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.
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.
Alan Turing murdered himself (or perhaps he was poisoned).
Is he known as a murderer or the father of computer science?...I forget.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Infuriate left and right
But wouldn't revealing that violate attorney/client privilege?