else.


      Like, what does he need this money for? Let's see, he's not paying his child support, he's not paying alimony, and he's not getting himself a place to live. Sounds to me like he's abandoned all of his responsibilities, and for what? Jeez, I would think the most logical explanation is that he was leaving the country.

      Why should Russian programmers be any different?
      So you are saying we could just "mail a check to a russian programmer". seriously, how does he get $9000 in cash to Russia. It doesn't stack up at all.

      And you just made all of that up.
      Nope. I crafted a model consistent with the facts at hand. Just like, someone examining a bunch of fossils might say, geez, stacked together, this is evolution we are talking about. Or, how someone looking at a bunch of ice cores, might say, geez, the planet is getting warmer.

      Well, fuck you. I've had a wet car, I've removed the seat from a car, I've had friends run from the cops (stupid thing to do, but still, doesn't make them guilty), and I have carried more cash than I should. And I've never killed anyone. Maybe he did kill her, but nobody knows. Because nobody knows, and because we're in America, he should walk. Unfortunately, because we're in America, you also have committed no crime by being an ignorant hate-spewing fucktard.


      And you've committed the crime of being an idiot.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, add to that, two books on how to murder someone to get away with it, your wife has dissappeared after a bitter divorce when she banged your best friend while you were getting blown by little sventis in Russia, that, he goes and tries and hides this car 3 miles away from where he lived... and it wasn't even his car.

      See, with that much, we could have an intelligent discussion. I still think it's not enough. See other comments, by other people -- how the best friend claimed to be a serial killer, how he was into BDSM... How other pieces don't add up; if she's a doctor, what's she doing as a translator?

      However, what you had before was nowhere near enough to sentence him to even a slap on the wrist.

      by some absolute consideration, unless they had a witness of him actually killing her, then yeah, there's some doubt, but its not reasonable doubt.

      Strawman. There is real evidence -- like, say, a body, or a trail of blood leading to an incinerator -- and then there is wholly circumstantial evidence, like that his car was wet, he liked to read about murder, and he was living out of his car -- not wholly surprising, considering how much Namesys was not making money at the time.

      there is evolution, there is global warming

      These are scientific theories, backed by repeatable experiments. The same cannot be said of a wet car and reading habits.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Like, what does he need this money for? Let's see, he's not paying his child support, he's not paying alimony, and he's not getting himself a place to live. Sounds to me like he's abandoned all of his responsibilities...

      He was also running a company, and yes, those people like to be paid.

      and for what? Jeez, I would think the most logical explanation is that he was leaving the country.

      Plenty of people abandon their responsibilities and don't leave the country.

      So you are saying we could just "mail a check to a russian programmer". seriously, how does he get $9000 in cash to Russia. It doesn't stack up at all.

      Why not? Maybe he just likes to keep it in cash?

      Or here's a thought: He was going through a bitter divorce. I'm not surprised he had money he didn't want his wife (or her attourneys) to know about. Bastard? Yes. Murderer? No.

      Nope. I crafted a model consistent with the facts at hand. Just like, someone examining a bunch of fossils might say, geez, stacked together, this is evolution we are talking about. Or, how someone looking at a bunch of ice cores, might say, geez, the planet is getting warmer.

      Evolution has more evidence than just a bunch of fossils, and a bunch of fossils have been completely wrong.

      Global warming has more than just a bunch of ice cores.

      There is considerably less evidence that Reiser committed any crime other than a questionable lifestyle and choice of reading material than there is for either of those two theories. Hell, Evolution has eyewitnesses -- Darwin actually saw it happen on that island. And even so, there was still a reasonable doubt of the mechanism of natural selection at that time, so we had to gather more evidence before it became a (mostly) undisputed fact.

      And these are for scientific theories, where having the wrong theory for the origin of the universe means, worst case, you're ignorant. Here, if I'm wrong, a murdering bastard goes free. If you're wrong, an innocent man dies.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by Cheesey · · Score: 1

      Then you throw in, he has no alibi. Surely, someone as active on the internet could go and say - here's all these postings, whatever, I was making at the time.... but he doesn't... you see...

      Very strange, that.

      You'd think he'd try to create an alibi by programming a computer to send emails and check code into version control while he did the crime. In fact, given his intelligence, you'd expect him to go to a great deal of effort to create a "perfect alibi", and certainly work hard to avoid leaving any loose ends that might bother the detectives - like a missing car seat. If Reiser bought those books in order to plan the murder, why did he do it so badly?

      It doesn't add up, if you ask me, but maybe there is more evidence that we know nothing about.

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    6. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Why not? Maybe he just likes to keep it in cash?
      Or here's a thought: He was going through a bitter divorce. I'm not surprised he had money he didn't want his wife (or her attourneys) to know about. Bastard? Yes. Murderer? No.


      Yeah, but, if he was trying to hide money from his wife, he could do that to a degree by having a place to live! That's the thing.

      --
      This is my sig.
    7. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      He was also running a company, and yes, those people like to be paid.
      Yep, and I've yet to see any of them say they were paid in cash. If they were being paid in cash, then, while we're putting Reiser on death row, we could also tack on a few years for tax evasion, fraud, whatever.

      And these are for scientific theories, where having the wrong theory for the origin of the universe means, worst case, you're ignorant. Here, if I'm wrong, a murdering bastard goes free. If you're wrong, an innocent man dies

      Well, the case of GW, the point is more true. If you are right about GW, and make a bunch of policy changes, then, humanity is theoretically somehow better off. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, then, you've just ruined a bunch of countries for no other reason than some big con game.

      Myself, I'm trying to think about how to to turn GW on its head. I know that if the USA has to make CO2 payments to the third world, the USA is screwed. But I think if the USA could actually somehow meet some 1990 baseline via a ton of nuclear power, and actually go -under- it, then, the USA could actually -tax the world-, and, that's pretty cool.

      --
      This is my sig.
    8. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but, if he was trying to hide money from his wife, he could do that to a degree by having a place to live!

      Or by having a Swiss Bank account, sure.

      But that doesn't fit with having to hide himself from whoever/whatever has done whatever they've done to his wife. And being a lunatic paranoid is not a crime, either.

      I don't think I really have to present a complete picture here. I'm just showing you where yours is incomplete. And if no one has a complete picture, what does that tell you?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Well, the case of GW, the point is more true. If you are right about GW, and make a bunch of policy changes, then, humanity is theoretically somehow better off. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, then, you've just ruined a bunch of countries for no other reason than some big con game.

      Well, if it's done right, it doesn't necessarily ruin those countries, and can still be a good thing.

      For instance, no one is disputing the fact that cheap oil is going away, very soon, and we need an alternative. Making a country less dependent on oil -- particularly foreign oil -- is absolutely a good thing.

      (I realize that solar is problematic here, but it's looking like there is no one alternative.)

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      I don't think I really have to present a complete picture here. I'm just showing you where yours is incomplete. And if no one has a complete picture, what does that tell you?

      I have a complete picture. Yes, if I just had $9000, or just had two books on murder, or just had a passport, then, yeah, all of your other explanations could make sense. But, no, I've got a guy whose wife's gone missing, caught with, her blood in his vehicle, two books on how to commit murder, a passport, $9000 in cash, the seat all taken up, no alibi, no witnesses, a track record of domestic abuse, a pathologically possessive, personality prone to rage and jealousy, and you know what, that's a murderer. If the prosecution is at all worth its salt, this Reiser is going to go wherever Tookie went.

      --
      This is my sig.
    11. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      ,For instance, no one is disputing the fact that cheap oil is going away, very soon, and we need an alternative. Making a country less dependent on oil -- particularly foreign oil -- is absolutely a good thing.

      We're unusually lucky, in that, we're running out of oil right at the same time we're starting to understand the effects of burning it. Oil will never be cheap again, until, energy alternatives are so much in place that oil is something as a novelty.

