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).
SHUT THE FUCK UP. Honestly, that is the advice you need. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Don't talk. Don't answer questions. If you must talk, please state the following: 1) "Am I under arrest?" If YES, then say, "I want a lawyer." If NO, get up and leave. If you co-operate and help them out and do them a favor, whatever--they will talk you into taking the blame. They'll have you convinced you did it even if you didn't. PLEASE, SHUT UP.
blarg.
My personal opinion is that Hans killed Nina in a fit of rage, then scrambled to cover up the evidence. I did not see any evidence whatsoever of premeditation. So I can not at all understand how this jury reached a verdict of First degree murder.
It's written in his journal!
>Too bad ReiserFS will probably die
I'm guessing it will disappear in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Police will arrest the xfs maintainer on chargest, the evidence being that neighbors saw him carry out what could have been a backup tape wrapped in a roll of carpet in the middle of the night.
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.
For an interesting review of historical views on 'N' (and Blackstone's criteria in general), see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm.
Not if you know when to shut up.
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
No evidence? No body? No murder weapon? Who cares! The prosecutor used Power Point in his closing.. The defendant is "weird".
Did you bother to RTFA? There was plenty of evidence. A body is not required to arrest and convict somebody of murder. Otherwise all anybody would have to do would be to cremate the body and poof! No crime!
The article gives just a couple of examples, but they're obviously examples of many. The guy spent 11 full days on the stand. The one pretty incriminating example of evidence cited in the article is the fact that he removed the passenger seat of his car just after his wife's disappearance, then hosed down the interior and left an inch of standing water on the floor boards. Now, you tell me why any average person has reason to do that. I can tell you that in 20 years of car ownership and six different cars, I have never once taken the passenger seat out of my car, thrown it away and then hosed down the interior, and I don't know anyone else who has either. His explanation was that he liked to sleep in the car and wanted the extra room. Does this sound plausible to you?
So, let's just look at this *one* piece of evidence. Guy's wife disappears. He then immediately removes the seat from his car, which is never seen again, and he hoses down the interior of the car. That doesn't paint a picture for you? Now, let's say you ask the guy why he did that and he gives you a laughably ridiculous explanation. And let's say this goes on for 11 days as the prosecution asks him to explain every other piece of evidence, and his explanations are no less ridiculous in each case.
The standard for guilt or innocence is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean *any* doubt, and that's the mistake people often make. It's *reasonable* doubt. Is it reasonable to assume he was telling the truth about that car seat? Would any reasonable person do what he did with that car seat? And if all his other explanations about the evidence presented were similar, is it reasonable to assume he was telling the truth about anything?
Yeah that'd do it, genius.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
You're the type of guy that would reply to Jonathan Swift by giving him recipe ideas, aren't ya?
Reiser fsck YOU!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You've likely never slept in a car, then. I have, plenty of times. And I'd much rather sleep in the passenger seat than remove it and sleep on a hard bumpy floorboard with rails and bolts sticking out of it. Especially if I were tall, because if I slept on the floor, the back seat would get in the way, whereas the front seat back extends over the back seat and thus gives you more room.
So no, that claim is not credible at all. Especially when combined with a refusal to tell where you disposed of the seat, and hosing down the floor mats.
(Of course, the best car to sleep (or fsck) in were the old Ramblers, where you folded down the front couch, and it lined up with the rear seat to become a double bed.)
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!
Samson slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.
Hans Reiser has done himself in with the same weapon.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
People are lazy. People are only patriotic when it comes to buying a $1 sticker and sticking it to their car. People think of themselves, only, even when they appear to be thinking of someone else, usually it is because it benefits themselves in some way. People are animals in fancy cloths, 3 foodless days away from running around in packs tearing apart anything that looks edible.
Oh, and water is wet.
Look at the issues in the Hans Reiser case: Marriage. Money. Economic disparity between the accused and the alleged victim. Breakdown of an abusive relationship. Comfortable, middle-class, single male may just not have a lot of empathy for any of these situations.
Or, to put it another way: Who would you want sitting on your jury? Hans Reiser?
Breakfast served all day!
Having sat for jury duty a few times, and being rejected every time, I can tell you that the -last- thing a lawyer wants on a jury is somebody with critical thinking skills.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
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.
- - went to college, and
- - have multiple Master's degrees, and
- - am an engineer, and
- - own and run my own successful business
I can only conclude that both sides prefer to exclude jurors who can think, who evaluate the evidence presented and are not swayed by emotional arguments beyond the evidence itself. Both sides (prosecution and defense) seem to want jurors who can be hoodwinked into believing the out-of-band implications of a theatrical presentation.In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.