Slashdot Mirror
Live Blogs From the Hans Reiser Trial
whoever57 writes "The Hans Reiser trial has been underway for some time now, the prosecution is moving towards the end of its case. For those interested, not only in the outcome of the trial, but a detailed description of the trial, including some insights into police methods, two reporters are live-blogging. One report is by Henry K. Lee for the San Francisco Chronicle and the other is by David Kravets and published by Wired"
This case sickens me. Even if he did do it they appear to have no evidence at all, and it really does scare me that they can potentially take away your freedoms with conjecture.
After seeing several law cases through, some famous and some not, for personal interest, my faith in the legal system 'getting the right guy' is almost null. I often wonder how they get any one at all...
I ate your fish.
It has always been this way.
the worst part, have you ever sat on a jury? I have been in 2 and some people's "justifications" are insane. One trial 2 women were willing to send the guy down the river 30 secodns after we got in the room, they based it on what the DA said that the judge told them to strike from the record. It was pure fantasy on the DA's part and we were instructed to not consider it.
Their reason, " Oh the judge did not mean that when he said it. Plus he looks guilty."
we spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think. And this is the norm in Jury duty. Lots of really dense dits sit on those jurys. Many only listen to every other word or ignore everything from one lawyer because they dont like him.
Frightening.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wrong.
I sat on jury duty of a druggie bum that might have attacked the guy who let him live in his house. Why? For the money in his wallet.
The only evidence: The girl that lived there saw him running out of the house. From next door, where she was at a party. She admitted on the stand that she had done drugs the day before court.
Everything screamed 'guilty' except the lack of -any- evidence. It tooks us only a few minutes to reach a not-guilty verdict. We decided to stop and review everything to see if we could find -any- reason to find him guilty. We could not. It was unanimous.
So no, even though we assumed he did it, we were completely unable to find him guilty. Heck, if they'd put the girl on the stand, we'd have been as likely to think she did it, as she was the only witness and had just as much motive.
It's not 'very easy' to prosecute without evidence.
The worst part of the case was finding out they had kept him in jail for almost a year with zero evidence. And then the prosecutor said that 'New York' wanted him. Judge asked if they had papers, and they didn't, so they finally let him go.
Him, we were probably better off with behind bars... But that could have been -any- of us. They can and do hold people for years at a time with no evidence. Very scary.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
This is why if I am ever accused of a serious crime, I would seriously consider a bench trial.
What disturbs me a bit is that one of the blogs doesn't mention the word 'linux' even once, while the other mentions it in almost every entry: "Hans Reiser -- the popular Linux programmer who is accused of killing [...]", "The trial of the Linux programmer, who is accused of killing his estranged wife", "Hans Reiser, the Linux developer accused of murdering his wife", "the 31-year-old estranged wife of the Linux programmer who authorities say murdered her"...
Of course, his work on the linux kernel might be what he's most known for and if you don't know him, then mentioning that is the right thing to do. But mentioning it so often creates an odd and disturbing link between 'murder' and 'linux'. Especially since as far as I know, his work on linux plays absolutely no role in the murder case.
From the blog published by Sfgate: "In all, Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, he said."
More testimony:
"She seemed honest, right?" Du Bois asked.
"She definitely seemed honest, yes," Erwin said.
"You had the impression she was an honest person?" Du Bois asked.
"Yes," Erwin said.
"She exuded honesty?" Du Bois pressed as a juror in the front row appeared to have a bemused smile.
"Yes," Erwin said.
And this seems interesting, from the Wired blog:
"The Reiser couple's young son, now 8 years old, had told local child protective services officials and testified before a different judge during a 2006 preliminary hearing that he did see his mother drive away after his mother left him and his little sister for the Labor Day weekend. Before the jury, he did not testify he saw his mother leave the house."
This too:
"But on Wednesday, the scientist testified on cross examination that errors she made meant it was unclear whether there was two sources of blood -- meaning it could be the wife's or the husband's -- or blood from both of them. She testified she was not '100 percent certain' whose blood was on the pillar.
"It's an important distinction. There are two pieces of forensic evidence linking the husband to allegedly killing his wife. The other forensic evidence is a sleeping bag cover found in the defendant's car stained with the woman's blood. The rest of the evidence is circumstantial, including the husband's front passenger seat vanishing."
I'll go one better. I've been judged by a jury of my peers.
Couple years ago I found myself accused of a felony crime that I didn't commit. I wound up testifying at Grand Jury and they eventually decided not to indict me. When I stood before them the DA asked me a series of questions. Afterwards the Grand Jurors themselves got to question me.
The crime in question was a computer crime. The Grand Jurors actually asked intelligent and thoughtful questions. Most of them didn't understand the underlying issues of the case or the evidence that had been presented -- but they went out of their way to find out when they questioned me and for that I am thankful. It would have been ten times easier for them to just issue a rubber stamp for the DA and go home.
I'm sorry, but all the people around here advocating that we get rid of juries are really missing the point. Go study the history of how the common law came about. Read the Magna Carta. Read our constitution. Study our legal traditions. The State shouldn't get to take away your liberty if it can't convince your fellow citizens of the need to do so. The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.