      I agree that oil will not have a single replacement. There's going to be a mix of alternative energy for different applications - transportation ranges from electric to ethanol to biodiesel and probably some coal to liquids gasoline, and then nuclear looks awefully good on the baseload power generation side.

      --
      This is my sig.
    12. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't caught with two books on how to commit murder.
      No witnesses is not a negative for him.
      It would be more interesting if he didn't have a passport.

    13. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, add to that, two books on how to murder someone to get away with it... ... where the receipt for the purchase of those two books (described as books on investigative techniques ... can you cite the titles of those books?) was dated five days after her disappearance. Unless you have evidence that the receipt was manufactured after the fact in order to hide the real purchase occurring *before* the murder, you should probably stop trolling that one.

      However, your other line of reasoning is quite interesting. Because, according to statistics, if he abused his wife then he's more likely to have killed her. Let's say that a generous 5% of spouse abusers end up killing their spouse. So if we can demonstrate that he was abusive, I say we just run a random number generator. If the result of the random number generator is less than or equal to 0.05 then we simply kill him since you can't argue with statistics.

      But if your point is that abusers should not deserve to live, then you're advocating rounding up any human being who has ever abused any other human being and killing them. Wives verbally and physically abuse husbands, children abuse their parents, people abuse welfare or other government programs (which is ultimately an abuse of taxpaying people), people abuse the kindness of strangers, you verbally abuse people who disagree with your viewpoint... we should kill them all?
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:ANY evidence you'd like to talk about? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      It's still confirmation bias, no matter how you paint it.

      You still have not shown beyond reasonable doubt. It is still possible to reasonably doubt he did it.

      Were I a prosecutor, yes, I could make a damned good case that he did it. Were I defense, I'd probably have a harder time -- mostly because I'm not a lawyer. But were I juror, he'd walk.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  85. Re:Death Penalty! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

    He killed his wife! Just, I'm viscerally disgusted by this guy. I'm viscerally disgusted with you. Making up total bullshit like:

    Dicks that abuse their wives are statistically likely to kill them.
    and
    Answer the question - do domestic abusers to live.

    You are a complete fucktard.
    All emotion, zero critical thinking skills.
    YOU don't deserve to live. People like you are so easily manipulated, you are responsible for the deterioration of modern society.
    Wife-beaters hurt their families, fucktards like you hurt the entire country.
    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  86. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If your friends do not have any sense of commitment or responsibility to you Irrelevant. My friends may have a sense of commitment or responsibility. What I indicated was that I do not expect them to have a sense of responsibility to live for me.

    a friendship with you would be entirely pointless. For you, clearly. You require your friends to make a philosophical sacrifice of their life to you, and I'm not prepared to give you that.

    Looking at this thread, you are also irrationally judgmental and verbally abusive. This dominant approach over others would make you an unbearable companion to me.

    We appear to have such opposing approaches to treatment of others that further discussion will not be productive. Thanks for your time.
  87. What is going on? by realdodgeman · · Score: 3, Informative

    What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Yes he is an insane motherfucker, yes he bought books about murder trails, but that still doesn't prove anything.

    Also, knowing that he is a programmer, he doesn't think like must people do. That makes him look crazy. But it still doesn't prove anything.

    The US legal system seems more and more broken, and if he is sentenced to jail without further evidence, it just proves to me what I thought all along.

    I am not saying that he is innocent, but I am saying he should be treated like he is until he is proven guilty!

    1. Re:What is going on? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The system hasn't yet proclaimed Hans guilty: he's still innocent until that time. However, if the cops arrest you, presumably it's because they think you're guilty. And if the cops think you're guilty, that pretty much means you are (so far as they're concerned) until a jury of your peers says otherwise. In other words, don't expect them to be nice to alleged killers.

      Honestly, no ordinary law-abiding citizen wants to take a trip through the Justice System. You may or may not make it out the other side ... but either way, you'll never be the same again, and if you're not rich you'll probably be bankrupt before it's all over.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  88. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

    Wow, I guess you've never seen anyone suffer. I've watched my grandfather waste away for years; quite frankly, its a crime that he's still alive in his condition. I work in EMS and fire, every once in awhile, we get called to the scene of a suidice, and yes, it is a tragic thing, but when you think about the conditions some of these people are living in, or the pain they are constantly in, then I don't see a problem with it.

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
  89. Re:Attractive women often think rules are for othe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your server will develop communication errors when dealing with child processes

    When the server crashes, no logs or other evidence will be left behind

    Financial transactions will get inexplicably rounded down

    No matter how messy of a person you are, you won't leave bloodstains around the server.

    Your i18n code will be able to handle cyrillic easily. But the day you finish it, it will disappear.

    Your server might spontaneously relocate itself to a van down by the river.

  90. I don't beat my wife & kids,I only waterboard by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can never be too sure whether they're hiding something.

    I mean, what if they knew where a terrorist had hidden a nuclear weapon that was about to destroy a major American city? Oh, they may say they don't know anything, just going on and on with their "Daddy, Daddy, please stop! Why are you hurting us? *gurgle*", but are you willing to risk the lives of millions of innocent people?

    Being President is hard work, but somebody has to do it.

  91. Re:Death Penalty! by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm viscerally disgusted with you. Making up total bullshit like:

    Total bullshit? LOL. You still haven't answered the question. Do people that abuse their wives deserve to live. All you have to do is write: "Yes, people that beat their wives deserve to live!"

    All emotion, zero critical thinking skills.
    YOU don't deserve to live. People like you are so easily manipulated, you are responsible for the deterioration of modern society.
    Wife-beaters hurt their families, fucktards like you hurt the entire country.


    Emotion is what makes us human. You can go ahead and try and make yourself into a dispassionate computer. But guess what, you will never ever be as good at being a computer as a computer. They have no emotion to combat, they have better circuts, they are faster, can store more, and do more. Emotion is all we really have, and honestly, even then, computers will be programmed to have that to.

    Easily manipulated? You are the one that thinks its ok to beat your wife.

    All emotion, zero critical thinking skills.

    Let's roll on with this one from another tack. Would you not think, then, that George Bush was the greatest president ever for invading Iraq and getting his hands on all of that oil? Or, are you one of those that gush on about the illegality of the war and the damage to mother earth. Critical thinking! Please! Or, do you scream out, "I hate George Bush", when you beat your wife!

    --
    This is my sig.
  92. Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - there was blood
    - there was motive
    - Reiser bought books on how to stymie forensic homicide techniques
    - the cops think he did it and have evidence they haven't made public yet.

    Make up all the fantasy stories you want about her being in Russia, but may I ask where your evidence is for that outlandish claim? Given the post-9/11 crackdown on international travel from the USA, surely there must be some record of her departure? Or do you have another conspiracy theory to address that?

    1. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      - Reiser bought books on how to stymie forensic homicide techniques

      Of course, one of the first techniques such a book should tell you is, don't let anyone know you're buying books on how to stymie forensic homicide techniques.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      You're making this up as you go along. Minute amounts of blood in the (alleged) victim's home is meaningless.

      He bought books on *detective techniques* and he bought them *after* the disappearance, not "how to get away with murder" before the fact.

      Any "secret" evidence the police has is apparently too secret for even the trial judge.

      I don't have to come up with evidence to the contrary -- that's not how our criminal justice system works. If the prosecution can't come up with sufficient evidence to disprove alternate theories, the guy can't legally be convicted. The defense is under no obligation to prove anything.

      If you claim I am making up conspiracy theories, please point specifically to any such conspiracy theory, or first learn what the term means.

      As to your belief that anyone leaving the country must leave proper records of their departure, this is ludicrous. I suggest you take a stroll down South from San Ysidro and find out how much ID you need to leave the US.

