Slashdot Mirror


Hans Reiser Leads Police To Nina's Body

jlmcgraw was the first to alert us that Hans Reiser has led police to the location in the Oakland Hills where he buried the body of his wife Nina. (We discussed the rumor that he would do so last month.) SFGate.com reports that remains were recovered but have not yet been identified. Reiser is to be sentenced on Wednesday. CBS5 claims that Reiser made a deal for a reduced sentence, to 15 years, in exchange for revealing the body.

1,523 comments

  1. Sad by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel bad for the kids - that is such a messed up situation.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hans shot first

    2. Re:Sad by SoCalChris · · Score: 5, Funny
    3. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I"m switching all my systems to JFS or XFS tomorrow. There's no way I'm going to run the filesystem developed by a murderer.

    4. Re:Sad by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, no question it's a killer filesystem.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Sad by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      --

      yvan eht nioj
    6. Re:Sad by Schadrach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assume you also despise Jabberwocky, the Hunting of the Snark, and Alice in Wonderland, because of the considerable likelihood that their author was a pedophile?

      One illicit and/or immoral actions/beliefs should not prevent the use of their intellectual output, unless the two are intrinsically related (since murder is unrelated to filesystems, that isn't the case).

    7. Re:Sad by dougmc · · Score: 1

      It did kill my files.

    8. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And somehow, DARPA is connected to this... "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is the Primary sponsor of Reiser4." http://web.archive.org/web/20070109223217/http://www.namesys.com/

    9. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      They say a girl should always dress for the man she wants
      so why am I laying here thin and bare and gaunt?
      It's all because some hacker came and murdered me
      So now I'm being dug up so he can cop a plea

      I should have gone to free credit report dot com
      I could have seen him comin at me like an atom bomb
      They monitor your credit and send you email alearts
      So you don't end up being used as wormfood in the dirt.

    10. Re:Sad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Funny
      But did it lead you to where they were buried? =)

      What, too soon?

    11. Re:Sad by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      One illicit and/or immoral actions/beliefs should not prevent the use of their intellectual output, unless the two are intrinsically related (since murder is unrelated to file systems, that isn't the case).

      Maybe. But as my Philosophy Prof used to say, "Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you what kind of man you are."
      Your compartmentalization is nice, but that won't sell me on using a file system named after a murderer, no matter how good it is. They should rename it PRONTO. Sure, there's notoriety in the name, but face it, OJ ain't getting any big movie deals and he's definitely more famous than he was.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    12. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All jokes aside, Its good that he came clean.

      Now millions of open source developers can follow his example, should they find out I have been sleeping with the women in their lives.

      After all, he killed the girl, not her lower. As he should have, but hey that's just my personal opinion.

    13. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Indeed. This is a terrible tragedy. I hope that the children can be put in a good home. And I hope that Hans is able to get help.

      I also hope that the court will be intelligent in dealing with this. Society will be better off if Hans can still contribute to F/OSS. He doesn't necessarily need to work on ReiserFS. He could also work on educational software or software for hospitals. But ReiserFS is what he would be best at. It might not seem very important, but it's better for society than having him mope in his cell or weed gardens.

    14. Re:Sad by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of "don't throw the baby out with the bath water?"

      I would consider it a part of his debt to society, he already has it under GPL its at least 2x faster than anything we have in OSS and it already works fairly well. So what are you going to do now invent a way of doing what this guy already did or take what he made and bullet proof it?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    15. Re:Sad by ari_j · · Score: 1

      What is your rationale? Or, for the remedial class, please distinguish your logic from the following: "There's no way I'm going to live in a country whose declaration of independence was penned by a slave-owner!"

    16. Re:Sad by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I hope slashdotters will be sensitive in this tragic situation and not go for cheap laughs.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Sad by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should rename it PRONTO

      Er, no. The people with the pull to attempt to promulgate that work under a different name know full well who they are dealing with; one of the biggest pricks currently walking the Earth. Anyone tries it and Hans will be filing copyright suits from inside whatever cage CA puts him in. Right or wrong that's what WILL happen. Hans is that big a prick.

      Recent Reiser quote:

      I have a compulsive tendency to say things that I know are true that people don't want to be true

      Good luck with that in prison, Hans. That alphageek social misfit stuff works fine when the stakes are low; among other geeks squabbling over geekery. You will now receive the socialization someone neglected when you were 12.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    18. Re:Sad by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "but that won't sell me on using a file system named after a murderer"

      Named after?! He wasn't a murderer when it was written and named dumbass, it was named *before* he became a murderer by *years*.

      I suppose you never buy anything made by any subsidery of coke, put money into banks... you say you wanna switch another filesystem like JFS? From IBM? After their involvement with the Nazis?!!!!

      Get real!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    19. Re:Sad by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2

      I hope slashdotters will be sensitive in this tragic situation and not go for cheap laughs.

      You're new to the internet, right?

    20. Re:Sad by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      (Golf clap)

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    21. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow there is a new column under features...tacky.

    22. Re:Sad by menkhaura · · Score: 3, Funny

      Judge: "Why did you kill your wife, and not her lover?"
      Defendant: "What would be better? That I killed only my wife, or a dozen other men?"

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    23. Re:Sad by piojo · · Score: 1

      It did kill my files.

      Yeah, mine too. ReiserFS used to have some sort of data-eating bug (that I never did manage to find reliable information about).

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    24. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy Hitler brand art supplies at bargain prices! You'd be crazy not too!

    25. Re:Sad by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      How sad is it that I know very little about the inner workings of filesystems and I found an error in that link in like 2 seconds. It says that only Windows Vista allows for soft links and before that NTFS could only create junctions and only on the same partition and it couldn't create them for files. Either that is wrong or my entire filesystem is an illusion because I've been using Junction Magic for awhile and while my Win2K and XP think the folders in My Documents are on the C: drive,in actuality the audio folders and pictures are on D: while the Video and VB Code folders are on E:. The authors of the software have a link to a program on their site that will do the same thing with files. You can also do the same trick if you have purchased the Windows Resource Kit from MSFT with the LINKD tool.

      On the subject of Hans I pretty much figured he was guilty when he tried to lose the cops and went to the "lost" car,which had a soaking wet interior and the passenger seat gone. I figure he got into an argument with her,she threatened to take the kids back to Russia,he killed her and then panicked. The shear sloppiness makes me think he didn't really plan this,as I think we can all agree that the guy wasn't a dummy. So in the end he gets the same time he would have if he would have just called the cops and told them what happened. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re:Sad by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      Note that he was a Linux user and a murder, and that he couldn't have had access to the latest video games. I suggest that Tux Racer encourages people to murder.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    27. Re:Sad by Dmala · · Score: 1

      I thought it seemed kind of sketchy during the trial when the family whisked them away to Russia and refused to bring them back. Now I think they're much better off as far away from him as humanly possible.

    28. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ReiserFS is pretty much a dead project now, everyone is switching to alternatives.

    29. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy Hitler brand art supplies at bargain prices! You'd be crazy not too!

      And the Jews just love 'em!

    30. Re:Sad by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 0

      the parable of riser

      i for one thought he was completely innocent seeing as her former lover was a serial murderer. Perhaps he copped a plea because the serial killa threatened his children?

      --
      -
    31. Re:Sad by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Funny

      Should've gone with BeFS. At least the filesystem is indexed and instantly searchable.

    32. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in denial, man. There was no evidence other than the friend's confession that the guy was a serial killer. More likely, he made it up in the hopes that he would go to jail instead of Reiser, which makes him a good friend, but not a serial killer.

    33. Re:Sad by menace3society · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Reiser koan:
      Three crazy people set up a bizarre love triangle/business. One murders his wife, the second kills eight others and maybe a ninth, and the third is dead. Who is the more guilty?

      Or maybe it should be a joke line:
      A hacker, a Russian mail-order bride, and a bisexual serial killer into bondage walk into a bar...

    34. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      "Murders your wife" column

    35. Re:Sad by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Funny

      And it has plenty of experience with being dead and buried, too.

    36. Re:Sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, sometimes, if it feels like it, but it usually takes a long, long while.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:Sad by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My question is the same as it would be were this any other software: Is the author trustworthy? If not, is it possible that the software is similarly untrustworthy?

      Furthermore, is it really all that good, or is it mostly ego?

      I don't know, but his actions cast doubt on his character and therefore on his works.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    38. Re:Sad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, reiserfs won't suddenly leap from your HD and start murdering your kittycat. If you feel the "moral" obligation to avoid a filesystem developed by a criminal, your choices are also pretty slim. Or does someone have to kill his wife to avoid his file system, committing "simple" white-collar crimes doesn't really count?

      Maybe I'm an amoral person, but avoiding a tool because it has been developed by someone who committed a crime that doesn't affect me in any way seems childish to me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:Sad by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most definitly. I stopped drinking OJ right after the trials...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:Sad by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      To pick on one of the points you make, there is no filing copyright suits. It's GPL code and released under a license. I could fork it today and call it VegetableFS.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    41. Re:Sad by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Suicide might be related to filesystems for people wrestling with fat32 wackiness...

    42. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't a murderer at the time he developed the file system.

      How many other developers might be driven to murder if confronted with a messy, bitter divorce and financial difficulties?

      Certainly not all of them, but I'm willing to bet more than none.

    43. Re:Sad by magesor · · Score: 0, Redundant

      +1

    44. Re:Sad by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But as my Philosophy Prof used to say, "Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you what kind of man you are."

      That doesn't mean you are like your friends. It means your personality searches for certain kinds of friends. E.g. a submissive person would seek a commandeering person et vice versa.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    45. Re:Sad by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      I could fork it today and call it VegetableFS.

      How about SchiavoFS?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    46. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burma Shave!

    47. Re:Sad by antime · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the things Hans and Nina fought over was him letting their son play violent videogames. In conclusion, proprietary software kills.

    48. Re:Sad by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Oh yes much more proper! However, when this new filesystem isn't fed a steady supply of reads and writes, it slowly whithers :D

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    49. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a good point. somebody call jack thompson STAT!!!

    50. Re:Sad by Tano · · Score: 1

      I don't think the guy was being serious... Well, it's possible, but it's too sad an idea to contemplate really...

    51. Re:Sad by mcvos · · Score: 1

      After all, he killed the girl, not her lower. As he should have, but hey that's just my personal opinion.

      The lover wasn't the one that was being unfaithful. Killing him doesn't stop her being unfaithful. Killing her does.

      (Ofcourse my opinion is that nobody should kill anyone, no matter what.)

    52. Re:Sad by sckeener · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. There is never a winner in such cases, for the victim's or perpetrator's families.

      Believe me...I know.

      My mother got 26 years for killing her boyfriend after he gave her an STD. She's on year 16 now.

      My dad, who I think is innocent, is serving 30 years for sexual assault of child (3yrd). He's on year 9. He'll be 73 the first time he could get parole (which he probably won't - They don't do that in Texas) or 88 if he has to serve the entire sentence. I think he is innocent because there was no physical evidence and just the word of a 3yr old. He carded my mom before he would date her. My step mother also said my sister (9yr old @the time) had been abused during the trial, but that turned out to be false. The 3yr old's brother was a sex offender and her dad, who was divorced from the mother, would come over every Wednesday night to his ex's home to bathe the little girl. So all of that makes me think he is innocent. There really is little hope for my dad. He has exhausted his appeals...Everyone thinks that if the appeals didn't get him out then he must be guilty...well appeals are for finding errors in the trial. They are not about finding out if he was guilty or not. You only get one chance to prove that.

      My grandparents refuses to discuss my mother with anyone who might have known her. They feel it as a personal shame. Like they messed up as parents. They have lived 16 years like that....

      My sister went from getting 4 times her child support payment to none when my dad went to jail. She went from seeing her daddy every other weekend to living with the knowledge of what he was convicted of and going to junior high, then high school. She didn't even know all the facts about the case until a few months ago.

      so yeah...I feel for the kids...I feel for their entire family on either side.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    53. Re:Sad by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 1

      Basing your technical decisions on the moral aspects of Reiser's actions is just blatantly stupid. Let's be clear about this: When discussing ReiserFS, it doesn't matter if Reiser was a saint or a clinically insane psychopath. They are two completely unrelated issues.

    54. Re:Sad by Anti_zeitgeist · · Score: 1

      wow, funny, but so wrong.

      --
      If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
    55. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the right hand column of the first table: it says "Murders your wife".

      Sick.

    56. Re:Sad by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good luck with that in prison, Hans. That alphageek social misfit stuff works fine when the stakes are low; among other geeks squabbling over geekery. You will now receive the socialization someone neglected when you were 12.

      Great. Now they're going to turn him into a hepatitis-and-AIDS-infested career criminal? I think we were safer when he was only killing one woman, and millions of innocent files.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Sad by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 1

      Three crazy people set up a bizarre love triangle/business. One murders his wife, the second kills eight others and maybe a ninth, and the third is dead. Who is the more guilty?

      MU.

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
    58. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that in prison, Hans. That alphageek social misfit stuff works fine when the stakes are low; among other geeks squabbling over geekery. You will now receive the socialization someone neglected when you were 12.

      Yep. Answering the question: "Jelly? Or Syrup?" as foreplay to a butt-raping is adequate socialization for any geek.

    59. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be more likely to vote LBreakout. Every time I go after one of thoes falling pills and miss the ball...

    60. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd say bullet-proof it. He might be coming back to take it out next.

    61. Re:Sad by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Informative

      How sad is it that I know very little about the inner workings of filesystems and I found an error in that link in like 2 seconds. It says that only Windows Vista allows for soft links and before that NTFS could only create junctions and only on the same partition and it couldn't create them for files.

      Not as sad as the fact that you clearly know more than Microsoft about this, since that info came from a Microsoft Technet article! Link.

      A file system feature many have considered missing from NTFS, the symbolic file link (or as it's called in UNIX, the soft link) finally arrives in Windows Vista. The Windows 2000 version of NTFS introduced symbolic directory links, called directory junctions, which allow you to create a directory that points at a different directory, but until the Windows Vista version, NTFS has only supported hard links for files.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    62. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even an evil genius murderer? Yeah this sucks, but what other comparable filesystem would you suggest, other than JFS or XFS which are more server oriented. Because ReiserFS 3 can pack multiple small files in a data block it's a lot faster than EXT3 for your system partition, so I'm still using it. If anything he wasn't a murderer while writing ReiserFS, only later, hopefully ;)

    63. Re:Sad by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But OJ was found not guilty!

      I personally think it was Milk...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    64. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the second kills eight others

      No, he *confessed*, but when the police actually looked into it they found the supposed victims were either still alive or didn't exist at all. He was released and is not being tried for any murders because they never happened; it was nothing more than an attention-seeking gambit. (Some people really will do things like that just to get their names in the news. This guy probably got a taste of publicity from his tangential involvement in the story, and then decided to make himself a more central figure... for a couple weeks, anyways.)

