Slashdot Mirror
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder
Anonymous Meoward writes "Today Hans Reiser was found guilty of first degree murder in Oakland, California. Quoting Wired: 'In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead... The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.' Whether he really did it or not, Hans basically just didn't know when to shut up."
Can he work on free software from jail? He won't commercially gain from the crime and he can contribute for the good of society as a whole (in fact, provide a benefit that the world can use).
From the article: "When police eventually located Hans Reiser's Honda CRX a few miles from his home, they found the interior waterlogged, the passenger seat missing, and two books on police murder investigations inside. They also found a sleeping-bag cover stained with a 6-inch wide blotch of Nina's dried blood. " That plus his behavior is pretty damn near close to passing the reasonable doubt criteria. A 6-inch wide blotch is a pretty large one, I might add, not a simple cut.
I live in North Oakland and knew Hans Reiser from the Berkeley OCF.
I met Nina Reiser at a pre-school picnic.
Nina seemed like a typical harried mom - devoted to her kids and quite kind (she got a cup of juice for my daughter).
Hans, on the other hand, went out of his way to be mean, petty, arrogant, and small minded. He acted as if he owned the Open Computer Facility, and that everyone should kow-tow to him. Once he booted an undergrad off the system because she had posted a Usenet message that he disagreed with.
I attended the trial for several days. I was impressed with how carefully the jurors followed the witnesses, even though the testimony was boring.
Hans shot himself in the foot by testifying. Maybe he shot both feet. He used the passive voice when describing critical events, as if he were an outside observer. He varied from extremely explicit (remembering license plates) to utterly vague (not remembering where he slept).
Even though I wanted him to get out of this squeeze, I quite agree with the jurors on this one: there may not be a body, but Hans committed murder.
In all likelihood, Reiser's lawyer did not want to put Reiser on the stand. However, it is generally accepted "[i]n a criminal case, [a] lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer...whether the client will testify." It is assumed that the right of a client to testify in criminal cases is a constitutional right. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, para. 16. Even if the client's testimony can only hurt the defense, the lawyer must allow the client to testify if the client so insists. To do otherwise would be unethical and impair the client's rights.
Mod parent up. I recently was called for jury duty and was directly asked the question "Do you agree with the statement that is it better to have five guilty men go free then put one innocent man in jail?" by the defense attorney. I think my response was something like "of course," and I remember being shocked that a significant number of potential jurors did not agree. Afterwards, though, I realized that the question really breaks down to "what's an acceptable false positive rate?" 1 in 10? 1 in 100? It made me realize the situation is not as clear cut as I originally thought. Sure, I can barely imagine the horror of being an innocent man in prison, but the fact is that you do need to accept some error rate to live in a lawful society.
While I could definitely see why he would kill that thieving bitch of a ex-wife of his, I don't think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he definitely killed her.
I'm sorry but a missing car seat, wet car carpet, and a single drop of blood in a house they at one time shared along with random books about murder (I have about 15 of them on my bookshelves and at least one in my car because I like to read) doesn't mean someone killed someone else.
His kid said he saw his mother leave and there's no body. The bitch probably is back in Russia and from what I have read, and please correct me if I missed something as I was only watching what Threat Level was providing, no one even took the time to see if she was over in Russia like Hans' defense claimed.
Sounds like there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury was bored with his testimony (more that I read via Threat Level) and not the prosecutor's. If anything, this has more to do with juries being fucking stupid than Hans killing her.
That all said, he probably did do it -- she stole tons of money from him and seemed to come to the US just because she was now "married" and didn't do it for love -- I just don't think they proved that he did actually do it.
>you can't convict a person of first degree murder.
"you" can't but the State of California can, and did.
Judge and Jury didn't find reasonable doubt for the accusation.
That car situation turned out to be just as bad for him as I said it was going to be.
He really, really needed to find that damn seat with no blood on it and the correct serial numbers.
If Nina ever shows up alive, she's in trouble.
The argument relies on Russia being a lawless place where a person of international interest can simply disappear.
That may be true to some degree, but she has to *remain* disappeared for *life*. What's she getting out of this
that would make such a difficult life worthwhile?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>If his testimony were allowed ... It would have guaranteed a mistrial.
Nowhere is it established that Sturgeon killed anyone. And nobody called Sturgeon as a witness for any purpose whatsoever.
It would be very different, if there were any evidence that Sturgeon killed anyone (say, because he was testifying from prison or something.)
It's a pretty serious problem for this notion, that none of the people Sturgeon claimed to have killed, are dead.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Guy's wife disappears. He then immediately removes the seat from his car...
/.'ers should heed is this:
Coincidentally, not immediately. Your bias is showing.
This murder was not proved. They have no body, they have insufficient blood to prove she is dead. Typical human holds 8 pints IIRC, that is much more than a 6" stain. They have no evidence of planning to commit on his part. All they have is a defendant that got up on the stand and delivered answers that the jury found weird, strange, not-normal.
So they alienated him, found him strange, and thus, were no longer a jury of his peers. Just a jury finding that the defendant was odd and probably hiding something and since we're in a murder trial, it must be that.