    3. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to your belief that anyone leaving the country must leave proper records of their departure, this is ludicrous. I suggest you take a stroll down South from San Ysidro and find out how much ID you need to leave the US.


      Yes, let's take a stroll to Russia... oh wait.

      Your "explanations" for why Reiser is innocent are meaningless when you don't have access to all the evidence, and ring hollow in the face of police belief -- and remember, they do have the evidence -- that Reiser is probably guilty.

      Anyone can conjure up a multitude of fantasy explanations as to why a person might not be guilty; just research the pro-OJ Simpson and pro-Michael Jackson camps to find a wealth of apologia in the vein of your post.

      As it stands, the police believe he's guilty and the evidence indicates that we should at least be suspicious; you're asserting that fantasies involving international espionage, world travel and a secret plot by his still-living wife (according to you, sans-evidence) should be enough to totally excuse him. And what is your motivation for this? Let me guess... you're a reiserfs fan.

      The lack of objectivity here is quite pathetic. Posts like yours, and moderators who enable posts like yours, are bringing down the level of discourse here at /. to the point where rational contributors aren't bothering with it.
    4. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      You're simply lying, Anonymous Coward.

      You have no argument based upon anything I've actually written, so you make stuff up and attribute it to me. None of what you've written is true, nor is it based upon anything I've written.

      Why don't you try to actually *read* what I've written in this thread, instead of resorting to your ridiculous, baseless, ranting.

    5. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Don't let these AC rants get to you... they are by uninformed and ignorant individuals who have not really looked at the situation, and would rail against anybody just for the sake of an argument.

      BTW, you are spot on with what you have said here, and disclosure laws would have required the police to at least release any of this "secret evidence" that supposedly exists.

      Hans was arrested because he was a "hacker" (therefore criminal) and a bit too "smart" for the police. They are scared of people like Hans because he is more intelligent than they are, and does things that are just a little different than the "typical" individual. Hans is clearly somebody who doesn't necessarily conform to societal norms, and (has been pointed out in reference to his net postings) quick to engage in an argument. Police certainly don't like individuals who fight back in this way. And I'm speaking (unfortunately...but not for murder) from experience. I've had my own run-ins with police for some of the most incredible and stupid reasons.

    6. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by AVee · · Score: 1

      there was blood So? I'm pretty certain you could find traces of my blood in both my house and my car. I still like to think I'm alive. He might have killed her, he may not. Neither is proven at this point, at least not throught the information that's available to the public.
    7. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Darby · · Score: 1

      So? I'm pretty certain you could find traces of my blood in both my house and my car. I still like to think I'm alive.

      Damn reluctant zombies....

    8. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Your "explanations" for why Reiser is innocent are meaningless when you don't have access to all the evidence, and ring hollow in the face of police belief [wikipedia.org] -- and remember, they do have the evidence -- that Reiser is probably guilty. Which isn't good enough in our system. You have to have more than evidence that someone is "probably guilty," you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that soneone is guilty. Right now, there seems to be reasonable doubt that Nina was murdered at all. Not saying she was or wasn't or that Hans is guilty or innocent, just that the evidence here seems shockingly inadequate.
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    9. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Atually, I think Hans was arrested for a different reason.

      The police probably have a reasonable belief that a Nina was probably murdered, have done their best to gather evidence, and most of the evidence points to Hans. They probably know they don't have enough to convict, but want to be seen "doing something." THerefore they have taken a real long shot hoping that the jury will be sufficiently gullible to believe them.

      In all fairness, if Nina was murdered, Hans would be the most likely suspect. Unfortunately proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn't very tolernat of the word "if."

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    10. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't *you* read the facts of the case rather than tailoring hypothetical "information" to fit your prejudiced view?

      You're the liar, you're the one without a legitimate argument or response, and you and your cohorts' smears against my person don't change the established facts of the case.

      Considering the murkiness of this case, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself. You could very well be -- and most likely are -- defending someone who took another's life unjustly, based on nothing but fantasy conjecture.

      If you had anything of substance to justify your implications, you'd have stated it by now. You're no better than Michael Jackson and OJ apologists. Answer this: are you a reiserfs fan? The answer is pretty clear already, but let's have your input, if you're courageous enough to tell the truth and not just slink away.

    11. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Listen pathetic loser, I haven't supported him.

      [Try reading that again]

      Listen pathetic loser, I haven't supported him.

      All I've been doing is describing how weak the government's case is, which is something on which the press have made numerous commentaries.

      You're so blinded by hatred that you create ideal enemies out of anyone even slightly less fervent than you. I'd really hate to live in your world--I'm sticking with the real one.

      And don't tell me to be courageous, ANONYMOUS COWARD. This is one time where the shoe really fits...

    12. Re:Yet another conspiracy loon goes to +5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so blinded by hatred

      I'm not the one who has responded with nothing but a litany of personal attacks (SOME IN CAPS!).

      Your response is utterly empty and devoid of substance -- and as such, this "discussion" is over. Your responses are clearly fueled by nothing but reactionary emotion.

      Let's just see what the courts say, based on the actual evidence of the case.
  93. should have thought of that before by m2943 · · Score: 1

    As a Russian doctor, she can't just work in the US; when she made the decision to marry an American and move to the US, she basically decided to be a stay-at-home-mother.

    But you're right: why would an "intelligent, highly educated doctor" make this choice in the first place, unless there were other motives?

    1. Re:should have thought of that before by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      How much additional education is required? I know you can't just go into practice, but I would think that if you had at least a certain level of education, the bar might not be impossible to reach.

      What probably happened was that they fell crazy in love with eachother, she decided that she didn't want to be without him so got pregnant to ensure the marriage would happen (not that uncommon in many parts of the world or even many parts of the US), and then they woke up and wondered what they had done. At first the dicision to leave or stay would have been difficult-- if she had a green card which was contengent on her marriage, divorce would have been a very difficult prospect (because she might have to leave the country). Once she got her permanent resident status, things might have been easier.

      Did Hans Reiser kill his wife? Did she disappear in order to obtain some sort of revenge? Divorce makes good people do bad things and it doesn't sound to me like either individual is exactly of stellar moral fiber.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  94. No positive moderation for anti-Reiser comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moderation on this article's comments is dismaying... it just shows that moderators aren't concerned with accuracy and are fueled by personal sentiment and general bias.

    Several posts which contain far more insight and interesting commentary than the ones currently at +5 are languishing at 1 to -1 for no reason besides the fact that they express the opinion that Reiser is guilty.

  95. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by McNally · · Score: 1

    I know. Meg Ryan was the real genius.
    No, that was Val Kilmer..
  96. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by amokk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could you please shut the fuck up?
    As other people have pointed out in this thread, you are the one being selfish.

    You notion of what friendship is is like an asshole - it's full of shit and it stinks.

    Retard.

    --
    I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
  97. Re:Death Penalty! by jimicus · · Score: 1


    Is it possible that a byzantine set of coincidences coupled with his completely weird and kooky behaviour, accompanied by Tom Clancy-nesque plots by the Russian Mob, hitherto unknown serial killers and Houdini-like spiteful wives all conspired to make poor Hans look like a murderer? Sure, but in my view that is just a tiny, wee bit improbable.


    I would point out that in criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The only people who have a right to judge that are the judge and jury when the case reaches court.

    FWIW, IMO Hans Reiser is guilty at the very least of being bloody stupid. If his marriage was falling apart and he knew he was likely to lose his temper with his wife, then hanging around any more than is strictly necessary is damn foolish.