    65. Re:Sad by Seismologist · · Score: 1

      In case you miss it, look carefully at the far right column

      --
      ~ In Trust, We Trust ~
    66. Re:Sad by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well,they say the DX10 only works in Vista too,yet I know a couple of gamers running it on XP. Often MSFT will say the only way you can get feature X is by using the latest and greatest,when it works just fine in previous versions. They just don't release native tools except for the latest and greatest in the hopes they can get you to shell out more money. Just business as usual at good old MSFT. That is why most of us that have to work with MSFT software day in and day out have learned to take everything they say with a grain of salt. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    67. Re:Sad by troll · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is sad. But why not give Hans access to computer equipment so he can {develop|finish} his file system.

      --
      Official Pi Ambassador -- inquire for details!
    68. Re:Sad by fscrubjay · · Score: 1

      FAT32 has certainly kicked my ex's ass a few times

    69. Re:Sad by eam · · Score: 1

      Just my opinion, but screw him. I say society can get along fine without him. He's a nerd. If he's allowed to code in jail he won't even notice that he's being punished. Let him rot.

    70. Re:Sad by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      (Ofcourse my opinion is that nobody should kill anyone, no matter what.)

      No matter what? Really? What if I come at you with an aluminum baseball bat shouting "I'm gonna kill you, fuck your wife and kill her too!" Would you just accept that (because nobody should kill anyone, no matter what) or would you pull your trusty .45 caliber automatic and blow me away? I'd hope you would choose the latter option, because if you don't there's something seriously wrong with you.

      Sometimes it is necessary to kill: unavoidable even. The only question is when is that the right thing to do. I personally agree, killing one's wife over infidelity is not one of them, but that's my perspective as an American. In some societies a murder in that situation would be accepted, even expected.

      But hey. That's life.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    71. Re:Sad by mcvos · · Score: 1

      No matter what? Really? What if I come at you with an aluminum baseball bat shouting "I'm gonna kill you, fuck your wife and kill her too!"

      Then I think you should not kill me. No matter what.

      Look, I know I don't always get what I want, I know that bad things happen, and I know it's technically possible that I may end up in a situation where I have to kill in order to prevent something even worse, but that'll usually be because someone else is already committed to killing someone, which, like I said, is wrong no matter what. It becomes a choice for the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't make it any less evil in itself. It's just that doing nothing in such a situation is even worse.

  2. Okay there you go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

    1. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes.

    2. Re:Okay there you go by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

      I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Okay there you go by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Funny

      All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

      The guy was persecuted for being a little strange, which is an outrage. Oh, and he also killed his wife.

    4. Re:Okay there you go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. But you'd have to be bloody insane to think that maybe Hans didn't do it at this point. I mean, he knew where the body was buried.

    5. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Just the same, I still believe that those of us who didn't jump onto the 'lynch him!' bandwagon exercised proper caution in being hesitant about declaring someone a murderer.

    6. Re:Okay there you go by NoobixCube · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, I don't doubt it. Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    7. Re:Okay there you go by dark+whole · · Score: 4, Funny

      Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

      You must be new here.

      --
      CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
    8. Re:Okay there you go by badasscat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, he knew where the body was buried.

      Lucky guess!

    9. Re:Okay there you go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, and there was no reasonable doubt. They had physical blood evidence that Nina was murdered in his car.

    10. Re:Okay there you go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      More like 'unlucky guess' ;)

    11. Re:Okay there you go by badasscat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

      Not in any state that I know of. Otherwise, the only thing you'd need to do to get away with murder is dispose of the body.

      Poison someone, dump them in the ocean with a rock tied to their ankle, and poof. No murder, right?

      That's not the way our legal system works. A missing person, another person who was their known last contact, poison residue on their hands, a poison bottle in their possession, a car that's got sand from a particular beach on its tires, clothing fibers from clothing the victim was known to own in the car, receipts for rope, a blindfold and other tools in the murderer's possession, existence of a motive... that's enough circumstantial evidence to arrest and probably convict somebody in any state in this country.

    12. Re:Okay there you go by RedWizzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

      I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection, perhaps because they could relate to him, I don't know. I always thought that the alternative theories were pretty weak - there was no evidence that crazy best friend did it and no real motive for Nina to try to frame him by fleeing to Russia without her kids. On the other hand there was a large amount of physical evidence, which taken together (and considering Hans' complete lack of a plausible explanations for any of it) didn't leave a reasonable doubt in my mind. Or the juries mind. And now a lot of people here have to admit that the police and the jury were right.

    13. Re:Okay there you go by ghostunit · · Score: 1

      What's with you people and your obsession with "believing" and "being right"? the only information we had was that from the news. We were not in the case at all.

      In what way does having "believed" in the current outcome validate you? all of us have been just guessing, that's all. It means nothing whether you "were right" or not.

    14. Re:Okay there you go by flajann · · Score: 1
      Well, with the number of times I've been falsely accused of just about everything imaginable, include kidnapping and murder, I was inclined to seriously consider he'd been falsely fingered as well.

      This sets a bad, bad, BAD precedent for criminal law in the US, because now it'll be seen as OK to convict someone without sufficient evidence.

    15. Re:Okay there you go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died.

      Yes, there was. There was physical blood evidence in Reiser's car. Besides, does anyone really think that Nina Reiser would take off to Russa and leave her kids?

    16. Re:Okay there you go by Sheafification · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They had physical blood evidence that Nina bled in his car. Doesn't mean she died there, nor that Hans killed her. Seems like that last fact is pretty settled now though.

    17. Re:Okay there you go by pudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now, I don't doubt it. Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

      It's not.

    18. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You fail. There were traces of blood found on an item stored in the car (sleeping bag). It proved nothing more than that she had bled a certain (small) amount there. It was just one piece of circumstantial evidence. You can find traces of my blood all over the place, I've banging my knuckles and the like countless times doing work on my house and car.

      If Reiser was less of an asshole during his trial he would have literally gotten away with murder, the prosecution barely had enough to bring to trial and it was all circumstantial.

    19. Re:Okay there you go by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And now a lot of people here have to admit that the police and the jury were right.

      I have a feeling that a great many people won't step forth and own up to being wrong; it's just not in human nature.

      Me, I never followed the case closely, but with what I did read, figured either he did it or he was a big idiot. Now I know the answer is "both."

    20. Re:Okay there you go by bh_doc · · Score: 2, Funny

      If, upon discovering the body, Hans said something along the lines of "Holy shit! WTF?! There was actually a body there?!" I'd be more inclined to believe the "lucky guess" story.

    21. Re:Okay there you go by Nelson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll clue you in. Reasonable doubt requires more than just a semi-plausible alternative theory. It's not like reading something in a textbook. "Reasonable doubt" is made up of his actions, his inaction, the things he says to the jury, the things he doesn't say to the jury, his actions in court, his mannerisms, whether he appears to be lying, all of that stuff. There is no sterile, black and white "reasonable doubt" where he can just tell lies and suggest an alternative theory and get off.

      That's what makes serial killers scary, they are so emotionless and seem to not think that they did anything wrong that they can just lie to a group of people and most people find it believable. Many of them are smart enough to not get caught in lies.

      Hans had a lot of circumstances stacked against him and then he did the worst thing possible and he opened his mouth in court, the guy has a hard time communicating with people that really want to understand him and hear what he has to say (fellow kernel hackers) no way he's going to lie to a jury in a convincing manner. Even for a geek he is a very odd individual. Just not convincing in court, and as it turns out, he did the crime anyways. A jury saw through his lies and they were right, as they tend to be. Some estimates have them between 85% and 90% accurate.

    22. Re:Okay there you go by D+Ninja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection

      Heh, I'll probably be modded as Flamebait for this, but...whatever.

      I agree with you. The OSS connection, I think, is what made people think he was innocent. If this had been a story about Bill Gates or some other closed source proponent, I wonder if people's reactions would still have been the same on this site.

    23. Re:Okay there you go by novakyu · · Score: 0

      I mean, he knew where the body was buried.

      Or his attorney did.

      At least until the body is positively identified (perhaps by DNA testing) to be that of Nina Reiser's, for all I know this is some ploy/maneuvering by the defense attorney (who had more than ample time to tell Reiser what he was planning) in order to reduce Reiser's sentence.

    24. Re:Okay there you go by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've bled many times, and a few times I've bled a lot. Still not dead ...

    25. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An almost approximate doubt.

    26. Re:Okay there you go by flibuste · · Score: 5, Funny

      Debian randomness!

    27. Re:Okay there you go by caller9 · · Score: 1

      So he's the white-and-nerdy OJ?

      That is ridiculously funny.

    28. Re:Okay there you go by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).

      I think you're stretching the definition of "reasonable" here. That doesn't mean that you can find another explanation, it means that you have another explanation that a rational person would find explains the facts just as well as the theory that the defendant is guilty. Do you really find that either of those two theories explains the bit about him washing blood out of his car that matched his wife's?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    29. Re:Okay there you go by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).

      Neither of those were reasonable alternatives. The "ran away to frame him" scenario fails to explain the physical evidence or Reiser's subsequent behavior, and the "killed by insane friend" theory requires Hans to be an accomplice, at least after the fact, to explain it, as well as some plausible motive for Hans to try to protect the insane friend, even after he murdered his wife.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    30. Re:Okay there you go by caller9 · · Score: 1

      Wow, 1 in 10. Nice odds. Just saying. If I had 1 in 10 or moderately less chance of proving my innocence to a bunch of saps who cannot avoid jury duty I would be scared shitless.

    31. Re:Okay there you go by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy to say now.. Now that we know the blood was from the murder and not from something else.

      Still I'm glad the correct jury came to the correct decision.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    32. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      considering Hans' complete lack of a plausible explanations for any of it

      It wasn't merely that he lacked plausible explanations for any of it; additionally, he had limitless implausible explanations for all of it.

    33. Re:Okay there you go by dasmoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe now he can tell me where he hid my files.

    34. Re:Okay there you go by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Informative
      the prosecution barely had enough to bring to trial and it was all circumstantial.

      Nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. I've seen it written that circumstantial evidence is like a cable. If one strand breaks, there are always others.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    35. Re:Okay there you go by beav007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lucky guess!

      No, he found the location in his journal...

    36. Re:Okay there you go by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      wait, that means police racism works backwards when the media are watching. Hmm im sure there's an MJ joke in there somewhere!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    37. Re:Okay there you go by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The explanations were: Reiser is a paranoid loony with zero social skills, or Reiser is a killer. Surprisingly, people wanted to believe the latter.

    38. Re:Okay there you go by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yep, a few spots of blood isn't real evidence of murder, or even good evidence of anything by itself. The fact that he 'threw away' the passenger seat from his car (and can't remember where) is a bit more damning when tacked on.

    39. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

      Well, he knew where her body was buried. Doesn't necessarily mean he killed her, though. He could have found it by accident while attempting to clean his car.

    40. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent

      Sure, but that wasn't the reason why there was so much opposition to his conviction. People didn't (and still don't) seem to be able to grasp the difference between probably did it and have proven it beyond reasonable doubt. It's entirely consistent to believe that he did it and that he shouldn't have been convicted. Not because he's a big contributor to open-source, but because the standard for allowing the state to take away somebody's freedom and ability to vote for most of their life should be fucking high and his trial didn't meet it.

    41. Re:Okay there you go by twatter · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a small amount, it was a large amount of blood, a large stain. This is not you leaving traces of blood when you scrape your knuckles (FFS), this is a "I just crushed your skull and you're bleeding all over my car" amount of blood.

      > If Reiser was less of an asshole during his trial he would have literally gotten away with murder

      You sound like you're disappointed he didn't.

    42. Re:Okay there you go by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

      Well, there's reasonable doubt, and then there's a body.
      Kind of' blows a hole in the "ran off to Russia with the money" theory.

      It does explain the missing seat, the soaked cleaning, and the traces of blood in the car though! That part had been bugging me.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    43. Re:Okay there you go by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They had physical blood evidence that Nina bled in his car. Doesn't mean she died there, nor that Hans killed her.

      No, it doesn't, but look at it like a juror might....

      I've had women, including my wife, ride in various cars of mine for over twenty years now. None of them have bled in any significant amounts inside any of the cars I've owned during that period. Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.

      Of course, no one who has ever ridden in my car has ever disappeared without a trace after obtaining a restraining order against me, either. Sure, it is circumstantial evidence - but people are convicted on less everyday for lesser crimes.

    44. Re:Okay there you go by vought · · Score: 1

      So he's the white-and-nerdy OJ?

      That is ridiculously funny.

      Given that Reiser didn't get away with anything, I don't think a comparison to O.J. is all that apt.

    45. Re:Okay there you go by jamesjw · · Score: 1

      Luckily he had enabled journalling and was able to retrieve the information easily. /me takes his one way ticket to hell..

      --
      -- If at first you don't succeed, lie!
    46. Re:Okay there you go by chinakow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can also be found, that is the difference.

    47. Re:Okay there you go by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      A woman taking off to her homeland, with a plan to frame her husband with murder and getting her kids back? Sure. I could see that. It's plausible.

      Hans's excuses for why the 'threw away' the passenger seat in his car with the blood stains, within a couple days of his wife going missing? Those weren't so plausible.

    48. Re:Okay there you go by RedWizzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent

      Sure, but that wasn't the reason why there was so much opposition to his conviction. People didn't (and still don't) seem to be able to grasp the difference between probably did it and have proven it beyond reasonable doubt. It's entirely consistent to believe that he did it and that he shouldn't have been convicted. Not because he's a big contributor to open-source, but because the standard for allowing the state to take away somebody's freedom and ability to vote for most of their life should be fucking high and his trial didn't meet it.

      I disagree. "Reasonable doubt" is not the same as "proven beyond any doubt", which seems to be your position. Reasonable doubt is not a couple of far-fetched alternative theories coupled with totally unreasonable explanations for the evidence. The jurors saw a lot more evidence than you did. They got to watch Resier as he made his case. According to their comments any reasonable doubt was removed when he took the stand. You may disagree with their conclusions, despite the much smaller amount of evidence (all second hand) that you have access to, but the fact is that they got it right. For you to persist in claiming that they got it wrong is simply the height of arrogance.

    49. Re:Okay there you go by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

      Ok, new question: all those people who insisted that Nina had to be back in Russia, do you all admit you were wrong?

    50. Re:Okay there you go by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Everyone knows Bushitler did it and framed him.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    51. Re:Okay there you go by iamhigh · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Thanks for making my post shorter:

      Yeah, what he said!!!

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    52. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you people who said "I believe Hans did it" -- was it a guess or knowledge? Is your local judicial system based on "innocent until proven guilty" or vice versa? Do you need evidence of homicide or is a hunch enough?

    53. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like you're disappointed he didn't.

      I'm not the guy you replied to, but...

      Considering what his "wife" had done and was doing, I think I _am_ disappointed that he didn't.

    54. Re:Okay there you go by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      Actually, they only had physical evidence that her blood was in the car. Someone could have bled her to death and dumped the still fresh blood in Hans's car.

    55. Re:Okay there you go by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Now, frankly, I always thought he was guilty based on what I'd read, but the "wife ran back to Russia" theory is pretty solid if there's a lack of other evidence (but there wasn't, obviously).