I have no special knowledge of this case. He may be a raging lunatic for all I know. But the one take-away that all
When in court, on trial for your life, subject to judgement from average citizens who have no hope of understanding you, your mannerisms or your bizarre hobbies and interests, keep your mouth shut.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
This is why I don't work for that a law firm any more. We did a lot of criminal defence and the one problem was often the mentality of the accused. The Persecutor often had very little evidence that supported thier case, but the sad fact of the judicial system is that the week link is the jury. I should say, the jury selection PROCESS. How many folks out there in "real-world" land do you think actually believe that things like CSI are "the way it really happens"? Saddly those folks don't make jury selection, they are predisposed to believe DNA==Guilty. SO by the time you select a *impartial* jury (i.e. folks who tilted their answers to jury selection questions to show that, no, they don't watch modern televisin what's this DNA stuff?) you got a panel or 12 Judy Judy watching MORONS who will be swayed by which ever attorney *looks* ballsy enough.
There was the last case I helped with (civil, not criminal) for them (I was the *tech guy* who ran the powerpoint display) where we were representing a homeless man who's throat had been torn out (yes, he uses the same voice box similar to the tracheotomy having smokers) who was sueing the police for medical damages (he had been sleeping under a tree when they were chasing a criminal(not him) and as far as the cop dog was concerned, he *looked* guilty, don't believe that crap about the cop dog following a scent, these are the dogs trained to attack and disengage on a word (shedard dogs) not follow trails (hounds))(by the way, before everyone jumps and says "but he's homeless, so he was just money grubbing, DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) were putting a lein on the settlement outcome, had we got what we were after (money wise) it would have only have paid the debt to the hospital that treated him). Our attorney did a FANTASTIC job during jury selection (only a 6 person jury, they do that in civil court) but he advised over and over and over, don't take the stand.
He did.
I know what the real tale was, I'd met and talked to the defendant, but, he was homeless, very mentally unstable (as most are) and the jury thought he sounded crazy. End of story. No win. One branch of the government did not have to hand over tax payer money to an other banch of government. Cause he *seemed* unhinged.
Similar is this case. Hans is an egotist. He *knows* he's smarter than you. And he spews contempt at your ignorance for not realizing this. Ask anyone who's ever debated with him in a forum. He acts as though you are nothing cause he knows all. Well, how well you think that flew with the proles on the jury? I can tell you, it didn't.
All they saw was a smart man telling them they were idiots. And that, they don't like. So they voted for the lynching.
The fault in out justice system is that our fate is in the hands of the lowest common denomiator.
May Mr Saturday come for us all.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
You are right. Believe it or not, the "body" in question is that of the accused.
Breakfast served all day!
You certainly dont work for that law firm based on your spelling, sentence structure, or ability to persuade. (Thats my wry little way of saying I think you're lying about the law firm bit by the way).
As a former juror, let me be the first to say "screw you". All 14 of us (dont forget alternates) worked really hard to get our decision right, even in the cruddy little case we saw. Two days agonizing over it, worrying that we were being swayed by personalities or facts, reviewing written testimony over and over again. Its really easy to spew here on Slashdot because ultimately its completely meaningless. I had to look someone in the eye and say 'guilty', and probably ruin their life, and it was really *really* hard.
I will *never* second-guess a jury after that. Even OJ! Unless you've sat through the trial and been in the jury room, you have absolutely no right to pass judgement on them or the burden they carry. So you with the laptop projector and the speech impediment calling me a "moron"? Bite me.
Lawyers cant get smart thoughtful people *off* a jury, because people somehow get really smart in groups of 12. Strangely it mostly works just like it should. I bet some of them even watch CSI and Judge Judy once or twice, and *still* managed to ask intelligent questions, make rational or impassioned arguments, and most of all be willing to take criticism from others and force yourself to re-examine your own position. I've never seen anything like it... it's like an anti-slashdot, if anyone here could imagine such a thing. Hell, someone even quit in the middle of deliberations and was mostly afraid that if they told us why they might influence us one way or another. People get it right most of the time. Even the people who aren't as smart as you are.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely the case. I've been called to jury duty several times, and have been rejected every time as well.
The selection process is such that even if one side finds a juror that they may think may sway to one side, the other side will simply excuse them. Of course the idea is that once you are all done with the process, you should end up with total middle-of-the-road people that *should be* completely neutral to the case.
But there is another hidden factor involved: how easily does the attorney have a chance against persuading the juror to agree on their arguement? So pretty much you just end up with the dumbest, most gullible people on the jury making the final judgement call. These are the people you would totally not trust for any important decision making. (apologies for being elitist, but you just had to be there)
The last time I had to go, I took a quick look at who they were excusing, and who they kept. They kept the unemployed, the single parent, the person with a criminal record, etc. None of which had any form of education higher than a HS diploma, if that. The lowest common denominator was laughably stereotypical. They booted out the accountants, the doctors, the lawyer, and the tech geeks. If you went to graduate school, there was no chance you wouldn't be dismissed.
Attorneys are not interested in a fair trial; they have money riding on their case. They are looking for people that will listen to their 'vote for me!' speech.
I do not get the impression that lawyers want smart thoughtful people on a jury.
Depends on the lawyer. My uncle was a bank inspector which caused him to assist lawyers prosecuting bank employees on several occasions. The prosecutors ALWAYS wanted smart, intelligent people who could understand how the defendants had defrauded the bank. Of course the defence wanted idiots who could not understand any of it.
My uncle joked that jury selection was as simple a looking at the newspaper the potential juror carried into the court room: FT and they were out, the Sun and they'd be selected!
I hate to tell you, but that is what you end up if you ship a mail order blad' sorry bride for yourself.
So beware of those Anastasia International banner ads on Slashdot. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Disclaimer - I am half of the same nationality myself and I have observed how my mom has dealt with my dad (another geek) for 25+ years. No thanks. None of that in my house. Not now, not ever.
Sad, really sad, and IMO totally selfinflicted.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/