  98. what a soap opera by Keyframe2 · · Score: 0

    When asked if there were other factors that contributed to the division in their marriage, Reiser replied, "Well, she slept with my best friend." Hans believes that his childhood friend Sturgeon introduced his wife to drugs and exotic sex in a twisted act of revenge. "He offered to have a relationship with me and I said no, cause I'm just not gay," said Reiser. "He was jealous, and then later he saw me and Nina having this family, and I think he saw it as something that he couldn't have. ... When people feel rejected they do crazy things." Doren sees the relationship between Sturgeon and Nina differently. "When Hans went to Russia, he presented Sean to Nina saying, 'This is my best friend. He's here to take care of you. Whatever you need, go ask Sean,'" said Doren, adding that she never worried that Sturgeon was involved in Nina's disappearance. "He loved her dearly," she said. Sturgeon won't talk publicly until after the trial, but after Nina's disappearance he made a bold confession to police, so outrageous that the judge won't allow it to be mentioned in court. He claims to be a serial killer, but said he is not responsible for Nina's death.

  99. That's funny... by tjstork · · Score: 0

    I know him as the faggot that did as much to save the free world and Russia from the Nazi tyrany as any single human on the planet

    I don't see why this is flamebait? I thought it was funny, and true.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That's funny... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      it's flamebait if your a homophobe, it sickens me what happened to Alan Turring especialy after the contribution he made to the world; he easily saved millions of lives by leading the team that broke the enigma cade.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:That's funny... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      it's flamebait if your a homophobe, it sickens me what happened to Alan Turring especialy after the contribution he made to the world; he easily saved millions of lives by leading the team that broke the enigma cade.

      Not just broke Enigma, either, but, also, arguably invented computers in the modern sense to do it. It's like, let's invent something previously impossible to do something that is completely unimaginable, and do so under the pressure of wartime. It's arguably the greatest intellectual feat of the second world war.

      --
      This is my sig.
  100. Re:Death Penalty! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    HE IS PROVEN GUILTY TO ME. Not to me in any way. Not only not "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt", not even "sounds guilty to me, even though there isn't much evidence.".

    Nina's gone. From what I read, she had good reason to go, having skimmed off money from Reiser's company. And as we heard just last week, it is not difficult to hide in the USA for 35 years. And although we know now that the police will try to find escaped convicted murderers after 35 years, I doubt the will check that any "murder victims" are alive after 35 years.

    Hans's attempting to flee the country. What, with $9000 in his pocket? Don't be ridiculous.

    He's trying to hide something... What evidence do you have for that?

    ... but they still find her blood on his person. I didn't hear of any of her blood on his person. And I am quite sure that you would find my blood, my wife's blood, and some other people's blood at my home.

    What more do you really need? What about evidence?
  101. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I fully agree with your main point, I have to wonder about your hygiene.

  102. Every wacky pro-Reiser post gets modded up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When you see insipid AC comments getting +1s just for opposing something the general public here doesn't want to accept, you know the moderation system is totally fucked.

    I can't believe some of the comments under this article that are at -1 for no reason, and likewise, comments positively moderated for no other reason than they support Reiser.

    If anyone wanted to karma whore, this is for damn sure the topic to do it under. Just post a pedestrian conspiracy theory, or better yet, a Rube Goldberg-esque justification for every aspect indicative of his guilt, and voila.

  103. Re:Death Penalty! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1
    "Yes, people that beat their wives deserve to live!"

    Easily manipulated? You are the one that thinks its ok to beat your wife. When did you stop beating your wife? Fucktard.
    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  104. Re:Death Penalty! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    I agree, I'm not a whore I'm a manslut :P

    Come here hot women ;)

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  105. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you know this because...? Honestly, we've already caught on to your trolling game.

  106. Re:No positive moderation for anti-Reiser comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If those comments express the opinion that Hans Reiser is guilty, then they are displaying obvious bias, and that in itself is a good reason for them not to be modded up. I don't know if he is innocent or guilty, but all the evidence which has been made public is circumstantial and there is no evidence of Nina even being dead, therefore no-one on Slashdot can state that he is guilty (or innocent) without knowing evidence which hasn't been made public.

  107. Re:No positive moderation for anti-Reiser comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If those comments express the opinion that Hans Reiser is guilty, then they are displaying obvious bias, and that in itself is a good reason for them not to be modded up.

    But that's nonsensical. Show me where in the Slashdot FAQ it states that comments should be neutral and bias-free. This is article-commenting, not journalism. The purpose of comments is for users to express their personal opinions.

    Clearly every single +5 modded comment arguing that Reiser should be given a break, is innocent, etc. is motivated by the personal bias of the author.

    Where bias isn't needed is in moderation. If a comment qualifies as interesting or insightful, whether or not the person with mod points personally agrees, it needs to be modded up. Likewise, if a moderator happens to disagree with the sentiment being expressed, that is no excuse for modding down. That isn't happening here. It's kinda disgusting.
  108. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bagging other countries isn't Nationalism...
    Blindly supporting your own country is Nationalism.

  109. wanting more kids seems reasonable by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    and sometimes the only way to get that is to get a divorce. Which is what he did. Why do you need to demonize him for that?

  110. you'd have to be very gullible by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    to believe that he killed her.

    He seems like the least suspicious person involved in this case. I can't imagine why the police let this go to trial with so little evidence. If they win, it's by pure luck or incompetence in Reiser's defence.

  111. Re:Reiser Must Die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, option 1: troll.

  112. Re:Death Penalty! by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

    Well, it's always disappointing to see people who you respect for their good work (if you consider reiserfs good, which I do) getting accused of something heinous.

    As irrational as it is, I'm sure many of us would feel less inclined to use reiserfs if reiser was found guilty.

    Well, there's always zfs at least... is anyone writing a zfs patch for linux? If not, why not? I did a quick google search, but I couldn't turn up anything.

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  113. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

    I think Aristotle said it best, "To run away from trouble is a form of cowardice and, while it is true that the suicide braves death, he does it not for some noble object but to escape some ill."

  114. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides, I'm an American, and Nationalism is perfectly acceptable.

    I really wish you had not said that. With Bush and Co. in charge, we need fewer narcissists like yourself trying to speak for the rest of us *USAians*.

    Now, if I beat and killed my wife and neglected my kid, then yeah, I'd deserve the death penalty, but, calling Europeans whores, why that's all good. See, those are just words...

    Weapons of mass destructions, Axis of Evil, Helping AlQuaida are also all just words, but due to those words we are in a protracted conflict in Iraq without the financial health, moral high ground or plan to pull it out.

    So, please take your *just words* and shove them up your orifice. Please close said orifice and stop uttering *words*. You may or may not be right about Reiser, but you and Reiser definitely have your ego and narcissism in common.

    Anonymouse

  115. The Chris Benoit example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legendary pro-wrestler, known as a master of various styles from Lucha Libre to Japanese Strong Style; after he murdered his family and suicided, his legend was immediately tarnished. A once-idolized wrestler, after this tragedy, became a pariah -- instantly.

  116. Re:Reiser Must Die! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "...Like a gay Republican, except that there's nothing wrong with being gay.
    Thank GOD! For a minute there, I thought you were going to say there is nothing wrong with the republican part ...
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  117. Todays Juries by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Today juries as a whole tend not to be intelligent enough to know what facts are, and are swayed purely by their emotions that are played upon by the attorneys. Who ever puts on the best show wins for the most part.

    Dont believe me? Who has time to sit for weeks on a jury? Most often its people that dont have regular jobs or a family to support, so the odds of getting an idiot is pretty high. ( not always of course, but the % is higher )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Todays Juries by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      Eh, I don't know about that. Most employers in America will continue to pay your salary during jury duty.

      (My non-scientific source for this: I recently got tapped for jury duty and the judge that talked to the whole pool first thing in the morning asked people who were still getting paid for their jobs to raise their hands. By far the majority of few hundred people there raised their hands.)

  118. Even if innocent by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if he is innocent, and proven as such during the trial, his life is ruined. Rather effective if you believe this was orchestrated by the wife to get back at him in revenge.