      I'm a father with two kids, we're a very loving family and I can't conceive of doing any such thing. While most of us have complaints about our parents, most of us also came from very loving families, and can't imagine a mom would leave her children behind. But the fact is, there are some pretty damn selfish people out there. There's sadly no lack of child abusers out there, dads and moms; we see stories of moms locking their kids in the car and driving it into a lake; another one drowns her kids in the bathtub...

      If society is 99% sane (and I doubt it is), that still leaves 3 million psychos in the U.S. alone.

      So I always thought the "ran off to Russia" story was plausible, but just very unlikely given the rest of the evidence. I'm sure if I sat on the jury and heard Reiser talk the way I've read in some of the interviews, I doubt I'd have a shadow of a doubt, either... but it's not because I couldn't believe a mom would walk away from her kids.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    56. Re:Okay there you go by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least until the body is positively identified (perhaps by DNA testing) to be that of Nina Reiser's, for all I know this is some ploy/maneuvering by the defense attorney (who had more than ample time to tell Reiser what he was planning) in order to reduce Reiser's sentence.

      The only way I can see that having a chance in hell is if the instructions to find the body looked like this

      Head about 20 miles down road A untill you come across a really large oak tree, you'll know it's the right tree because underneath it there will be a large piece of granite with the word "Cementery" chisled into the face of it. I think it's an old cement factory that went out of business because there's tons of cement and granite blocks with names chisled into them.
      Anyways, go back 23 stones then turn left and go over another 47 stones & that's where you'll find a body.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    57. Re:Okay there you go by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that's enough circumstantial evidence to arrest and probably convict somebody in any state in this country.

      It might be enough to warrent a trial (grand jury indictments are not too difficult to obtain), but any decent defense attorney when faced with no body and no murder weapon should be able to raise enough reasonable doubt, particularly if the defendant has even just a plausible alibi, to acquit his client of murder charges. IANAL, but if there is no body (and therefore no time of death or timeline to establish against any reasonable alibi of the defendant) and no murder weapon then it is just a missing person until the prosecution can prove otherwise. About the only thing a prosecutor could point out are circumstantial peices of evidence such as possible motives for murder or perhaps some circumstantial observations (extra mileage on the car for that week, sand from a particular beach, missed work a couple of days during the time in question, etc...).

      Probably what got Hans was the sheer amount of very suspicious circumstantial evidence. There were the blood spatters, the unusual book purchases, the missing passenger seat and socket set, his bungling attempts to elude surveillance (you never attempt to dump your surveillance, as every CIA case officer well knows, even if you succeed in eluding them you will only have confirmed their suspicions that you are an interesting person with something to hide. The correct strategy is to continue doing every day boring things until the watchers get bored and give up, however long that takes), and of course (this is probably the unfair part since most of us programmers have a few ecentricities) his odd courtroom manner and selective memory (which is classic Aspergers) didn't help. The confession (proving that he knew were the body was) sealed the deal in any case, but better lawyers (ala OJ Simpson) might have been able to get him off by systematically breaking down the prosecution case and keeping their socially challenged client from opening his mouth or doing anything else odd in court, but Hans didn't have millions of dollars for a legal dream team so now he does 15 years instead.

    58. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'd prefer what? Judge Dread style court?
      Also, you mis-read or don't understand percents apparently.

    59. Re:Okay there you go by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There is a reason it's called reasonable doubt. There was ample evidence that Nina would have NEVER left her kids. There was also ample evidence that the claimed "serial killer" friend was in fact a nutjob who claimed to have killed people that didn't exist and others that were still alive, in fact of all the people he claimed to kill not a single person could be verified and the police wrote him off as crazy after investigating his claims. None of the reasons listed are reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to assume Nina would have left her Kids and it's not reasonable to assume someone the police have investigated and determined is crazy did it. It's also not reasonable in consideration of all the stuff he did after she disappeared. A car with an inch of standing water in it, a seat thrown away and hidden from the police is a smoking gun of someone trying to cover something up. Anyone that denies otherwise is likely going to be a government conspiracy nut.

    60. Re:Okay there you go by eviljav · · Score: 1

      I was wrong.

    61. Re:Okay there you go by wellingj · · Score: 1

      That is the problem with belief. It's fallible and you never know validity until after the fact. Logic is a much more trustworthy companion.

      But I wouldn't blame any one who said "I still don't believe Hans did it," for saying it in the first place. No one wanted a respected open source contributor to bring the kind of mud slinging this will. It's going to be the same kind of witch hunt on geeks that it was after Columbine. Won't that be fun. Again.

    62. Re:Okay there you go by Splab · · Score: 1

      No, the reason why we wanted to believe was that he was being found guilty by weak circumstantial evidence.

      No man should ever face 25 years in prison because some jury didn't like him, if he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then lock him up, but in this case there was quite a lot of doubt (until today).

    63. Re:Okay there you go by XO · · Score: 1

      Well, in OJ's case, at least they had proof that a murder had been committed. He was acquited, however, because he was (a) famous (b) rich (c) black.

      Reiser was convicted because he was (a) an asshole (b) not famous (c) not rich (d) white.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    64. Re:Okay there you go by XO · · Score: 1

      I went along with the "moved back to Russia" theory, myself.

      Especially after the kids got shipped to Russia, and then her mom, while testifying, referred to Nina in the present-tense.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    65. Re:Okay there you go by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even so, blood is not `definitive proof anyone had died'. Enough blood, maybe, but I don't think enough blood was found.

      It's just more circumstantial evidence -- by itself, not very convincing, but all combined, enough to convict him even without a body.

    66. Re:Okay there you go by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      If you keep getting falsely accused of just about everything imaginable, you should stop lending your car to Jim.

    67. Re:Okay there you go by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Ok, Hans did it. But OJ is still not guilty.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    68. Re:Okay there you go by porcupine8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you mean that they have never bled in your car *without* something to contain the bleeding and keep it off the car itself. Because trust me, at some point in the past twenty years your wife bled in your car.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    69. Re:Okay there you go by Fmuctohekerr · · Score: 1

      not the same as "proven beyond any doubt", which seems to be your position

      How did you get that from that post? That's the opposite of what Mr. Anon said.

      I agree with anon. I personally felt pretty sure that he did it. But without a body and the fact that his S&M buddy freaking *confessed* to several murders... and the fact that the wife was apparently involved with the buddy... I felt that to convict only with circumstantial evidence was wrong. Me? I thought he did it, but had a "reasonable doubt" that perhaps the wife had fled or that Hans was freaking out and thought he was being framed, or perhaps was being framed. I thought the evidence left too much room for doubt... and it would be better to let him go free than convict an innocent man.

      Am I missing something too? Is that not how this is supposed to work?

      Something about it being better to let 10 guilty men go free...?

      (William Blackstone)

      No?

    70. Re:Okay there you go by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection

      Not at all the case for me. In fact, while I always knew of ReiserFS, I'm not sure I knew of Hans Reiser prior to this whole episode. I did not think him innocent. I merely did not see a compelling case for him being guilty.

      For me, a missing person simply does not equate to murder. While I have no doubts now of Hans's guilt, that sentiment has not been altered.

      there was no evidence that crazy best friend did it and no real motive for Nina to try to frame him by fleeing to Russia without her kids.

      That's the standard "guilty until innocent" stance. If a body was found, I could understand demanding explanations from Hans. But without even *knowing* (and I mean *knowing*, not weak speculation) that she had been murdered, it's asking a bit too much from Hans. Statistically, the police, etc are more often right than wrong in these cases. Thankfully, the justice system does not recognize that - even if juries are swayed.

      Law enforcement agencies need to show that she had been murdered AND that Hans had murdered her. Not just accuse Hans of not having good explanations for discrepancies.

      Seriously - put yourself in the position of someone who did *not* murder his wife. Would it make sense for you to be arrested and charged with murder - with the task of explaining what happened to your wife? I thought it was their job to do that - not yours.

      This whole case reminded me too much of the Jon Benet Ramsey one - where they kept trying to pin it on the parents.

      --
      Beetle B.
    71. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop watching FBI Files please

    72. Re:Okay there you go by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Hey, back off. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury ... oh, right.

    73. Re:Okay there you go by vought · · Score: 1

      OK, guys. I was talking about wounds, not menses. Ha ha.

    74. Re:Okay there you go by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you know what 'height of arrogance' means. If every jury got their verdict right every time and THEN he said that a particular one got it wrong because he knows better, that would be the height of arrogance. Given our current system, believing that a jury got their verdict wrong doesn't really require any arrogance at all.

    75. Re:Okay there you go by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Except that they have been proven to be right in this particular case and yet the poster still claims they were wrong to convict. To claim that they were wrong despite having less evidence to go on and despite their verdict being vindicated, that is arrogance.

    76. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Reasonable doubt" is not the same as "proven beyond any doubt", which seems to be your position.

      Not in the slightest.

      They got to watch Resier as he made his case. According to their comments any reasonable doubt was removed when he took the stand.

      Think about that for a second. Short of a confession, can any defence testimony remove reasonable doubt? What kind of doubt can be eliminated by such a testimony?

      No, it's very clear that his personality quirks played a large factor here. For instance, the judge laughed at him when he described not liking to make eye contact. Some of the jurors said that the fact that they thought he was odd played a large part in their decision. That's not the kind of thing that should remove reasonable doubt.

      You may disagree with their conclusions, despite the much smaller amount of evidence (all second hand) that you have access to, but the fact is that they got it right.

      You have that 100% backwards. I agree with their conclusions. They concluded correctly that Reiser was guilty. But the fact is they got it wrong. They aren't supposed to return a verdict of guilty if they think he is guilty. They are supposed to return a verdict of guilty if they think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. These are two entirely different things, and confusing the two is what I complained about in my earlier post.

    77. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were Gates, people wouldn't be happy until he was convicted of 12 counts of murder, 23 counts of rape, 45 counts of assault, 79 counts of grand theft, 90 counts of arson, 112 counts of cruelty to animals, and one count of being Bill Gates.

    78. Re:Okay there you go by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No, it is not arrogance. You should look up the word. People are frequently right about things for the wrong reason. Not only is it NOT arrogant to believe that any case placed before a jury was determined through incorrect means, it could be argued that it is ignorant to assume that any are determined through correct means. We all know how juries are selected. We all know the old saying about hammering the law/facts/table. We all know that our legal system is a screwed up mess, and just hope that even though it is broken, that it works well enough to keep society from breaking down.

      Arrogance? No, not even close. Did Hans kill his wife? Apparently. Was the jury given evidence that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is what the GP is arguing.

    79. Re:Okay there you go by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, hopefully, the vast majority of those "ten to fifteen percent" erroneous verdicts are false negatives, as judge William Blackstone intended.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    80. Re:Okay there you go by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Poison someone, dump them in the ocean with a rock tied to their ankle, and poof. No murder, right?

      Not to be giving out any advice, but this doesn't work. Scott Peterson tried it to poor old Laci, but a few months later her ankles broke off and she floated up in the bay. Best way is to bury them. Not that I ever think about this or anything.

      --
      Qxe4
    81. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it's okay by you for a guy to treat his wife like shit until she's driven to leave him, and then kill her for it?

      I'm just glad I don't have any sisters for you to marry.

      Asshole.

    82. Re:Okay there you go by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No. Now please excuse yourself from any future jury you may be called upon to participate in. The way evidence works (barring the extremely rare multiple eyewitness, camera, or SuperBad "ejaculate all over the place" situations) is you use it to reduce the chances that someone else other than the suspect killed the person. You look at person missing, blood evidence, strange behavior consistent with him having murdered her, motive, no alibi, and all the other stuff.

      Taken as one thing, none is strong enough to convict. Hell, even DNA evidence usually doesn't say "this is person X's blood", it tells you "the odds of this blood belonging to someone other than the suspect are 1 in 1xxxxxxx". Each piece of evidence brings the odds of it being someone else to such a ridiculously small number that a reasonable person would have no reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.

    83. Re:Okay there you go by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I wonder how many of his supporters went beyond the OSS connection and saw Reiser as a geek who's being persecuted merely for being different and socially awkward. Reading some of the other threads on this topic, it's clear there are a few people on /. who believed this.

    84. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that they have been proven to be right in this particular case and yet the poster still claims they were wrong to convict. To claim that they were wrong despite having less evidence to go on and despite their verdict being vindicated, that is arrogance.

      Wow. You really don't get it, do you? The jury made their decision based on what was known at the time, not what is known now. The fact that they were vindicated at a later date can never justify any decision that they made.

      Let me give an example. I pick up an ordinary die. I tell you that it is 100% certain that I will roll a six. I then roll the die. If I roll a six, it doesn't mean I was correct in telling you it was 100% certain. I was still wrong to say that. The fact that my claim was "vindicated" by turning out to coincide with the truth does not make my claim correct. I just got lucky. If somebody comes along and points that out, they aren't being arrogant, it's just that they can distinguish between a prediction and the evidence that supports it.

      It's the same here. They made their judgement based on what was known at the time. Was there enough evidence presented at the trial to eliminate reasonable doubt? I don't think so. You clearly do. Either way, his later confession is of no consequence to that. It's how time works. You don't make decisions based on evidence that is only exposed at a later date. It's not arrogance to know which direction time flows.

    85. Re:Okay there you go by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      if her mother is russian, it could simply be that she doesn't 'get' tenses. I know an indian woman, a very highly educated woman, who can barely get the phrase "pick you up" right.

    86. Re:Okay there you go by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell yeah! I firmly believe Bill Gates killed his wife, despite all evidence, like her still being alive, saying otherwise!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    87. Re:Okay there you go by LauraW · · Score: 3, Informative

      but look at it like a juror might....

      I almost ended up on the jury for a murder trial in California a few years ago. During the jury selection, the judge explained some of the rules of evidence, probably to see which jurors understood them. The rule for circumstantial evidence -- anything that's not eyewitness testimony, basically -- sounded pretty simple. For any given piece of circumstantial evidence, if there's a "reasonable" explanation for that evidence that supports innocence then the jury is supposed to accept that explanation even if it means erring on the side of innocence. If there isn't a reasonable explanation that supports innocence, then the jury can use it as evidence of guilt.

      I'm not a lawyer and I probably have some of the details wrong, but those are the basics as I remember them. After I learned those rules, the verdict in the OJ case made a little bit more sense. I can see how a jury following those rules could have decided that some of the evidence supported him being innocent.

    88. Re:Okay there you go by dgatwood · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wouldn't entirely rule out the "Nina Reiser put a hit out on him and said she would only let him live if he agreed to point the police towards the body of the random person the organized crime syndicate she hired offed a few days earlier who happens to have similar height, build, and gender to Nina Reiser" theory, either....

      Until DNA evidence says it is her, I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Even if/when DNA evidence says it is her body, I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was premeditated, which is what is necessary for a Murder I conviction. There's too much reason to believe that the jury convicted him more for his lack of social skills than because of proof of premeditation beyond reasonable doubt....

      Besides, with all his reported strangeness, it isn't at all improbable that she died accidentally. There's far more reason to suspect some sort of super-rough, kinky sex gone terribly wrong than premeditated murder.... The preponderance of evidence actually points away from the jury verdict, at least based on what we've seen thus far. Maybe more evidence will come out eventually, but....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    89. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't read the article. Did he admit guilt or merely show them the location of the body?

    90. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least until the body is positively identified

      So Hans's attorney has spare bodies buried on country roads to help with mitigating the sentences of convicted clients...

      Good lawyer!

      Keep reaching, knucklehead.

    91. Re:Okay there you go by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hans had a lot of circumstances stacked against him and then he did the worst thing possible and he opened his mouth in court, the guy has a hard time communicating with people that really want to understand him and hear what he has to say....

      That's why I don't believe for a minute that it was premeditated. The guy is too incredibly bad at lying to be a psychopath, IMHO.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    92. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dump them in the ocean with a rock tied to their ankle, and poof. No murder, right?

      Scott peterson, is that you?!

    93. Re:Okay there you go by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Check out Mirena. You don't deal with PMS, because there isn't any. But there sure are some long-lasting hormonal changes.

    94. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They had physical blood evidence that Nina had been in his car."

      Fixed it for you. Now it reflects what the actual evidence showed, without the added speculation.

    95. Re:Okay there you go by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0

      They had physical blood evidence that Nina bled in his car. Doesn't mean she died there, nor that Hans killed her.

      It's nonsense like that that got O.J. off. The relevant bit is, "beyond a REASONABLE doubt." Granted, 'reasonable' is in the eye of the beholder, but it's pretty clear that most people are rather stupid, and when lawyers each try to game the jury with someone who will be stupid in favor of their side, it shouldn't be too surprising that you wind up with nothing but stupid people.

    96. Re:Okay there you go by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      Ultimately you have to define "reasonable" and that is going to be a judgement call.

      Of course you can throw out alternative scenarios but if there is no supporting evidence for them and no credible explanations offered for much of his incriminating behaviour are they enough to instil reasonable doubt?

      That's a judgement call and one you have to be on the jury to make.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    97. Re:Okay there you go by Fmuctohekerr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What is it about this case that brings out the stupids in people? No offense. Well, a little offense.

      I think I understand how evidence works in a trial. I have some idea.

      You might want to ask yourself what the importance of having an alibi is when... there is no body and no time of death established. You also might want to consider that Nina had a motive to flee the country without telling anyone. It is interesting also that someone the victim had been intimate with had confessed to killing several people... yet was never formally investigated.

      No one is saying "without physical evidence, you cannot find someone guilty, because, as we all know, that's solid!"

      Because you can get convicted on circumstantial evidence and testimony alone. It happens all the time. Some of us (yes, I'm not alone here) think he was guilty yet the standard of reasonable doubt was not met. I'm not saying the justice system is wrong. I'm not saying that there wasn't any physical evidence, and therefore he shouldn't have been convicted. I have opinions on that, but they don't apply here.

      I AM saying... that from following the case (somewhat) I did not find the prosecution's case (which was, as it happens, mostly if not all circumstantial) compelling enough to find Hans Reiser guilty of PREMEDITATED MURDER, which is what he was charged with. Also, apparently the jurors felt that Hans' testimony was suspect as well. I don't think that's good enough... IN THIS CASE.

      Feel free to disagree, but try to understand what I'm saying first. Do you understand now?

      And... BY THE WAY... what you are describing as "how it works" sounds more like "preponderance of evidence" not... wait for it... "beyond a reasonable doubt." Here in the US we have both. Guess what, your "reducing the chances someone else did it" ideas are just fine... for a civil case. As a matter of fact, all you have to hit is 50%.

      For Hans, we needed to apply the stricter proof test, and the way that is defined is not some kind of probability function nonsense, but rather the very freaking simple idea that a "reasonable person" through "common sense" would be "fully satisfied" that Hans is guilty. That's it. No probabilities, no chances. If a person feels "uncomfortable" with their verdict, because something is "bothering" them about it, because say, there was no body found and Nina might have fled to Russia and the prosecution didn't address that "convincingly", then, that is "a reasonable doubt."

      IANAL, but I am open to correction if I have anything wrong. Your post didn't do it.

      Also, not to be complete dick or anything, but there's no need for you to "excuse yourself" from a jury because you don't think you "understand the legal system"... they'll take care of that for you during jury selection. I suspect neither of us would make very good jurors. But for entirely different reasons of course.

    98. Re:Okay there you go by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rule for circumstantial evidence -- anything that's not eyewitness testimony, basically -- sounded pretty simple. For any given piece of circumstantial evidence, if there's a "reasonable" explanation for that evidence that supports innocence then the jury is supposed to accept that explanation even if it means erring on the side of innocence. If there isn't a reasonable explanation that supports innocence, then the jury can use it as evidence of guilt.

      Except Reiser testified in his own defense and came up with some real bullshit to explain the circumstantial evidence. So the jury wasn't reaching for a "reasonable explanation", they were judging whether Reiser was credible or not.

      Had Reiser said "Oh gee, my wife cut her foot once", he might have had a chance. Instead he made up some ridiculous story to explain why he had torn the seats and carpeting out of his car days after his wife disappeared.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    99. Re:Okay there you go by chinakow · · Score: 1

      Correct blood does not prove death, but it doesn't disprove murder, Bringing is the person you are accused of murdering(in a not-dead state) does. I am just saying that one way to prove that the large blood stains in your car is not due to a murder is to, you know, bring that person in to the court room and hold a mirror in front of their face to prove they are still breathing. Mr. Reiser did not and apparently could not do this. Blood alone does not prove someone to be a murderer, all of the evidence together did.

    100. Re:Okay there you go by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty pathetic that people tried to turn this into a Jocks vs Nerds playground battle when an mother was murdered.

      But it is worth noting that wasn't entirely slashdot's overactive imagination; Reiser's lawyer tried to use the "geek" explanation after his client's poor performance on the stand.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    101. Re:Okay there you go by Anpheus · · Score: 0

      640 counts of treason is en

    102. Re:Okay there you go by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? I'm typing and accidentally hit enter or tab or somesuch, WHIZ-BANG, AJAX thing disappears. Ok, click on "reply" again, type and finish "640 counts of treason is enough for anyone." Type preview, looks good. Hit submit. Whiz, bang, fwoom. "640 counts of treason is en"

      Awesome.

    103. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burying doesn't work so well. Pesky dogs dig stuff up.

      I'll leave it as an exercise to the perps on what really is the best way :).

    104. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have better things to do than think up crazy theories about some dumb linux programmer that murdered his wife?

    105. Re:Okay there you go by Fmuctohekerr · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. And honestly, what you are "judging" is how well the prosecution made it's case. And the "reasonable person" is you. That's pretty much it. However, I think "reasonable" has a long history of legal interpretation... but what matters in the end is what the jury said.

      We are not the first to second-guess a jury.

      Also, I don't think it's fair to say the dissenting side here on /. is merely "throwing out alternative scenarios." Rather I think we're offering explanations for his "odd behaviour" (supposedly "geek-like") which could potentially render his mannerisms irrelevant to the case and also, suggesting that when the prosecution claims that he killed his wife, but can't say how, when or where... that perhaps they really just don't have that good a case to begin with.

      Of course the jury found him guilty, and that's what counts, and of course, he did it.

    106. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no, sort of.

      I was 99% sure he was guilty and I would definitely vote in favor of guilty if I was in the jury (if the same story was fed to me as the one that I have had as a not-so-interested bystander). However, those who were of the opinion the evidence was too weak when the jury made its decision can still be of the opinion the evidence was too weak at that time, even if they agree that now it is not too weak.

    107. Re:Okay there you go by Skrimm · · Score: 1

      You're a spy!

    108. Re:Okay there you go by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
      "no real motive for Nina to try to frame him by fleeing to Russia without her kids."

      Except that several stories said that the children were in fact taken to Russia. So Nina would have fled to Russia and later reunited with her children. That is at least vaguely plausible, although the combination of physical evidence and Hans's strange actions point overwhelmingly to his guilt.

    109. Re:Okay there you go by XO · · Score: 1

      I remember specifically, that there was a furor when her mom said "Nina loves her kids .. I mean .. loved."

      But she was using tenses properly in other spots.

      People with Asian languages as primary tend to have lots of problems with English tenses, but I haven't seen that problem near as much in people with other Euro-languages backgrounds. Though I have only met one person who spoke Russian natively, though, so I can't really comment too much on that, I guess.

      In any case, as much as I liked that theory, I kinda pretty much believed he did it.

      I guess the DNA evidence will tell, conclusively, at least, if Nina is dead. I still pretty much disagree with the whole "premed" thing. I'd guess he probably went berserk. Maybe meant to smack her, and it came out bad. Maybe he did intend to kill her, but I have a hard time believing it to be anything but "heat of the moment".

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    110. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only means he knows where the body was buried...
      Is there any chance he could be covering for someone else?

    111. Re:Okay there you go by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      In the beginning I was hoping he did not do it.
      By the second article I lost almost all hope.
      Now I am as sad as the rest of us :(

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    112. Re:Okay there you go by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your position, to me, seems untenable. The defendent and his lawyer will _always_ posit some other explanation for the crime. Without fail, if they deny the charges and don't plead guilty they will come up with some explanation. "I was carrying it for a friend!" "Those drugs aren't mine, someone left them in my car!" "These cops are framing me!". It's incredibly easy to spew stuff out, if jurors paid words alone any heed there would be very few convictions in this country.

      The prosecution presents their case. The defense should refute the prosecution's evidence with science or with facts. Stories are meaningless. Anyone could just go out and kill their wife, destroy/hide the body, and assert the wife fled to Timbuktu. It means nothing. Stories about grandiose nutjobs pretending to be serial killers mean nothing. Stories about fleeing to Russia mean nothing. If they want to assert that's what's happeneed, they need to produce credible evidence.

      Wait, wait. I know. Now you're thinking "but the prodecution has to prove things, not the defense!". Not true. The prosecution makes an assertion of guilt. They then proceed to prove that assertion. If the defense proposes an alternate theory, they must prove it somehow or at least make it something other than a story made up by the defense team.

      As for probabilities, all criminal cases come down to probabilities. Every single one. We just don't think of it that way most of the time. What are the odds of all this evidence pointing to Reiser but him not having killed his wife? Close to zero. The jury, thankfully, understood that on at least a subconscious level. Many of you, despite numerous very clear explanations, still don't understand this very simple thing.

      Seriously, talk to a reasonably intelligent judge or prosecutor about this sometime, or more simple just watch one of those shows about forensics cases. Most of the time it comes down to providing enough circumstantial evidence that it eliminates all other reasonable explanations other than the suspect's guilt.

      Odds of W incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/500

      Odds of X incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/800

      Odds of Y incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/5000

      Odds of Z incriminating evidence happening and suspect being innocent: 1/2000

      Odds of W, X, Y, Z all being true and suspect being innocent: 1/4000000000000.

      Hmm, I wonder if this defendent is guilty!! But, gee, no one piece of evidence is all _that_ incriminating! Pfft. Come on, now.

    113. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should remember the best way to deal every court action is, "Not guilty before proofed". It does not include that you say right away "guilty!" or "no way she/he is guilty!". More objectiviness to law!

    114. Re:Okay there you go by prockcore · · Score: 1

      You need to go look up what circumstantial evidence is. If they found the body in his basement, and the murder weapon in his closet those would both be considered circumstantial.

    115. Re:Okay there you go by menace3society · · Score: 1

      In the first place, Russian has tenses. it's not Chinese.

      In the second place, this is the sort of thing jurors are more qualified to judge. If she only uses the present tense, then your scenario is more likely. If she uses the present tense to refer to Nina but the past tense to refer to something else, that's a different kettle of fish. Not proof that the mother would be lying, mind you, but something for jurors to keep in mind.

      Anyway, at this point it's a bit irrelevant, enah?

    116. Re:Okay there you go by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      We DEMAND rigid areas of doubt and uncertainty!

    117. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You'll find a lot of evidence that I died in my dad's old car. Nosebleeds were quite frequent in my teenage years.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    118. Re:Okay there you go by greatpatton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My wife lost our babies in the car (fourth month of pregnancy) while I was driving her to the hospital. The amount of blood she lost in the car was shocking, she had to be transfused at the hospital. So yes you can have you wife bled in a significant amount in your car for a legitimate reason.

    119. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a little story for you.

      Friends of mine got drunk and decided to arm wrestle on a glass table. To make a long story short, we had no time to wait for an ambulance and I was the only mostly sober person, so it was me who drove. The car was quite literally a bloody mess, despite us having a doctor with us (chances are the guy would have died if we didn't), and by the time we arrived at the hospital, the back seats were soaked.

      I'm lucky. The guy didn't disappear. But imagine he did. Now, the very first thing I did after the horror trip was to clean out the blood. According to you, this would have made me a prime suspect.

      Now, of course there is a lot of evidence supporting my side of the story. Three other people to back it up, medical records showing that he arrived with a wound that can credibly cause the blood stains on my seats. One isn't always so lucky.

      Evidence can lie. Or rather, it can lead to the false conclusions.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    120. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's less a matter of "believing", it's a matter of "wanting".

      If this had happened to Bill or Steve, we'd have wanted them to be guilty, so they'd be removed and replaced, hopefully with something better.

      With Reiser, we wanted him to be innocent so he could continue development of reiserfs.

      Yes, I'm egoistic. Whether he's guilty of murder, I don't care. I didn't know Nina, I don't know her now, whether she's alive or dead has no direct effect on me. When reiserfs ceases to exist, it's one FS less to choose from.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    121. Re:Okay there you go by Atti+K. · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...it was in lost+found.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    122. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had women, including my wife, ride in various cars of mine for over twenty years now. None of them have bled in any significant amounts inside any of the cars I've owned during that period. Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.

      Oh really? Did D.A. run through your car?
      not yet? how do you know there no DNA traces there??

    123. Re:Okay there you go by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Hell, you only need The President to say "you're a very bad man" and you get a free holiday in Cuba.

      Proof is no longer required. The truth may actually be inconvenient.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    124. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      physical blood evidence that Nina was murder? That's quite a jump.

      I can get a nasty cut and leave blood everywhere but that doesn't mean I'm dead, nor could anyone tell this. Unless, of course, there were simply huge quantities of blood or something of the like..

    125. Re:Okay there you go by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking this might be a troll or something. They found physical blood (is there any other kind of blood?) in the car the married couple had shared for years. There's a heapin' helpin' of reasonable doubt that the blood might be related to the murder, right there.

      Due to a run-in with some trash with glass shards quite a few years back, my mom has visible blood stains of mine in her trunk, but she hasn't - to the best of my knowledge - murdered me - at least not yet.

      --
      toresbe
    126. Re:Okay there you go by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      That's why I don't believe for a minute that it was premeditated. The guy is too incredibly bad at lying to be a psychopath, IMHO.

      Ehmm, are you saying premeditated murder is only committed by psychopaths?