    Revenge is common in bad divorces, and this smells like revenge to me.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Even if innocent by HBI · · Score: 1

      Agreed. For instance, I made sure my ex-wife was deprived of our marital home via foreclosure because that was the only way to wrest it from her and her skank mother, who orchestrated the entire thing to milk as much cash and real property from me as possible.

      To do this, I made myself unemployed - six figures to less than 15k income for 2 consecutive years.

      It wasn't pleasant, and killing rats in my kitchen became way too commonplace, but I got my vengeance on those two horrible bitches.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Even if innocent by SouperMike · · Score: 1

      WOW.

      I'm not getting married, ever.

  119. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Almahtar · · Score: 1

    If Einstein murdered his wife, he would be a murderer, not a genius. You make a very important mistake. He would still be a genius. Everything he said would still be true. People would just fail to recognize it.

    The same goes for Reiser. His file system is really good. Don't let unrelated things influence your judgment of that.

    Oh and the AC is an idiot for saying that :-) Couldn't help mentioning, in case he comes back to read this.
  120. In this day and age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all intents and purposes, you are a fucking moron, FWIW.

  121. That would make getting away with murder easy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Turns out, a human body is something that can be disposed of in a permanent manner. For example you could incinerate a body. You'll notice that cremation is a popular method for dealing with earthly remains these days, and all it leaves is a bit of ash. Well it would work just as well for a murder victim as someone who'd died of natural causes. Or there's the ocean. It's really large, really deep, and has a very active ecosystem that will go to work on eating remains. Weigh a body down so it doesn't float, let it go down where it'll never be found.

    There's plenty of ways that someone who was skilled and thought it through could get rid of a body permanently. There's even more ways that aren't nearly so permanent, but still might elude investigators. As such if you require a body to get a murder conviction, you'll essentially give a free pass to anyone who is good at it. So long as they dispose of the body, that's all the defense they need "You never found a body, can't try me for murder."

    1. Re:That would make getting away with murder easy by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The human body is much harder to "dispose of" than you are implying here. In order to incinerate a body, it takes hours of intense heat in order to completely destroy all possible traces of that person. And that is if you are in a crematorium that is explicitly built for that purpose. I knew somebody who owned one and demonstrated just how long it took....where even in the crematorium they had to crush the bones several hours after the process started.... just to get it completely destroyed.

      In terms of critters in the ocean eating a physical body.... that is largely true, but it takes quite some time to accomplish that task. And most of the time it is the bones that are also among the last items to get eaten.

      Or more to the point on what I'm trying to point out, in both cases of "body disposal", unless you are very through and completely understand the process, there will be at least some substantial traces of DNA (in the bone marrow) of the victim left. And they both require a substantial amount of time to accomplish.... something you aren't going to do in a hurry.

      The prevailing theory against Hans (and likely to be introduced by the prosecutor) is that Hans dumped off the body of Nina somewhere in San Francisco Bay. For somebody who is so clever to have read murder investigation books, is a computer "hacker" with a slightly criminal bent, and a part of the "alternative culture" in the Bay Area (aka participates with Open Source Software), leaving the potential that Nina could still be found some time in the future. And that makes sense how?

      I'm not saying here that this isn't at least possible, but there are so many ways to screw this up that somebody as organized as Hans wouldn't have done it in so possible of a cliche method. And it would still be possible to find Nina, particularly given the haste Hans would have been required to dispose of Nina... if you count the time between when she was last seen and when Hans was arrested....also taking into consideration other things that establish a reasonable alibi for Hans that he wasn't just disposing of her body.

    2. Re:That would make getting away with murder easy by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Hmm....

      Cremation: Requires a special crematorium, and generally also requires grinding bones. Not really practical.

      Dumping in the ocean. Better hope that the body doesn't wash up onto the shore, get discovered by divers, etc. Pulling this off with a high degree of certainty would probably require strong knowledge of ocean currents or a boat capable of going pretty far out.

      Now, having said this, part of the issue is that you may not know exactly where the body is. If it is buried in the woods, for example.... So I don;t think one should necessarily have a body. I do think one should definitely have some reasonably conclusive evidence that the given individual is in fact deceased and that foul play was involved. That evidence could be a large pool of blood, an eye witness, a body, gallstones in sludge at the bottom of an acid drum, or something similar. In this case, you only have a (reasonably discredited) story of a child who says they were arguing as far as evidence that the crime was actually committed (and some circumstantial evidence which may or may not be dispositive).

      My questions are:
      1) Was there evidence of a struggle in her car beyond her groceries being in disarray? So far we hear the answer doesn't seem to be a strong "yes." This suggests that it may be that she had a melt down in her car (divorce is hard on people). This is obviously the most important place in the case.

      2) How extensive was the blood they found? So far it seems like there are traces of small blood stains which don't necessarily point to murder.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  122. I may not own other people by mstahl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But I do pwn them . . . regularly.

    Oh that's right. I just went there.

  123. Sigh by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I do so wish the whiners would learn some law before spouting off.

    Innocent until proven guilty applies only to a court room. What it means is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the state. The defendant doesn't need to prove anything, only to try and disprove their case. In fact, if they made a weak case, the defense could say nothing and prevail. It is a legal matter for where the burden falls and how to consider evidence, that's all.

    It does not apply to the media or to individuals. You are perfectly welcome to think whatever you like of whoever you like. For example OJ Simpson is officially innocent of the murder of his wife. A jury of his peers found him innocent, the matter is closed. He may never again be tried for that crime. As far as the legal system is concerned, he's innocent. Me? I think he's guilty and got off. I'm allowed to do that, and I'm allowed to say that.

    Now as for jail yes, you can be arrested and taken to jail before trial. In fact, you are quite likely to be taken to jail any time you are arrested. At that point there's a bail hearing. See the thing is, people are known to skip out on going to court once they know they are charged with a crime. So to prevent that you are taken to jail. Then, a judge hears on the subject of bail. In the case of some minor crimes, you may be released on your own recognizance, meaning they want nothing form you, they expect that based on who you are and the crime in question you'll show up for trial. Usually, they want some bail. This is a cash, or cash + loan amount that you give to ensure you'll be there. If you skip court, they keep the money. The more serious the crime, the more they want, also the more assets you have the more they want. They also weigh in things like how much of a flight risk you are (for example if you have little ties to the community and travel often).

    In some capital cases, there is too much risk of flight and the judge denies bail, and just orders remand. That means you stay in jail until trial. It's not all that common, but it happens. Some people are a very large flight risk and it is allowed for serious crimes. It is also occasionally ordered in cases where the accused may be in danger from vigilantes or the like.

    Nothing about this case is at all out of the ordinary here, and I don't just mean with current law, I mean with the way law has been practised in America for a long time. If you get charged with murder, the court is going to at least want a large chunk of change (which you'll stay in jail if you can't come up with) to ensure your presence at trial and perhaps may just deny bail entirely. This is because it turns out that a good number of people accused of murder, if left with all their money, decide that it might be a good idea to take all that and flee the jurisdiction.

    1. Re:Sigh by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      That statement is factually incorrect.

      In the criminal proceeding, OJ Simpson was found "Not Guilty". This is different than saying "Innocent". He may as well have did it, but the courts can only find no guilt. That doesn't mean there isn't any guilt.

      In fact, the civil proceeding found him criminally negligent. Because of this ruling, his 'juicy book' "I did it" was granted to the plantiffs.

      In mathematical terms: Criminal proceedings need 99% proof. Civil proceedings need (50%+1) proof.

      --
    2. Re:Sigh by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, it isn't. From a legal standpoint not guilty and innocent are different ways of saying the same thing. The point is the courts found that legally speaking he didn't do what he was accused of (murder in this case). That's a done deal and may never be reopened. The civil proceedings were a different matter. Murder was not the issue here, wrongful death was. He was found liable for wrongfully causing her death, but that doesn't mean he murdered her, at least according to the courts.