      From what I've read Hans Reiser suffers from what I've seen in a lot of geeks, including yours truly, which is that because we know a lot more about certain subjects we automatically think we're more intelligent. In the past few years I've come across a lot of, for example, managers who at first glance seem to be idiots. Only if one bothers to dig a little deeper does one find that these folks aren't trained to handle computers or indepth business matters, they're trained to look at the big picture and, most importantly, deal with people. I might be able to outbluff 'm on some subjects but 9 times out of 10 they'll know exactly how I really feel about what I'm telling them, as well as how I feel about them personally.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    127. Re:Okay there you go by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Now, I don't doubt it. Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

      Not been true, and wasn't true 150 years ago in the UK at least - though I can't speak for the US.

      A serial killer in 19th century England (I forget who, now) thought something similar - he'd heard that you couldn't convict someone of murder without a body of evidence.

      He misinterpreted this to mean "evidence of a body" and dissolved his victims in a bath of acid. He was caught, convicted and sentenced to death.

    128. Re:Okay there you go by spazdor · · Score: 1

      I am a misogynist, you insensitive clod!

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    129. Re:Okay there you go by bitrex · · Score: 1

      The recently concluded trial and conviction of Neil Entwistle in Massachusetts for the murder of his wife and baby daughter was based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. While there were no witnesses, no gunshot residue on his clothing, and I assume multiple sets of prints on the gun (it was the family firearm, after all), the defendant's flight to England after the murders and the Google search records on his computer of "how to kill your wife" in between searches for discount escort services was extremely damning.

      The best the defense could come up with was an extremely implausible murder-suicide event on the part of Entwistle's wife and daughter, while in the meantime trying to get evidence barred from the trial by questioning the skills and integrity of the forensic investigation team - indeed some of the work that was performed by the evidence collection team was flawed. In the end, however, essentially the circumstantial evidence of the mad dash to England along with the internet search records (the full text of which we will probably never see, but could have contained material even more damning than just the above) was enough for the jury to hand down a conviction.

    130. Re:Okay there you go by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      hat's what makes serial killers scary, they are so emotionless and seem to not think that they did anything wrong that they can just lie to a group of people and most people find it believable. Many of them are smart enough to not get caught in lies.

      Just a tiny correction: you're talking about psychopaths. Not all psychopaths are serial killers, and not all serial killers are psychopaths (but the great majority of serial killers definitely are psychopaths, and all psychopaths leave a trail of destruction, one way or the other, after them, be it in their families, their friends or at work).

      I think the world needs to be better educated about psychopaths, because they are extremely charismatic and charming, and every now and then they end up as presidents of a country (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic etc.) and cause great destruction and misery. If we learned that psychopathy 1) exists and 2) how to detect it, we would be much MUCH better off. Sadly, in some countries the fact is either ignored by the political elite, or considered highly politically incorrect. Sorry, but there are people without conscience and incurable, and some of them are very motivated == dangerous.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    131. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wait. I know. Now you're thinking "but the prodecution has to prove things, not the defense!". Not true. The prosecution makes an assertion of guilt. They then proceed to prove that assertion. If the defense proposes an alternate theory, they must prove it somehow or at least make it something other than a story made up by the defense team.

      Nice description of "guilty until proven innocent".

      How can it be annything else, when the prosecution is allowed make up a story, and the defence is not? How can it be anything else, when the story made up by the prosecution is considered valid unless the defence can prove it's not.

    132. Re:Okay there you go by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually OJ got off because of (a) Perjury on the stand (b) Planted Evidence (c) Courtroom theatrics that backfired.

      And Reiser got convicted because of (a) Physical evidence (b) He testified in his own defense, and (c) He's an totally unconvincing psychopathic liar

      In conclusion, ur dum.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    133. Re:Okay there you go by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      talking to yourself ?

    134. Re:Okay there you go by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      they had phyisical evidence that she bled an awfull lot in his car.

    135. Re:Okay there you go by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I think one of the main reasons for that is that working on OSS is 'karma positive', in other words if you've done that you're probably a good guy/gal. To then imagine someone doing such nice things to turn around and murder their wife and hide the body is inconsistent with the positive karma.

    136. Re:Okay there you go by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Well, TBH, I would have voted against conviction just because I didn't like Nina. Then again, the Jury didn't know what a terrible person the cadaver was.

    137. Re:Okay there you go by mqduck · · Score: 1

      That's it! Bill Gates killed Hans' wife.

      --
      Property is theft.
    138. Re:Okay there you go by mqduck · · Score: 1

      This was meant as a reply to a comment above. Sigh.

      --
      Property is theft.
    139. Re:Okay there you go by elguillelmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow that's a story deserving to be told long! Anyway, the point here is that your explanation for what happened is plausible (I guess they've seen weirder things in A&E) and well supported by evidence and witnesses... To sum up, is a different thing altogether from Reiser's case

      --
      Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
    140. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which still sounds odd because the article says that Hans has said he strangled her which'd be bloodless - so Hans' explanation for the blood drops (she'd cut herself before she disappeared) could actually have been true. We'll have to wait for the autopsy results though before we know for sure.

    141. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still maintain she deserved it. She embezled from his company, abused the mans family, etc. She had it coming, i would have killed the bitch too.

    142. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What I wanted to illustrate is that there can be a very good reason for a lot of blood in your car. I was lucky that first of all, he survived, that I had a lot of witnesses that I could trust and that the medical records would support my story.

      Evidence is not always absolute. Especially in a time when police puts so much emphasis on it. The first thing I would do when planning a crime is to create a suspect. I would find out who, besides me, wants a certain person dead, I would start collecting his hair, I would try to get his fingerprints and make sure that both can be found on the body or close to it.

      And I'm fairly sure that I'm not the first that had this idea.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    143. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had women, including my wife, ride in various cars of mine for over twenty years now. None of them have bled in any significant amounts inside any of the cars I've owned during that period. Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.

      You're arguing backwards. The question is not "is it plausible that Reiser murdered her", but rather "is it implausible that Reiser did not murder her".

      I think that there wasn't really any doubt that it was quite plausible that he did it - that it appeared likely, even. But you can't convict someone because he might've done it; you can only convict them if there's pretty much no way (in practice, at least) that they could NOT have done it.

      Of course, no one who has ever ridden in my car has ever disappeared without a trace after obtaining a restraining order against me, either. Sure, it is circumstantial evidence - but people are convicted on less everyday for lesser crimes.

      Two wrongs don't make one right.

    144. Re:Okay there you go by elguillelmo · · Score: 1

      I see the validity of your arguments here. My point here is that Reiser's innocence was very doubtful for all we knew even before he led investigators to the body. It would have struck me as suspicious if you had dumped your car seat (and forgot where) following your friend's disappearance
      Evidence is all too difficult to weigh and juries may fail to do it quite often... The thing that makes perfect crime difficult and Reiser suspect is motive (or lack thereof in your story?)

      --
      Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
    145. Re:Okay there you go by 12AU7A · · Score: 1

            And yet some of these same people who insist Reiser may be innocent are some of the same people who criticize others for doubting Global Warming.

    146. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had physical blood evidence

      now that's the part I don't understand.

      "Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said."

      Where did the blood come from?

    147. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a pretty strange position to take - you're essentially saying that a) since you don't have access to all information, you can't criticise a decision in any way at all whatsoever, and b) since you can't disagree with it, you must agree with it.

      Neither of these is true. We criticise people for things they do all the time without having all the information (it's what the entire political system is built on, for example); and the second part is just a false dichotomy.

    148. Re:Okay there you go by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      Not that I believe this for a second, but...

      It is possible the actual murderer tipped off Hans to the location of the body. Hans then as the problem of either
      a) showing the police the body, and getting a lesser sentence, but confirming himself as the murderer, or
      b) saying nothing, and getting a much bigger sentence, while having most people believe he committed the murder anyway.

      Fortunately, life is not a bad who-dun-it novel, and Hans undoubtedly committed the crime.

    149. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says she's still alive? Didn't he make billions propagating on clones?

    150. Re:Okay there you go by thegermanpolice · · Score: 1

      I mean, he knew where the body was buried.

      He had the location of it stored in his Journal.

    151. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection, perhaps because they could relate to him, I don't know.

      It's not just the open source connection... there's also the Slashdot - skepticism connection.

      Generally speaking, A Slashdotter tends to be the kind of skeptic who demands an unreasonable amount of proof before believing anything. If you claim that an elephant trampled your rose bushes, they aren't satisfied to see the tracks, and they aren't satisfied by the spoor, and they aren't satisfied by eyewitness accounts... they demand to see the freaking thing, or better yet, get trampled by it.

      An awful lot of them will be very surprised shortly after they depart this life.

    152. Re:Okay there you go by Tillmann · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      he just had the better algorithm for locating it... "Dancing trees" definitely outperform the structures used by the cops to find dead bodies :)

      bye, Till

    153. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you writing an article for Time magazine or something?

    154. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Information wants to be freeeee!"

    155. Re:Okay there you go by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Personally, I always thought it was vaguely plausible, particularly since the kids ended up in Russia and that bit about the friend going down to pick up the kids. That way, she'd only be separated from her kids for weeks or a few months, at most, which might have been possible if she was planning some kind of massive revenge. Except that the defence proved pretty conclusively that she didn't seem to have any reason for a massive revenge, not when everything was coming together for her pretty well at that time.

      Until whenever this article came up on the front page, I preferred the "somebody else killed Nina, and Hans is just paranoid and really weird" theory myself. But I guess that's out of the question now.

      Of course, I read all of three Slashdot articles and followed some of the testimony online - I didn't sit in court for several months listening to every bit of evidence. I remember a blog post about how twelve jurors frequently see through to the heart of the matter - obviously, I was wrong, and those twelve were right.

    156. Re:Okay there you go by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      What are you, a woman?

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    157. Re:Okay there you go by Melbourne+Pete · · Score: 1

      At least until the body is positively identified (perhaps by DNA testing) to be that of Nina Reiser's, for all I know this is some ploy/maneuvering by the defense attorney (who had more than ample time to tell Reiser what he was planning) in order to reduce Reiser's sentence.

      His attorney just happened to have another body on hand that they could give up as part of some legal maneouver? That's quite a defence attorney.

    158. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and there was no reasonable doubt. They had physical blood evidence that Nina was murdered in his car.

      Then why was the prosecution's favourite theory strangulation? That leaves no blood.

    159. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure :)

    160. Re:Okay there you go by Sgt+Pinback · · Score: 1

      Think about that for a second. Short of a confession, can any defence testimony remove reasonable doubt? What kind of doubt can be eliminated by such a testimony?

      No, it's very clear that his personality quirks played a large factor here. For instance, the judge laughed at him when he described not liking to make eye contact. Some of the jurors said that the fact that they thought he was odd played a large part in their decision. That's not the kind of thing that should remove reasonable doubt.

      Oh, the poor little geek boy with the odd personality. Well, eye contact aside, how about lying on the stand about evidence and then saying "I'm sorry for being deceptive" to the jury when found out? How about ranting about what a bad person your wife was? Don't get me started on how he destroyed evidence.
      Don't make Reiser out as the innocent victim. He did more than enough to incriminate himself, and the jury were spot on.

      --

      --

      I do not like the men on this space ship!
    161. Re:Okay there you go by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

      I ain't got time to bleed.

    162. Re:Okay there you go by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Ran out of roo

    163. Re:Okay there you go by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty pathetic that people tried to turn this into a Jocks vs Nerds playground battle when an mother was murdered.

      So had Hans and Nina had no children, it would have been okay?

    164. Re:Okay there you go by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      It's less a matter of "believing", it's a matter of "wanting".

      When you ask people why they follow a particular religion (or lack of it), you often get an answer that boils down to something like, "I prefer X's beliefs better than Y's." Which story is actually more likely to be accurate often doesn't seem to factor into it. It's crazy.

      I think religion encourages that sort of "mind over matter" thinking, but I've seen atheists do the same thing. At least they usually notice when you call them on it.

      And that's how you start a religious flamewar! Pico rules!

    165. Re:Okay there you go by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Poison someone, dump them in the ocean with a rock tied to their ankle, and poof. No murder, right?"

      It doesn't work as well as you'd think.

      -Scott Peterson

      --
      -Styopa
    166. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Emacs forever! :)

      Basically that's what it boils down to, yes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    167. Re:Okay there you go by Nelson · · Score: 1

      Roughly 1 in 10 odds of proving yourself innocent when you are guilty. Likewise, 1 in 10 odds of going down for a crime you did not commit.

    168. Re:Okay there you go by Rary · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

      No, it was more a matter of arrogance combined with tribe mentality.

      You see, all these Slashdot posters who only know a handful of facts as told on various websites concluded that there was reasonable doubt. However, the jury, who actually sat through half a year of testimony and evidence, concluded that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      But, of course, we nerds all assume that we, individually, armed with a couple factoids from some random journalist, know much more than any group of jurors who were actually there for the entire trial.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    169. Re:Okay there you go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The perfect crime does exist. It does not, though, only contain you making sure no trail leads from the crime to you, it also includes some culprit to blame. This causes a file to be closed and nobody bothers looking any deeper for more clues that may lead to you.

      That I had no reason to kill my friend, besides him beating me constantly in Starcraft, of course gives me a pretty strong argument in my favor. But there are other cases that are anything but unambigious and are decided because some traces of the suspect could be found on or near the scene of crime.

      All I'm asking for is to give "evidence" less weight and spend more time looking for additional suspects. As I've written elsewhere in this thread, in my work with crime lab units, I've seen it far too often that everyone was just interested in finding "enough" against one suspect and simply stop investigation right there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    170. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and there was no reasonable doubt. They had physical blood evidence that Nina was murdered in his car.

      suicide?

    171. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about that for a second. Short of a confession, can any defence testimony remove reasonable doubt? What kind of doubt can be eliminated by such a testimony?

      It can. All sorts.

      A few examples:
      If the defense gives explanations for some pieces of evidence that arent convincing then the explanations the jury conjures up in their head then you've removed doubt. You've gone from "prosecutors story" vs. "jurors imagination" to "prosecutors story" vs. "defense story". So if the defense story sucks, the jurors are now only left with one option.

      If the defense says something that the jury thinks is obviously a lie, everything they say could be in doubt. This means that if they managed to instill some sort of doubt before they could easily blow that by coming off as liars later.

    172. Re:Okay there you go by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So yes you can have you wife bled in a significant amount in your car for a legitimate reason."

      You say this like you're refuting someone who claimed otherwise. I believe his point was that bleeding inside a car is a rare and unusual event.

      Your post only serves to prove his point, unless you're having miscarriages occur in your car on a regular basis.

    173. Re:Okay there you go by Hairy+Heron · · Score: 1

      No. Unless you're going to try to claim it was the guy who said he had murdered people that are still alive. That's always a classic defense by the Hans defenders.

    174. Re:Okay there you go by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

      No, it was more an unwillingness to believe one of us could be guilty. It must be that they are persecuting him!

      The "reasonable doubt" line was just rationalization.

    175. Re:Okay there you go by Hairy+Heron · · Score: 1

      Except for the difference in the fact that you didn't go missing after filing a restraining order against your dad. Your dad didn't also "lose" the seat that you bled on and then washed out the entire car. He also probably didn't shortly after buy books about homicide investigations. But hey, you're situation is totally analogous to the case at hand.

    176. Re:Okay there you go by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Dude! Gates was probably the one who murdered Nina and framed Hans!

    177. Re:Okay there you go by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Dude, too much fucking information.

    178. Re:Okay there you go by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is basically the only defense for the blood in the car. Unfortunately he would have to provide some physical evidence of the pregnancy (besides ample hormonal clues which could be detected in at least a fresh body, there ought to be some sign of the pregnancy itself) and then explain why he carved up his car to try to hide the blood.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    179. Re:Okay there you go by KIAaze · · Score: 1

      He knew where the body was allocated.

    180. Re:Okay there you go by Raenex · · Score: 1

      A jury saw through his lies and they were right, as they tend to be.

      I don't know, I can't trust 12 people to convict after Phil Spector got off. They had the body in the guys house, an eyewitness confession, and a history of crazy gun behavior with previous guests. It makes the Reiser case look incredibly weak in comparison. Two of the jurors bought the argument that the victim may have killed herself.

    181. Re:Okay there you go by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

      I love your sarcasm, it perfectly captures the obliviousness of his supporters and their unrelenting denial in the face of the evidence. Hell you even went so far as to concoct a totally implausible explanation that is ridiculous in every aspect, then claim it's more reasonable than the idea that he killed her. "Organized crime hit team", that was awesome, it's really representative of the kind of nonsense that his supporters are bandying about.

      Nicely done, I just hope the mods don't assume you were serious and mod you down.

    182. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make Reiser out as the innocent victim.

      Hey, Sgt Pinhead, try reading a comment before replying to it. Relevant quote: "I agree with their conclusions. They concluded correctly that Reiser was guilty." How you got the idea in your head that I am making Reiser out as the innocent victim is beyond me.

    183. Re:Okay there you go by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's nonsense like that that got O.J. off.

      What got OJ off is that it was possible that the evidence was planted, and there was motive to plant evidence as proven in the court of public opinion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    184. Re:Okay there you go by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's an totally unconvincing psychopathic liar

      Psychopaths are, unfortunately for the rest of us, extremely convincing liars. That's how they manage to charm their victims (not necessarily murder victims - see the case of Christophe Rocancourt). Psychopaths have no problems saying even the most incredible, outlandish lie while looking you straight in the eyes, with the most relaxed tone of voice and body language.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    185. Re:Okay there you go by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Watch out! he is coming for....

      BRRRAAAAAAIIIINNNNNS!!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    186. Re:Okay there you go by prelelat · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought all along, I figured that he did it but to prove murder with no body (is she even dead) or murder weapon (how was she killed) seemed unlikely to me. I was actually a little torqued that they went to trial with so little, if he hadn't been such a puts on the stand as well as some of the other character witnesses he could have got off, then what would happen if they found the body? Maybe there was allot more besides a missing car seat and a couple of books and such but I thought it was a pretty weak case and I don't know if I could have done a guilty plea with that much reasonable doubt even if I was sure he did it. Just because you think he did it doesn't mean that there isn't enough reasonable doubt that he shouldn't have got off.

      Oh well the justice system worked and maybe there was more to it than I thought. I just think that if he hadn't screwed up in court it would have been a different turn out and I would have been upset with the system.

    187. Re:Okay there you go by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      For being a little strange... And the whole other improbably large pile of circumstantial evidence suggesting he might have killed his wife...

      Saying there was "reasonable doubt" here is the same as saying that it's reasonably likely that you might win the lottery. The only thing that would have gotten him out of this was another suspect with equivalent or more evidence suggesting the other person had done it. Of course, the odds are that he would have had to have not actually done it for that to have happened.

      People here, subconsciously, are worried that they may be thrown in jail for something they didn't do just because they're a geek like Hans is. It's not going to happen. Chances are that you're not going to have all that circumstantial evidence leading anybody to even accuse you of such a thing unless you actually did something wrong.

    188. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the defense says something that the jury thinks is obviously a lie, everything they say could be in doubt. This means that if they managed to instill some sort of doubt before they could easily blow that by coming off as liars later.

      You're talking as if they start out guilty, then the defence's job is to "instil doubt". Given that perspective, sure, a defence testimony can "remove doubt of their innocence". But that's not how criminal courts are supposed to work. You presume innocence, so any defence testimony that causes a conviction should be incriminating and not merely unpalatable.

    189. Re:Okay there you go by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      I've had women, including my wife, ride in various cars of mine for over twenty years now. None of them have bled in any significant amounts inside any of the cars I've owned during that period. Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.

      Damn you must have much more dexterous/less crazy friends than I do, I can count at least 3 trips to the hospital that required a thorough washing of the inside of the car to try & get the blood out. 1 axe, 1 branch to the face, & 1 tentstake pounded through a foot - I still don't know how exactly that one works but I do believe beer was involved.

    190. Re:Okay there you go by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Common sources of blood in a car:

      1) Particularly bad paper cuts from map reading.
      2) An accident happened outside, but the bleeder was brought to the car because the first aid kit is there.
      3) The other type of accident (which would make you want to change your seats too).

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    191. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And OJ is innocent, too!

    192. Re:Okay there you go by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I can't trust 12 people to convict after Phil Spector got off.

      Spector didn't get off, a mistrial was declared. He'll be going to trial again.

    193. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why it is important that the police investigators do their job. Of course, I think the nationwide statistic is something like 70% of arrests lead to convictions, so you're pretty screwed by the time you get arrested.

    194. Re:Okay there you go by novakyu · · Score: 1

      And yet some of these same people who insist Reiser may be innocent are some of the same people who criticize others for doubting Global Warming.

      I don't know about others, but I don't criticize others for doubting global warming. Heck, I've been telling everyone that while it's true that the global temperature has risen by a fraction of a degree over last century or so, there is no conclusive evidence that this rise is due to human activities.

      Healthy skepticism should be employed EVERYWHERE, not selectively. On the other hand, I probably should excuse myself from sitting on the jury of any murder trials, since any doubt is reasonable-enough doubt for me.

    195. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A jury saw through his lies and they were right, as they tend to be. Some estimates have them between 85% and 90% accurate.

      you say that as though this is a good thing. 85-90% is a pretty crappy yield in widget manufacturing, let alone the "justice" system. Also, you have to define "right." "right" compared to determining reasonable doubt or compared to making the right decision in accordance to what actually happened (which they can't know for sure).

    196. Re:Okay there you go by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      ...Odds of W, X, Y, Z all being true and suspect being innocent: 1/4000000000000...

      That math assumes independence. Which is almost always a faulty assumption.

    197. Re:Okay there you go by nasor · · Score: 1

      Now, the very first thing I did after the horror trip was to clean out the blood.

      Yes, it always stuck me as especially bizarre that people always talked about the fact that he tried to (gasp!) clean the blood up as if it somehow pointed to his guilt. When I carelessly sliced my hand in my car while trying to open something that was packaged in one of those ridiculously tough plastic "clamshell" containers, the first thing that I did when I got home was try to scrub the blood off the seat. Obviously anyone who gets blood in their car will try to clean it up.

    198. Re:Okay there you go by nasor · · Score: 1

      To be clear here, it's not like the inside of his car was splattered with blood. The blood found in the car was described as "trace amounts". A while ago I cut my hand in my car while trying to open one of those ridiculously tough plastic bubble containers. It was a trivial thing, and I didn't bleed much - I just put a Band-Aid on it and was fine - but I'm sure that a forensics team could find "traces" of my blood in the car if they looked closely enough. Although clearly this guy was guilty, finding traces a wife's blood in her husband's car is not at all suspicious.

    199. Re:Okay there you go by Raenex · · Score: 1

      True, I used the wrong wording. I know there will be another trial, but it just boggles my mind a guilty verdict wasn't returned in the first place. I have little confidence that a second jury will get it right.

    200. Re:Okay there you go by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Nah, just another clumsy guy who likes to play with sharp things.

    201. Re:Okay there you go by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      No, it's very clear that his personality quirks played a large factor here. For instance, the judge laughed at him when he described not liking to make eye contact. Some of the jurors said that the fact that they thought he was odd played a large part in their decision. That's not the kind of thing that should remove reasonable doubt.

      No, but where did you get that the jury convicted *only* because of his personality quirks? From what I read, the jury didn't like Hans (nor did the judge), but I suppose they have seen and heard much more than those quirks in court, things like evidence that are actually relevant to the case.

      I mean, his personality sure didn't help him get away with it (people who put up a more pretty defense might... but that's another problem), but don't be so rash to think that the jury convicted *only* because he was a weird guy.

      The fact that it turns out the jury got it right suggests that their decision making process was right. And mind you, "suggests", not prove.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    202. Re:Okay there you go by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The confession (proving that he knew were the body was) sealed the deal in any case, but better lawyers (ala OJ Simpson) might have been able to get him off by systematically breaking down the prosecution case and keeping their socially challenged client from opening his mouth or doing anything else odd in court, but Hans didn't have millions of dollars for a legal dream team so now he does 15 years instead.

      Yeah, you don't need a million dollar legal team to get the advice "shut the hell up and let me do the talking", and a million dollar dream team won't do a lick of good if that advice isn't followed.

      Sure, the amount of circumstantial evidence put Reiser in a serious bind. What damned him, though, was his own testimony. His lawyer told him to be quiet, and he wouldn't listen and demanded to be put on the stand. Then instead of having to decide whether the prosecution's case left room for reasonable doubt, instead they had to decide whether the prosecution's case was more believable than Reiser's explanation for his actions.

      Unless this legal dream team also comes with legal permission to ignore their client's demands, and to muzzle him in court so he can't speak, then it wouldn't have done a lick of good. And if Hans had listened to the perfectly sensible and correct advice to shut his yap, his run-of-the-mill defense attorney may have been able to get him off. Neither of those things are true though.

      And, now that "reasonable doubt" is a thing of the past, all I can say is THANK YOU FOR BEING STUPID HANS.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    203. Re:Okay there you go by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      27 bytes should be enough f

    204. Re:Okay there you go by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      In an adversarial system, the defense is supposed to put forward the most credible reasonable explanation to account for the evidence put forward by the prosecution.

      The jury isn't a team of conspiracy makers who look for "reasonable explanations" for every piece of evidence, the defense has to provide the explanations and their task is to evaluate whether the explanations are credible.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    205. Re:Okay there you go by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Ehmm, are you saying premeditated murder is only committed by psychopaths?

      Most truly premeditated murders, yes. The vast majority of murders by people who are even remotely sane are crimes of passion (crimes committed under some level of duress), which by definition, are not premeditated.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    206. Re:Okay there you go by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      and with hindsight: because (d) he did it.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    207. Re:Okay there you go by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      If you think you pulled some sort of awesome gotcha there, don't ever testify in your defense.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    208. Re:Okay there you go by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah! I firmly believe Bill Gates killed his wife, despite all evidence, like her still being alive, saying otherwise!

      I know for a fact that he killed Bob. Where's the outrage?

      Oh wait . . . never mind . . . he killed Bob.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    209. Re:Okay there you go by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 1
      It's 85% "right in accordance with what actually happened."

      It's a statistic and they gather lot's of them and come up with those numbers through lot's of difference means. Usually they look at cases that are older where some new means of evidence can be used to verify the outcome, like DNA evidence in cases from the 1980s.

      Google around there are some papers on it form top law schools, it's kind of interesting. There are also clearly deviations and classes and identifying those is important to coming up with an accurate estimate.

    210. Re:Okay there you go by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I think you mean that they have never bled in your car *without* something to contain the bleeding and keep it off the car itself. Because trust me, at some point in the past twenty years your wife bled in your car.

      Well, during all those times the blood contained endometrial cells. All blood is not created equal. Well, all ways of bleeding are not created equal.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    211. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's one seed of doubt for you.

      This family friend Hans accused of being the real killer, how do we know Hans didn't get the location of the body from that guy?

      (In all seriousness, stranger things have happened.)

    212. Re:Okay there you go by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Well, psychopaths aren't the only ones. I once had a girlfriend who had exactly the same skill. No joke, I'm not trying to be funny -- I eventually found out she'd been lying to me constantly, about the most seemingly trivial things. Even a simple question like "How come you didn't finish the laundry like you said you were going to do?" would elicit a story about how some strange guys were hanging around the house and were banging on the door and she was afraid of what they might do.

      She would tell me stories about what she did one summer, who her friends were, where they went on vacation, how they had a falling out and why she doesn't talk to them anymore. Only later I found out that she'd been lying about her age by a year or two (again, nothing that would make any difference) and so the math didn't add up -- in the year of the road trip she described to me, she wouldn't have been old enough in real life to have a driver's license.

      I don't think she was a psychopath. Bipolar? Quite probably, yes. But people develop this lying behavior for all kinds of reasons. In the case of my ex-, I think she just had terrible self-esteem and a history of making bad choices that she didn't want to get lectured about, and she just wanted to sound more interesting so that people would like her. I don't hold it against her anymore. I feel kind of sorry for her, actually, because in the long run this habit has messed up her life way more than she's ever benefited from it.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    213. Re:Okay there you go by mok000 · · Score: 1

      You are making the Prosecutor's Fallacy here...

    214. Re:Okay there you go by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's why I don't believe for a minute that it was premeditated. The guy is too incredibly bad at lying to be a psychopath, IMHO.

      The only aspect of lying that being a psychopath actually helps with is the part where you have to say the lie with a straight face and in a manner that implies that you yourself believe it to be the truth. For a psychopath speaking the truth is no different than speaking a lie if it suits them, so this part they're good at.

      It does absolutely nothing as far as making the lie itself believable. A psychopath could say with a straight face "I hold no ill will against Mr. Smith and have not harmed nor desire to harm him" while stabs Mr. Smith in the neck repeatedly, but you sure as hell wouldn't believe him!

      I have not witnessed Reiser's testimony, I've only read reports of some of his explanations. And he'd have to have one hell of a charismatic presence to make that crap believable -- again, not something being a psychopath automatically grants. Given that he went against his lawyer's advice in order to take the stand and present his pile of crap, it sure seems like he thought he'd be able to convince people with his honesty. Personally I think that suggests at least some psyco- or sociopathy.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    215. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of a side-effect of a judicial system build around innocent until proven guilty.

      You're actually supposed to presume the guy is innocent until proven otherwise. In the begining the other guy who'd admited to a couple of murders kinda helped a little with the assumption that Hans was innocent. There was still a doubt, and as long as there's a doubt, the accused is to be presumed guilty.

      Now that it's clear as day that Hans did it, I don't think anyone in their right mind believes otherwise.

      Frankly, it's the people who assumed guilt right out of the gate who should be put on the spot and asked if they're still so smug about it, they've failed to understand how the judicial system is supposed to work.