      Also your percentages have no basis in reality. Criminal isn't 99%, there's isn't any percentage involved. It is simply the standard of reasonable doubt. That means just what it sounds like: Is it reasonable to doubt that this person committed this crime. There's no percentages involved, you don't sit and weigh evidence based on it and say "Well they made to to X% so that means we vote this way." Doesn't matter how much evidence is one way or the other, what matters is given the evidence, is it reasonable to doubt they committed the crime.

  124. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Selfish that you want people that you love to live? Yes, actually, it is selfish to expect someone else to live in suffering so that you don't have to feel the pain of their loss.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  125. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    The way i understand things, is that initially Hans' mom had cutody of the children. Then after the wife disappeared, and since Hans was a murder suspect they awarded custory to the wife's parents who took them to russia.

    I am very doubtful Nina took off to Russia. First of all she would have had no way of knowing whether Hans would be suspect and whether her parents would win custody at all. She had no control of him ripping out his car seat buying a bunch of murder books and all the other behavior that made him a suspect. If he was not a suspect, then she would just never be able to see her kids again.

    Also if Hans really did not murder her, then he would hire a cheap Russian private eye to just hang around her parents' and look for her. Therefore, even in russia, she would not be able to see her kids. If that was the case, then what was the purpose of her big conspiracy?

  126. Re:Death Penalty! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

    Maybe you are right, I never was too impressed with ReiserFS, primarily because I am a veteran of the IT trenches and I have scars to show for every new and fancy technology meant to replace some mundane, pedestrian, not very sexy, but exceedingly tested, well understood and backwards compatible solution.

    So I was plodding over the years with ext, ext2, ext3, and they haven't let me down once yet in all that time. In the days before ext3 one could make serious accusations based on lack of journalling, but once ext3 rolled around, the only thing remaining is filesystem performance. Which while critical in some cases, has only marginal impact in many of the typical IT concoctions and which can also be drastically improved by just a modicum of common sense in userland organisation of what is actually stored and where on these file systems.

    So in short I tend to prefer well behaved and compatible even if older and slower over fancy, sporty, constantly changing, just a bit too self-important and more then once out of control cutting edge stuff.

    And so you are probably right, that all of the above probably adds some colour to my skeptical outlook on a guy who is responsible for a piece of software with just such characteristics.

  127. Turing, Posterchild for Tolerance by mechsoph · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's even possible to say Turin did not kill himself, but rather died of insanity.

    Turing (most likely) killed himself because he was found guilty of the crime of being a homosexual. He was consequently stripped of his security clearance and given female hormones as a "cure," causing him to grow breasts. A story almost as fucked up as whatever is really going on with Reiser.

  128. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    Yeah...I know what you mean...I wouldn't say she would 'never' see he kids again...more like an unknown period of time. I don't see why Hans' parents ability to be responsible toward the kids would be eliminated by the fact that their son was juuust a suspect, even to this day he is still not guilty right? I know that family law is quite different than criminal law, but knowing that Nina's mom doesn't have any ties to this community here, and more importantly, strong ties to her Russian community (practicing medicine with the rest of her family is a pretty strong tie) would present a flight risk, just the prospect of guilty should not be enough to permit their grandmother to take the kids wherever she wants effectively eliminating the possibility of Hans seeing his children at least during the trial (he probably had to surrender his passport until exoneration), and potentially ever again. How's that for a run-on sentence...anyway, my point is that it's not a huge stretch to believe that she could have orchestrated the events with the help of a few people...nor is it a stretch that he actually did it. If I were on a jury panel, I'd want to have some sort of evidence of foul play beyond a shopping bag by a car with its door left open in a parking lot. Blood? Witness to some badness? I say that a lack of evidence is NO EVIDENCE at all. Certainly, some things can be proven, but not enough to convict. Even in the article, they state that the cops have only a CIRCUMSTANTIAL -story- at best. I bet the cops can build a circumstantial case against anyone for anything if they really want.

    How many people get convicted on circumstantial evidence and (forgive me Nina, if you can hear me) no body?

    And the whole "we're going to ignore the crazy guy claiming to be a serial killer" just isn't right either.

  129. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

    Yeah and look on the bright side, since all of his work is Open Source, someone else that sees value in Reiser4 can pick up the torch and run with it. Although I haven't seen that happen yet, it may someday.

  130. youtube video of hans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  131. Not really by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, they don't issue exit visas for the US. If she is a US citizen now, she could have just gone, and tracking that would involve looking through a lot of airline records.

    My name is Christopher. If I buy a ticket as C. R. Travers, that is OK. If I buy one as Chris Travers, that is OK too. Depending on her identification, she might even have been able to book a flight with her maiden name. In short it is harder than it would seem to check this. Yes, it is possible to check, but probably not exactly trivial.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  132. Re:Things don't add up on both sides of this story by XO · · Score: 1

    That would seem to be pretty strange, having the children being afraid of the U.S., considering they were both born here...

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  133. Way off-topic, but by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    can you imagine circumstances where suicide would be a responsible choice?

    I can. Just because the vast majority of suicides are at least arguably not responsible choices doesn't mean it couldn't be.

    What if you are terminally ill and this is a way not only to reduce your own suffering but also reduce the medical expenses for your care? Is this sort of suicide still deplorable?

    What if you are committing suicide in order to spare your family from persecution over your alleged involvement in something? Is that still as deplorable?

    Can you think of any others?

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Way off-topic, but by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Can you think of any others?

      People who are always complaining that the Earth is overpopulated?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  134. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    If Einstein murdered his wife, he would be a murderer, not a genius.

    No, he'd be a murdering genius.

    Just like Robert Blake is now a murdering washed up actor.

    In the words of Chris Rock "If OJ Simpson had been a bus driver" ... "he'd be Orenthal the bus-driving murderer."

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  135. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life IS pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

  136. As always, what isn't being said. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    For instance, much is made of the fact that the woman is a doctor, from a family of doctors who apparently are well off, so she is not a gold digger.

    Except that they met while she worked as a translator for a dating service. A dating service involving a russian female and an american male, can you say mail order bride?

    Mail order brides are just a small step away from the human trade, I am not saying that ALL of them are criminal, but it is a grey area.

    Why does a doctor work for such an agency? That automatically sends alarm bells ringing.

    On the other hand, why was he living out of his car? And why remove a seat to do so? If he was that poor that he could not afford to rent even a single room, surely he could not afford to vandalise his car either.

    The fact that the father warned his son of suspicious stangers sound weird as well. Who would want to follow him? Mail order bride agencies are often shady but they are in the business of getting russian women hooked up for a fee, not murder or trailing people. Fake russian papers, sure, operations on american soil, no.

    Then there is the money he carried. Why would he need to carry the money with him? Russia doesn't have banks? Russians prefer to be paid in dollars? Did he also have his plane ticket already since he claims it was for his russian employers (was he going to mail the cash?)

    Truly, truth is stranger then fiction. If you tried turning this into a manuscript your editor would tell you to stop being silly.

    I just wish reporters would start to actually question what people told them.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  137. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by witte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your example reminds me of Einstein's pal, Fritz Haber.

    He drove his wife Carla Immerwahr nuts by demanding she be a housewife (like Reiser) while she a chemistry researcher with ambitions, and it was not a happy marriage.
    She committed suicide, coincidentally right after Haber introduced gas warfare in WW1 and killed 5000+ allied soldiers at the first front line trial in Ypres.
    (Look it up on wikipedia, it's a colorful story.)

    Interesting detail : Fritz Haber received a nobel prize for the "Haber" process for production of ammonia.
    He also invented zyklon B.

    Irony : Haber was of jewish origin.

  138. So like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I the only one who remembers Hans Resier as a complete asstool?