    216. Re:Okay there you go by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      And yet could not remember where he put them.

      Or explain why his-and-her cellphone batteries were removed.

      Or why she would buy groceries before fleeing the country.

      Or not drain her accounts/max out her cards before leaving.

      I've been saying this guy probably did it since day 1, which is not to say that evidence can't point to guilt where there is none, but in this case there was no plausible explanation of innocence.

    217. Re:Okay there you go by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      It was a joke. Playing on the regular and heavy bleeding thing... never mind :-P

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    218. Re:Okay there you go by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately he had no such legitimate reason, and it's pretty easy to differentiate between vaginal bleeding and other sorts.

      I consider myself rather skilled at coming up with plausible lies or "explanations", but I can't think of any that fit the facts as presented, and I haven't heard anyone else present a plausible explanation either, let alone the person who was on trial. In fact, he had *no* explanation for most of the evidence or his actions.

    219. Re:Okay there you go by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick (well, actually I am nitpicking), but persecution is what happens when you go against an entire people. For example, pogroms carried out against the Jews are an example of persecution. The word you meant to use is prosecution. Small difference in spelling. Big difference in meaning.

      --
      McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    220. Re:Okay there you go by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      While I could debate whether a diagnosis which has only existed for 15 years could possibly be called "classic," I will instead merely point out that neither of the things you mentioned are symptoms. In fact, Asperger's typically presents with heightened memory abilities, excellent use of literal speech, poor use/little understanding of analogy and humor, and clumsy motor skills -- something you wouldn't expect to see in a black belt.

    221. Re:Okay there you go by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      You cannot fathom the logic that was used to determine the likeliest place for a body to be hidden.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    222. Re:Okay there you go by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick (well, actually I am nitpicking), but persecution is what happens when you go against an entire people

      I enjoy a nitpick as much as the next guy (okay, probably more), and I'd happily cede the point...however this nitpick was misdirected.

      Persecution most certainly can happen against an individual. In this case the meme on many tech sites was that poor Hans was being persecuted because he was different.

    223. Re:Okay there you go by flajann · · Score: 1
      Ha!

      I wish it were that simple...

    224. Re:Okay there you go by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

      Oh. I stand corrected.

      Though, from the context of the sentence in which you used "persecuted," it can appear as if you meant "prosecuted" and didn't know the difference. It is a common problem when writing that even carefully selected words can appear to be mistakes. This probably happens more often that it should only because so many people use the wrong words due to carelessness or simply lack of knowledge of the different (similar) words, and we therefore become accustomed to replacing words we see with what we believe the author intended (at least I do that, anyway). How many times have you seen "their" or "they're" where there should have been "there?" Or a "vise" (something commonly found on workbenches) in place of a "vice" (such as smoking). The ones that really drive me up the wall are accept/except, then/than, affect/effect. This can throw things off when you come across that rare circumstance that a chosen word is actually the correct one.

      On second reading, your sentence makes perfect sense with "persecuted."

      --
      McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    225. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They believe he was innocent because in their little stunted Asperger-addled semi-in heads, all women are lying whores who get what they deserved. It must always, always be the woman's fault. Never his, because he's a man and a geek and women are always to blame for everything.

      If he had killed a man, NOT ONE of you would be the least bit defensive about him.

    226. Re:Okay there you go by Nathan+Boley · · Score: 1

      The poster said 90% correct. Maybe the 10% error rate is all in incorrect acquittals?

      Although 95% of statistics *are* made up...

    227. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are that you're not going to have all that circumstantial evidence leading anybody to even accuse you of such a thing unless you actually did something wrong.

      Like:

      Decrypted a DVD on Linux (5 years in prison)
      Made a joke about a burning Bush (37 months, i.e. 3 years 1 month in prison)
      Exceeded 100 GB/month (banned from cable internet)
      Obtained a domain name with a trademark in it ($100,000 fine)

    228. Re:Okay there you go by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. I would say that being a mother doesn't make it better or worse. A person was murdered. That is enough.

    229. Re:Okay there you go by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Arrogance? No, not even close. Did Hans kill his wife? Apparently. Was the jury given evidence that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is what the GP is arguing.

      He's arguing that the jury was not given the evidence without actually knowing what evidence they saw. The jury say the evidence proved that Hans killed Nina beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond a shadow of doubt). Subsequent events have shown that the jury was correct that Hans was the killer. To continue to argue that there was reasonable doubt when he was not in that courtroom, to continue to assert that he knows better than the jury is either arrogance or idiocy, take your pick. To me it sounds like arrogance.

    230. Re:Okay there you go by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      "no real motive for Nina to try to frame him by fleeing to Russia without her kids."

      Except that several stories said that the children were in fact taken to Russia. So Nina would have fled to Russia and later reunited with her children. That is at least vaguely plausible, although the combination of physical evidence and Hans's strange actions point overwhelmingly to his guilt.

      It was plausible that Nina might have fled to Russia, though if it were true then someone should have been able to dig up some evidence to support it. But that theory didn't explain the physical evidence. That's when people started claiming she was framing him and at that point it became a pretty weak theory, IMHO.

    231. Re:Okay there you go by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You didn't give any specific reason why she isn't a psychopath. I'm not saying she is (though I'd wager more than 50% that she is), just that you have not supported that thesis with any arguments at all.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    232. Re:Okay there you go by Mumia · · Score: 0

      I had a cop bleed in my cab.

    233. Re:Okay there you go by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Your logic is faulty. Just as if I say that the sun will cross the sky tomorrow because this guy in my neighborhood named Apollo gets in his fiery yellow car every morning and about half an hour later the sun comes up. Then about a half hour after the sun goes down, my neighbor Apollo pulls his fiery yellow car into his driveway. Would it be arrogant of you to say that even if I am right about the sun rising, I was wrong in my analysis? Heck, if the jury had flipped a coin, they would have had a 50% chance of coming up guilty. If they had just flipped a coin, and convicted based on that, would you still be claiming the original poster was arrogant for saying their conviction was faulty? No, coming up with the right answer does not mean the person came up with the answer in the right way. And it is not arrogant to point that out.

    234. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dear lord i hope your conclusion is the correct one, sir

      Nothing makes me doubt the reasoning abilities of the Slashdot community quite like Hans Reiser threads.

    235. Re:Okay there you go by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realized that. `Never trust anything that bleeds for 3 days a month and lives'. Doesn't mean I have to respond in the same vein, however.

    236. Re:Okay there you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but where did you get that the jury convicted *only* because of his personality quirks?

      I was specifically responding to: "According to their comments any reasonable doubt was removed when he took the stand." The fact that I quoted it right before saying what I did should have been a hint.

      I did not say that I thought the jury convicted *only* because of his personality quirks. I think that they were a large factor. Which is why I said they were a large factor, and why you quoted me saying that they were a large factor. And yet somehow you managed to miss the fact that I thought they were a large factor and came up with the silly notion that I thought it was the *only* factor.

      The person I was responding to says that jurors said that it was the deciding factor. Before, there was reasonable doubt, so the verdict would have been innocent. Then he took the stand, reasonable doubt was removed, and so the verdict changed to guilty. My statements in response were made with this understanding.

    237. Re:Okay there you go by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If this had been a story about Bill Gates or some other closed source proponent, I wonder if people's reactions would still have been the same on this site.

      If this had been about Bill Gates getting a parking ticket there'd have been people here calling for him to be hanged, drawn and quartered, then hanged again because of Windows ME.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    238. Re:Okay there you go by eam · · Score: 1

      A woman went to her doctor for a follow-up visit after the doctor had
            prescribed testosterone (a male hormone) for her. She was a little
            worried about some of the side effects she was experiencing.

            "Doctor, the hormones you`ve been giving me have really helped, but
            I`m afraid that you`re giving me too much. I`ve started growing hair
            in places that I`ve never grown hair before."

            The doctor reassured her. "A little hair growth is a perfectly normal
            side effect of testosterone. Just where has this hair appeared?"

            "On my balls."

  3. fooie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was always that little (irrational) bit of me that said he was innocent. Foof.

  4. This makes me sad by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I held out so much hope all during the trial process that Hans wasn't guilty. And even after he'd been convicted, I held onto the cynical thought that Nina was alive and well somewhere in Russia, laughing at all of this, and that someday it would all be revealed as a fraud.

    Good luck, Hans.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:This makes me sad by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point, fuck him. Good luck to his kids.

    2. Re:This makes me sad by Falstius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I held out so much hope all during the trial process that Hans wasn't guilty. Good luck, Hans.

      Why?

    3. Re:This makes me sad by freeweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, because I'd have liked to have seen her turn up alive and well. A living person is better than a dead person any day.

      Sadly, circumstantial evidence or not, the guy was clearly guilty as all hell from minute one. Even the weirdest, most anti-social geek I know doesn't do the strange shit he pulled in the days following her murder.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    4. Re:This makes me sad by JustShootMe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good luck? The man is a fucking murderer. I don't care if he's fucking Linux God and able to write programs just by looking at them, he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

      It makes me sad too, it makes me sad that he did it, it makes me sad that he thought he could get away with it, it makes me sad that he actually used the "I'm too smart to know what I did" defense, and now he's going to pay the price. I'm not sad for that.

      This ain't no victimless crime.

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    5. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I held out so much hope all during the trial process that Hans wasn't guilty. Good luck, Hans.

      Why?
      " ... because he will need it.. after all, he will probably spend the rest of his life being butt-fucked... Maybe we should all put in for a huge can of vass?

    6. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      slashdot. where murderers are wished good luck.

      Fuck you, ShaunC.

    7. Re:This makes me sad by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I think perhaps the best luck would be some sort of (true) sorrow, remorse, repentance, things like that, ending and eventually emerging from prison a better person and then going on to lead the rest of his life quietly contributing to some crazy experimental codebase of some sort. Why not?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the OP, but I was hoping too, for the purely selfish reason that I think ReiserFS kicks the pants off of ext, and is more likely to continue to do so if Reiser continued work on it.

    9. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was a like "good luck in jail, tard" comment.

    10. Re:This makes me sad by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck you, ShaunC.

      Don't you mean "fsck you?"

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    11. Re:This makes me sad by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

      I used to have an attitude like that, but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him. I'm not sure there is alternative though...

      And that's what makes me sad, I don't think that there is an answer to the question 'what could have been done beforehand to prevent this?'. You can't just go locking people away because they are a bit (or a lot) arrogant and nerdy - slashdot's user base would disappear overnight! Maybe we need that 'voice in your head' ray gun pointing at people 24/7 with a message 'thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not kill. (drink pepsi).'

      Hopefully the kids are now in a more stable environment...

    12. Re:This makes me sad by ShaunC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why?

      Because I sort of hoped he hadn't done it.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    13. Re:This makes me sad by Kibblet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good luck Hans? Why? He's already lucky getting a lighter sentence. He got more than he deserved. Way more. He murdered someone. No luck for him.

    14. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not! He is smart. Maybe he will rise to the top of the Aryan Brotherhood or something. Likely not, but he could be a hit man.......

    15. Re:This makes me sad by Fweeky · · Score: 0, Troll

      Shame he's in a country where punishment is seen as more important than rehabilitation. Never mind trying to find why he went wrong and trying to fix it, let's just hope his cellmate rapes him every night for the rest of his life, ho ho ho.

    16. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Good luck, Hans

      That man killed his wife, plotted to hide the body, and then lied in court. He has been noted to be both arrogant and highly anti-social.

      That man deserves *NO* more respect, *NO* more well-wishing, and *NO* more attention in the media.

      What he *DOES* deserve is time in jail to ponder his actions, as well as the right to return to society once he's no longer a threat. His was a heinous, absolutely evil act, and this kind of well-wishing is ill-placed in light of what he did to his wife and kids.

    17. Re:This makes me sad by Whatanut · · Score: 2, Funny

      A living person is better than a dead person any day

      The Darwin Awards suggest otherwise...

      --

      yvan eht nioj
    18. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like his wife wasn't a great thing either. Man shooting wife, well, you don't need much imagination to think what happened.
      While I don't support murder, I don't feel sorry for her. The real victims are the kids.

    19. Re:This makes me sad by keeboo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck you, ShaunC.

      Don't you mean "fsck you?"

      Man, the guy has a journal.

    20. Re:This makes me sad by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agree. I think where he went wrong was killing his wife. Also, optimizing for edge cases which rarely appear standard operation...

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    21. Re:This makes me sad by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Well, he didn't have the dream team to help him out. If the hans don't fit, you must acquit.

      --
      What?
    22. Re:This makes me sad by dougmc · · Score: 1

      What's sad is that his doing it was a pre-requisite for his lighter sentence -- had he not done it, he wouldn't be able to lead them to the body, and so he'd have to serve his entire sentence (unless Nina showed up, of course.)

    23. Re:This makes me sad by willyhill · · Score: 1

      Did you hope he didn't do it, or did you hope his wife was still alive?

      --
      The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
    24. Re:This makes me sad by arth1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good luck? The man is a fucking murderer. I don't care if he's fucking Linux God and able to write programs just by looking at them, he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

      Luck doesn't work on a deserve-basis. Luck is blind, and with an arbitrary large group of fucking murderers, as many of them will have good luck as those who'll have bad luck. If you wish one fucking murderer bad luck and your wish comes true, statistically another fucking murderer will have good luck.

      You're possibly confusing luck with karma?

    25. Re:This makes me sad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You make a very good point. Keep in mind though that through time horrible people have created amazing things/works/etc. Separate the product from the person.

    26. Re:This makes me sad by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      But was he guilty of premeditated murder? That's what he was convicted of.

    27. Re:This makes me sad by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It was his choice not to fight the premeditated part, by pretending he hadn't done it at all.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    28. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, how stupid were you? Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you clung onto the sliver of hope that this murderer was innocent.

      What makes you any different from people who believe that Creationism should be taught in schools? They WANT to believe that creationism is how the world works despite overwhelming evidence that it's not true. In the same way, you WANTED to believe Reiser was innocent even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was guilty.

      You are what is wrong with America.

      Please remind yourself to never trust your objectivity or sense of judgement EVER.

    29. Re:This makes me sad by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

      Why is he despicable? What is it about the fact that he's been convicted of murder that makes him despicable? For all I know, he's a decent human being, if a bit nerdy and weird. I respect his abilities as a programmer and what's happened doesn't change that. For all I know, the stress of the messy divorce was too much for him to handle and he finally snapped. Does that make him despicable? If so, why?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    30. Re:This makes me sad by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

      I know Ra's Al Ghul is a fictional character, but damn he was wise.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    31. Re:This makes me sad by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It isn't a victimless crime but you seem to be closing out any other options beyond primitive revengeful punishment.

      Just because he is emotionally a defective human being doesn't mean we shouldn't exploit his intellectual abilities. I fully support hooking him up to a laptop and letting him code to his heart's content for the next 15 years.

      Why not? Because he might enjoy it? Because he might feel useful? Because it won't satisfy our need to make him hurt for as long as possible? Do we really think 15 years in prison will dissuade people from killing their wives?