    How often is it that we see a person, who is obviously an arrogant jackass who turns out to be, well, a murdering arrogant jackass.

    Doesn't seem too off the mark for this smuck to me. Shrug.

  139. The technical term. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I believe the technical term your looking for is "petty bullshit". IANAJ though. (Jedi)

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  140. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Einstein murdered his wife, he would be a murderer, not a genius.

    What? No one here is accusing Reiser as being a genius. How the hell does Reiser come close to Einstein's level.

  141. Re:Every oddball defense of this guy gets modded t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is wacky that you think drops of one's own blood are an unusual feature in locations where one normally resides. It is wacky that you think buying a book on police investigation after the police start investigating is something.

    Regardless of the actual evidence, any straw available is grasped at to keep their hero a hero.

    If the police and prosecution are your hero in this case, then I understand your statement. Most people are wondering why this is in a court of law at this point. And why the judge fucked up so monumentally to allow the children to be absconded to another country.

  142. Re:Attractive women often think rules are for othe by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Hans Rieser's explanation is at least plausible. Very attractive women often begin to believe that no rules apply to them.

    I would also state that many people in the ex-USSR also believe that no rules apply to them. It's not just attractive women. A few years ago I was engaged to a Ukrainian woman. We didn't get married though. Long story short - her control freak ways and constant anger killed our relationship. I can tell you as someone who can speak Russian relatively well and has spent a lot of time in that part of the world that the USSR just ruined these people for the most part. It left behind a large number of completely amoral people as its legacy. Many Russian, Ukrainians, Belarussians, etc. have no problems with lying, stealing, etc. They use some weird psuedo-Robin Hood type justification for their actions - "rich" foreigners (all foreigners are rich to them) won't miss it, so they can lie and steal to get it. There's also this weird sense of entitlement that seems to permeate the entire society over there. Many people, maybe most of them, have completely unrealistic attitudes about money and wealth. As Jim Morrison sang once, "We want the world and we want it now!" These people have no concept at all of delayed gratification and they want to be rich today. Not tomorrow, but today. You really cannot comprehend how many people are on the take over there until you go there. Justice goes to whoever pays the most. You can literally get away with murder because you can buy off the cops to botch the investigation or pay off the judge to dismiss the charges.

    Yes, it's true that the women are really beautiful over there. They take care of themselves, aren't fat, and care about their appearance in public. But there is a dark side to them that gets overlooked. They are controlling. They grow up learning that all men are unfaithful drunks so they don't respect men at all. The whole concept of forgiveness is foreign to them. I can tell you that if you ever make one of these women mad, so will never in a million years forgive you for whatever it was, no matter how trivial. She will bring that stuff up again and again and again. Many of them have no problems with sleeping with other guys. They will rationalize it by saying that they don't love the other guy, so it's OK to sleep with him because it's only being unfaithful if you love the other guy. There are a very few women who aren't like this who are basically normal by Western standards, but the odds are that you'd never meet one if you go over there.

    My personal opinion is that she is not in Russia. Unless she got a forged passport (always possible I suppose, but unlikely I think), there would be a trace of her traveling by air. It's also not like these women to disappear. They are vindictive beyond belief. What a Russian woman would do is stick around and watch you suffer in court in a divorce trial by taking your money and kids. And honestly, it is almost impossible to find a Russian person who would willingly leave once they have a taste of life in America. I've known of women who came over almost totally unable to speak English and married guys they met through the internet. These marriages often go horribly wrong because neither party can speak the other's language and they don't know each other well. In these cases, the woman stayed after the marriage ended, even with very poor English skills. So whatever happened to this woman, I'm pretty sure she is not back in Russia.

  143. Re:Death Penalty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easily manipulated? You are the one that thinks its ok to beat your wife.

    Do people that abuse their wives deserve to live. All you have to do is write: "Yes, people that beat their wives deserve to live!"

    I see in your ideal world, people who do anything wrong must be executed. Otherwise, you wouldn't be creating this dichotomy between "either you kill them or you must think its ok". I hope you never get caught doing 56 in a 55 mph zone. Why stop at crimes though, I'd hate to be condoning other bad behavior. Little Timmy spent his day playing video games instead of studying and got an F on his math test? Uhoh!

    In the real world, people that beat their wives deserve to live, otherwise we've gone way past eye for an eye into lala land territory. That doesn't mean that it's "ok to beat your wife." How about this for punishment: people who beat their spouses are forcibly divorced, and have their wages withheld (no "oops I lost the support check") to support their spouse and pay for counseling, medical care, etc.

  144. Thanks. That fits with everything else I know. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    That is one of the most insightful replies I've ever seen on Slashdot. It fits with everything else I know.

    My grandparent post is still marked "Off Topic". Crazy.

  145. Murder Investigation Book by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    It should also be noted that he purchased the book AFTER the disappearance, which is documented by receipt. It would seem more likely to me, IMHO, he would have purchased the books before, as the whole thing -- if he did it -- seems to clean NOT to be pre-meditated.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  146. Re:Every oddball defense of this guy gets modded t by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Blood in the home and Reiser buying forensics technique books after the disappearance doesn't faze you guys in the least... any wacky theory that vindicates the guy, you'll latch on to?

    I can't speak to the blood, but as to the second, that's classic INTP (and probably a few other along that axis) response; if I was involved in a murder investigation, I'd feel compelled to study all sorts of related material.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  147. Fork? by fak3r · · Score: 1

    While the details of the trial are interesting, is there any effort to fork ReiserFS? There was a tremendous amount of excitement back when the details of version 4 were out, and I would expect the code to be maintainable by the right group...even though he was funding the development, you'd think there'd be many interested in working/improving/implementing it.

    Of course a name change would be in order...

  148. Re:Be honest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    69

  149. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Stop hating on Wal*Mart, they are selling $199 Linux PCs!

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  150. totally off-topic by Net_Wakker · · Score: 1

    A Japonese compnay has offered to dig a tunnel between Russia and the US for half-price. It would be very cool to travel from New York to England by rail the long way!
    o man... that would be a trip i'd love to make.
  151. Re:Death Penalty! by defaria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, I'll bite. Yes people that beat their wives deserve to live. Why? well because beating your wive is not a capital offense. So there. Even the law agrees with me. We do not kill people for beating their wives. Killing their wives? That's a totally different subject. And, BTW, it really doesn't matter if it is their wives, children, neighbors or strangers in a bar. Physical violence is physical violence and we already have laws regarding it. And the penalties do not involve capital punishment for such offenses. So your question/assertion is stupid! Yes emotion is a human trait. But logic is the kingpin. A totally emotional and devoid of logic person is the kind of person you meet in insane asylums. Now I know that's where you like to hang out but still - most of us here in the real world are rational beings... And there's a big difference between "you think it's OK to beat your wife" and "you think such people should be murdered by the state". Hmmm... The George Bush thing... What's the Usenet law that says that arguments eventually boil down to some non-related thing about Hitler? I forget it. Seems to me like we can now officially substitute "George Bush" with "Hitler"... And/or perhaps 9/11 truthers/government conspiracy theories...

  152. Re:Reiser Must Die! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Thank GOD! For a minute there, I thought you were going to say there is nothing wrong with the republican part

    And Democrats are better, how? The Reagan revolution laid the framework for a lifetime of general economic and military expansion of the United States. The liberal socialism that came before it was a complete and utter failure.

    --
    This is my sig.
  153. Ramone Reiser by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 1

    Hans Reiser's father has the coolest Ramones name in the universe: http://www.flapjackempire.com/ramones/

  154. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    Word. I worked in a hospital as a helper, and I often got the impression that people hardly ever really allow someone dying to even say goodbye in any meaningful way (don't mention letting them die before the doctors run out of things to stick into them, that's just taboo), and THAT is walmart family. The nurses seemed more involved in the grief of patients and family, like some sort of buffer... but then again we don't practice taking life and death seriously, do we. We'd rather espouse platitudes that are worthless and even insulting.

  155. Wrong approach by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Last I checked (and IANAL), one needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of a crime to convict. You might have a point if this were a wrongful death suit.

    What I (and many others have said) is that this does not seem to be possible based on the evidence which has made it to the media.

    1) Purchasing books on forensic techniques etc. after you are known to be the subject of an investigation? Doesn't sound like premeditation to me.
    2) Motive? Sure. She had motive to do stupid and cruel things to him as well. Divorce does that.
    3) Blood? What I have heard so far is not enough to suggest that she was actually killed. Suppose they did get in a violent fight? He would be guilty of a crime, but not necessarily murder. Or suppose the blood was just the result of a minor accident? No crime.
    4) I cant comment on non-public evidence here. But it seems to me that the basic trend is that she is missing. Nobody knows if she is alive or not. In a case like this, *if* she was murdered, Hans would be the primary suspect, and there is some circumstantial evidence which may implicate him.

    So, the real question is that there does not seem to be any direct evidence that Nina has been murdered which has been brought to the public attention. I think that such evidence if it existed would have been disclosed, if only for family and friends benefits. Unfortunately "If she was murdered, Hans almost certainly did it" is not good enough in this case. And I suspect that we will *never* get clear answers in the matter. Which really sucks for Hans if he didn't because there will always be a black stain on his reputation.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  156. Re:Linux dev = murders by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    This is the moral of Linux, murders, thieves, commies.... Thanks god for the MAC MAC-- do you mean Mandatory Access Controls, as in SE-Linux? (brought to you by the murderers, thieves, and commies in te NSA)
    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  157. So what do you do when you by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    have someone who has committed crime after crime. You sentence that person to a balanced punishment for a murder as a first step to rehabilitation, and after the individual gets out, that individual commits another, more gruesome murder.

    Do you put that person away for life without parole (the low-cost solution)?

    Or do you put that person to death?

    Which is more humane? I argue that the death penalty, especially for certain very limited classes of criminals is a good thing, if only it could be applied justly and fairly (which I don't think it is at present). I think this problem is something that can be solved, but people are not interested in real solutions (I think that the first thing which needs to be done is to reduce the level of choice that a judge and jury have in deciding who gets the death penalty, and make these a matter of objective matters only, such as prior violent crime convictions, etc. Just because someone seems "cold" and "unremorseful" means absolutely nothing).

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  158. Re:Good way to screw up your life Reiser by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Suppose the father or mother is dying of a very painful cancer which can only be treated using prohibitively expensive (and torturous) chemotherapy.

    I agree that many or most suicides are irresponsible. But does that mean that all are? Are there any counterexamples you would like to mention?

    Finally I would also add that I have lost friends to suicide. In one case, it was serious, chronic depression, and in the other it was a bad reaction to medication combined with PTSD (from her tour of duty in Iraq). In neither case would I suggest that these people were competent to choose to die, so blaming them for their actions misses the point. While regrettable, these sorts of things deserve compassion rather than shame. If someone is competent to make a decision to die and has a rational basis for that decision, then I am not one to question it, but the cases you mention are cases where medical (not moral) intervention are required.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  159. In that case by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    there was fairly strong evidence that someone had been killed and dissolved in the sulfuric acid (the gallstones), there was a confession, and there was strong evidence that he had fraudulantly sold various properties of the victims. What made that particularly horrible was the idea that he did this simply to pay gambling debts.

    None of this applies tothe Reiser case. Is there even proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Nina was murdered by anyone? My point is that this sort of thing should be required *before* a murder case can proceed. I don't care if they have a body or not, or whether there is some suspicious sludge in the bottom of a drum of acid containing human gallstones, or if there is a substantial pool of blood, or some other strong evidence that the person was dead.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  160. Where is ANY EVIDENCE "She's in Russia"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the police and courts deal with interpreting evidence rather than biased posters. Here's the real question: Why should anyone believe "she's in Russia"?

    Any evidence whatsoever for that implied and overtly-stated claim? Otherwise, let's just write it off as a nutty, baseless, conspiracy theory. Deal?

    1. Re:Where is ANY EVIDENCE "She's in Russia"? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      1) She got Rory his Russian citizenship 2 months before she disappeared.
      2) The children are then allowed out of the country with the idea that they will return. They do not.
      3) The children are not allowed to testify at the trial by the Nina's mother.
      4) She is accused (by both Hans and Ramone) of embezzling money from Namesys.

      I am not saying she did, and I am not saying she didn't, but one possibility is that she became afraid fo Sturgeon, wasn't happy with Hans, and decided that the best thing to do was to return to Russia with her kids. This would only be really possible if she or her mother had full custody rights. Note that there is also accusations of Sturgeon trying to teach the kids to like pain, and getting Nina introduced to ecstasy. All in all, it is not an irrational choice to make, and not one which would have been beyond her means to do without messing up the fact that she is missing (and Hans is at least a suspect, etc).

      In the end, unless Nina is found alive or dead, we will probably never know with any certainty what actually happened.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  161. Re:Every oddball defense of this guy gets modded t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any wacky theory that vindicates the guy, you'll latch on to?

    I can't speak to the blood, but as to the second, that's classic INTP (and probably a few other along that axis) response; if I was involved in a murder investigation, I'd feel compelled to study all sorts of related material.


    QED.
  162. Here is some circumstantial evidence by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    1) After divorce proceedings were started, she got her daughter dual citizenship (with Russia) 2 months before she disappeared she completed the same process for her son. Obviously she planned to return to Russia and take them with her (there is no reasonable explenation for that action).
    2) There were clear issues with her boyfriend (Sturgeon) and also with her estranged husband.
    3) She does not appear to have had a license to practice medicine in the US as far as I can tell.
    4) As far as I can tell, getting permission to take the children back to Russia would have been difficult due to resulting custody disputes (they can't easily just fly back for the one week night a week or the every other weekend, can they?).

    So, after she disappears, the only witnesses who can testify to Hans's actual behavior that weekend (his children) are whisked away to Russia never to return. AFAICS, they are not coming back to testify at the trial. If she had money (which she did if Hans and Ramone are to be believed and she embezzled money from the business), there is no reason she couldn't have turned to the Russian mafia for help. The point is that as far as we know. all her plans were executed and her children were taken to Russia, so the only question remains whether she made it back there alive or not.

    Note that this poses a few interesting issues. 1) The children are the key to any alabi by Hans. Their removal casts inherent doubt as to whether he could have killed her as police have suggested. 2) If there is evidence that her minivan was driven by someone other than her (as in fingerprints, DNA, or the like) this might be significant. Also if she was using ecstasy, that would also explain the wild driving, I would think. This represents a serious unanswered question. She could have bought the groceries specifically in order to frame Hans. People do strange things during divorce.

    Ultimately things boil down to the following possibilities:
    1) Nina is alive, lying low in the US until things die down, when she will return to Russia
    2) Nina is alive in Russia
    3) Hans killed Nina
    4) Someone else killed Nina.

    I would suggest that, based on the evidence we know of now, all four theories are not without doubt. We don't know if Nina is alive or not, where she is if she is alive, and, if not, who killed her. I would personally suggest that we will see an acquittal and the case will drop off the news, the kids will stay in Russia, and only if we are exceedingly lucky, will we ever learn the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  163. VERY interesting! Thanks. by aclidiere · · Score: 1

    I never have mod points when I need them.

  164. You are USian I reckon. Or Iranian. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Only in places with pervasive fundamentalist religions such an statment would make sense.

    To compare murder with suicide is perverse to say the least.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  165. So I don't know how much some people have followed by clayne · · Score: 0

    But with the latest testimony by Rory Reiser - it really doesn't look good for Hans:

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html