      Is he even really a threat to society beyond living as an example of someone who murdered their wife? Let's put his jail sentence to use and make him work even if it means his stay is more enjoyable.

    32. Re:This makes me sad by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Many people have more value dead than alive. Of course, they'd have their maximum value of zero if they hadn't been conceived to begin with, but once they become people that becomes a less viable option. However, Hans Reiser's wife almost certainly wasn't one of these people. I just don't want your +5 Insightful broad generalization escaping all valid critique. ;)

    33. Re:This makes me sad by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "I used to have an attitude like that, but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him. I'm not sure there is alternative though..."

      Bullshit. WHAT definition? The one that says "People can't simply be bad, or evil; there must be something wrong with them that is out of their control, because no REASONABLE person would kill/rape/rob/whatever".

      Read "A Clockwork Orange" - it's fiction, but far more real than some of the theories spouted to excuse the behavior of criminals.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    34. Re:This makes me sad by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      He murdered his wife. I believe most if not all teleological standards consider murder to be a despicable act. And by the Kantian standards Americans follow in our judicial system, murderers are despicable people.

      As for the stress of divorce. So what? Reiser's mental state never seemed to be a question throughout the proceedings or even in the space of time between the murder and the indictment. Reiser's actions following the murder are consistent with the belief that he didn't act out of heated excitement (a.k.a., crime of passion). In the legal definition of "acting out of heated passion" you get just the one moment where you're temporary insane and not responsible for your actions. Reiser's action didn't fall within the window of time.

      I don't believe it's unfair to say that Reiser is not a decent human being when he murders his wife, buries the body in an unmarked grave, conceals the evidence in the days that follow, defames his wife in order to throw off the investigation, and then finally only admits to the murder after his conviction in order to leverage a lighter sentence for his benefit.

    35. Re:This makes me sad by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Seems like you're taking a more Utilitarian approach to Reiser, and using the deterrence justification for criminal punishment. Our judicial systems is based mostly on the Kantian view of retribution, that society needs retribution in order to be made whole again. We do see prison as a deterrence, but theoretically, we operate mostly on the theory of retribution.

      He has to be punished for his crimes. To say he gets to continue doing what he loves, to allow him to continue to participate in society (even on a diminished level) actually mocks society. Yes, he has some worth that society could benefit from. But prisons are full of inmates who possessed skills society could benefit from. What of them?

      Reiser was a talent programmer. So what? I bet there's enough talent on /. to more than compensate for the intellectual loss that the OSS community will suffer as a result of the selfish act he committed. We didn't lose an asset that can't be regain elsewhere.

      Criminal punishment isn't about helping to find a murder an outlet through which to help society. It's about separating the murderer from society in order to protect society. We don't know that Reiser would ever kill again, but we don't know he wouldn't either.

      I understand that you're arguing an alternative theory to criminal punishment, and I think that's admirable. But based on the theory which governs criminal punishment, there's no excusable way to allow Reiser's skill to be put to use.

    36. Re:This makes me sad by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. WHAT definition? The one that says "People can't simply be bad, or evil; there must be something wrong with them that is out of their control, because no REASONABLE person would kill/rape/rob/whatever".

      I was more referring to his behaviour subsequent to the murder. Not so much the 'trying to cover up his actions' stuff, more the expectation that the reasons he put forward for his actions were in some way plausible. He didn't come across as someone who had a sound grasp on reality.

      Locking him away for a good chunk of the rest of his days is probably the only reasonable solution... it's just a shame that it has to come to this before something can be done.

      I'm curious though... say he got pissed at his wife one night and killed her in a fit of rage, do you think that makes him an evil person?

      What about if she threatened to take the kids back to Russia and so he plotted for a few weeks to kill her? (I don't think he did, but what if?)

      Do you think a few years in prison is going to change him for the better, or do you think the idea is for him to 'pay for' his crime?

    37. Re:This makes me sad by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I used to have an attitude like that, but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him. I'm not sure there is alternative though...''

      I don't know how things work in the States, but, IMO, a jail sentence's primary purpose isn't to make things worse or better for the sentenced, but to keep dangerous people off the streets. Part of it, of course, is punishment, but even that has making society safer as its real purpose.

      That does raise an interesting question, though. On the one hand, if he could do something as terrible as killing a former lover, would it be safe to have him loose? On the other hand, it seems to me Nina wasn't exactly angelic either - so maybe the risk of it happening again isn't actually all that large.

      Interesting questions aside, I feel very bad about this whole history, and extend my sympathy to all involved, especially the children.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    38. Re:This makes me sad by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I say let the bastard code, it would be his forced labour instead of making license plates or bashing rocks to rubble.
      He has a gift, in this case, exploit the hell out of it.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    39. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You certainly deserve luck if you throw worthy gems at unicorns...

    40. Re:This makes me sad by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      What? How is that even remotely relevent to not abusing prisoners, and wanting prisons to be more than somewhere small time criminals learn to be bigger time criminals?

    41. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you hope he didn't do it, or did you hope his wife was still alive?

      Well, given the facts of the case, there wasn't much hope that she was alive. It was more a question of who did it. It was either Hans Reiser, Sean Sturgeon, or one of Nina's fuck buddies that she met online.

      Given everything that happened, I don't have a very high opinion of anyone involved, Hans, Nina, or Sturgeon. I was just hoping that there was some halfway-sane explanation for it all. But I guess not.

      What really bothers me is the whole "tell us where the body is and we'll give you a lesser sentence". What happens when that deal is offered to someone who really is innocent? Someone who is wrongly convicted would actually get a more severe punishment than Reiser.

    42. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him. I'm not sure there is alternative though...

      Sending bad people to jail isn't intended to make things any better for them. That's what "punishment" means.

      It's not going to bring Nina back, but it might discourage someone else from killing.

    43. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have an attitude like that, but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him.

      Bullshit. Just because someone doesn't have control over their impulses does not mean they are classified as insane and should receive kid-glove treatment with daily feel-good doses of brain pudding. This fucker knew exactly what he was doing.

      Sooner or later, most people are faced with rage enough to kill, yet they don't.

      He did. Hope he enjoys having his bum reamed for fifteen years.

    44. Re:This makes me sad by arstchnca · · Score: 1

      I saw the troll mod and I shed an e-tear.

      --
      -- arstchnca
      --
    45. Re:This makes me sad by root_42 · · Score: 1

      Good luck? The man is a fucking murderer. I don't care if he's fucking Linux God and able to write programs just by looking at them, he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

      WTF? I thought we had prisons for punishing people and teach them a lesson. I personally hope that he learns something in the following 15 or so years, and that he will come out and be a better man. The he will repent what he did and that he will do good stuff in the rest of his lifetime. I don't know if he will, but that's how the system is supposed to work.

      --
      [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
    46. Re:This makes me sad by laejoh · · Score: 0

      The evils of premature optimization, indeed!

    47. Re:This makes me sad by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

      I look at it this way. Maybe he'll have a lot more time to code now that he is in prison. So maybe OSS will win because of this.

    48. Re:This makes me sad by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Not so much the 'trying to cover up his actions' stuff, more the expectation that the reasons he put forward for his actions were in some way plausible. He didn't come across as someone who had a sound grasp on reality."

      There is a difference between mentally ill and having a grip on reality. The subprime mortgage mess in the US shows that there are whole large swathes of the population with irrational expectations and wildly overestimated personal capabilities - that doesn't mean there are million of candidates for therapy.

      "do you think that makes him an evil person?"

      No, actually I don't; I think very few people actually qualify as evil. But note that I said "bad or evil".

      "Do you think a few years in prison is going to change him for the better, or do you think the idea is for him to 'pay for' his crime?"

      There are 4 theories of punishment: retribution, rehabilitation, removal, and deterrence. I do not subscribe to the the theory of rehabilitation; pick any of the other three, and that will do.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    49. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minority Report.

    50. Re:This makes me sad by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was replying to what you wrote... I don't agree with prisoner "abuse," but I'd bet we have wildly different definitions of what it means to abuse a prisoner.

      Secondly, prison IS primarily punishment, that's how it's supposed to be... rehabilitation, if it's even possible or worthwhile, should be secondary. That's what "society's understanding" is; oh you poor man, we know it was society that drove you to kill your wife, let us help rehabilitate you!

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    51. Re:This makes me sad by endeavour31 · · Score: 1

      You conclude he is mentally ill on what basis? The fact that he is a bit odd? Under the law mental illness is an inability to distinguish the difference between right and wrong and can be the inability to understand the process of a criminal trial. Contrary to popular opinion such a defense is not often used at trial. That he buried the body and attempted to clean up any evidence of the crime is dispositive in showing that he knew the act was wrong.

      The only clue to personality is that Hans was a completely self-centered, smart asshole which does not mean he is not guilty by reason of mental defect.

    52. Re:This makes me sad by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      You're possibly confusing luck with karma?

      Keep the mods out of this!

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    53. Re:This makes me sad by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      I was mostly refering to the disgust I feel in threads like this where there are always the undertones, or outright praise of things like prisoner rape, and the sense that it's a valid part of someone's punishment.

    54. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "fsck you?"

      well done

    55. Re:This makes me sad by numbski · · Score: 1

      Same here. I lost my mother AND grandmother to a drunk driver that cross the center line when I was 7 years old. I kept hoping that she had gone home, but the fact that she left her kids behind was more than just a little suspect. :(

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    56. Re:This makes me sad by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well, like I said, I was replying to your post that lamented the fact that prison was for punishment first, and rehabilitation second (if at all). That's exactly how it's should be.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    57. Re:This makes me sad by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the kids are now in a more stable environment...

      You mean like something with a journal?

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    58. Re:This makes me sad by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      I say let the bastard code, it would be his forced labour instead of making license plates or bashing rocks to rubble.
      He has a gift, in this case, exploit the hell out of it.

      I think that policy is implemented in prison for rapists and hookers only.

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    59. Re:This makes me sad by Poohsticks · · Score: 1

      Is he even really a threat to society beyond living as an example of someone who murdered their wife?

      I would argue - YES. He is a threat. Anyone that can violate our most basic law (don't kill another human) is a threat. I don't care who he killed and the only circumstance that I would give a killer a break in - is in self defense.

      I'm not saying that I think he needs to be granted a laptop and made useful. I'm just saying that he IS a proven threat to society in that he killed another human being. If you think rehabilitation works and that giving him a laptop is the way to go - then great. I just want him removed from society so he can't snap and kill someone else.

      Personally, I think that anyone who can/does kill someone else is a permanent threat to society. YMMV.

      --
      "The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been wide
    60. Re:This makes me sad by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      Actually, what this always makes me feel is that the people who are for prison rape are:

      .

      1. Dangerous socipaths.

      2. Kept in line primarily by fear, with no concept of morality.

      3. The kind of people who commit atrocities when they think they can get away with it, or when some authority figure tells them that it will be no problem to do such things to an unperson.

      In other words, budding Lieutenant Calleys or Josef Mengeles.

      I never, ever wonder how so many Germans could go along with the Nazi's because if America takes a wrong turn we'll see the same behaviour here.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    61. Re:This makes me sad by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've never used ReiserFS...

    62. Re:This makes me sad by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      A living person is better than a dead person any day

      The Darwin Awards suggest otherwise...

      Hey, both Hans and Nina have successfully procreated, two or three times (I don't know how many kids there are). That means that they were both winners in the evolutionary sense. (Unless the kids aren't his.) Their genes will march on!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    63. Re:This makes me sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >able to write programs just by looking at them

      You're an idiot.

    64. Re:This makes me sad by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he could write some killer applications!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    65. Re:This makes me sad by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, his quality as a programmer and as a human being are about equal.

      Reiser's filesystem kills your files, while he kills people.

      Geez, is he the geek's OJ or something?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    66. Re:This makes me sad by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      He brought his wife to the US out of poverty in Russia, and she relayed him by stealing money from his struggling company, sleeping with his weirdo transvestite ex-friend and finally taking away his kids. He killed her in a moment of passion, then got scared and tried awkwardly to get away with murder. I can understand his situation and what drove him to murder.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  5. No more doubts about conviction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even after the conviction, given the circumstantial case some doubts remained. This certainly removes all remaining doubts.

    1. Re:No more doubts about conviction by cabjf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I would dismiss the removal of a bloody car seat as just "circumstantial" evidence. Circumstantial can be pretty obvious all on it's own. As soon as that news broke, I knew he was guilty, especially with the way he tried to hide it.

    2. Re:No more doubts about conviction by ezzthetic · · Score: 1

      It seems a bit odd to me that you get a reduced sentence by locating the body, despite having plead "Not Guilty".

      I suppose in legal terms the plea could be seen as a challenge to the prosecution to prove their case, but it still feels a bit like Reiser just admitted to lying to the court.

      --
      You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
    3. Re:No more doubts about conviction by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The family gets closure because they finally can lay their daughter/sister/mother/whatever to rest.
      The state doesn't have to pay for countless appeal after appeal, the case having to be retried due to some technicality, etc.
      Reiser gets a lesser sentence.

      While you may or may not be happy with the outcome, everyone gets what they wanted or needed under the circumstances.

    4. Re:No more doubts about conviction by hardburn · · Score: 1

      No, the prosecution has to make the case. They can't just put the defendant under oath and demand they tell the truth. The Fifth Amendment is very clear in this regard.

      On a side note, this is one reason Clinton couldn't technically be charged with lieing under oath for his impeachment. It wasn't a valid question for the prosecution to ask.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    5. Re:No more doubts about conviction by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      There's formalities, then there's the way things really work. The formality is he plead Not Guilty. The reality is, he did it. A few things are worth a prosecutor cutting a deal. A body gives closure to the family, that's not trivial. But the big thing is, the cops and the prosecutor's office couldn't find the body. As much other stuff as he screwed up, he pulled that part off. Telling the cops how he did it means they get better at finding the bodies, they get better at knowing how to recognize signs someone's tried to destroy evidence; these things improve the police's hand in future cases, and are worth consideration.

    6. Re:No more doubts about conviction by burris · · Score: 1

      Hans Reiser already admitted to lying on the stand.

      "Let me begin by asking if you're willing to admit, here and now, that when you (previously) testified you willfully concealed the fact that you routinely removed the battery from your cell phone after Nina disappeared?" Hora asked.

      "Yes, and I feel badly about that," Reiser said.

      "And that was a willfully false or deliberately misleading statement of a material fact, do you agree?" the prosecutor asked.

      "Yes," Reiser responded.

    7. Re:No more doubts about conviction by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize the German government recognized the 5th amendment as applicable in court proceedings there.

    8. Re:No more doubts about conviction by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
      Lionel Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

      ...

      Lionel Hutz: DAAAA!! I move for a bad court thingy.
      Judge: You mean a mistrial?
      Lionel Hutz: Right!! That's why you're the judge and I'm... the... law-talking guy.
      Judge: You mean the lawyer?
      Lionel Hutz: Right.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:No more doubts about conviction by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure everything that isn't a "witness" is circumstantial evidence. So.. like all forensic evidence falls under that category.

      Which is why it's actually pretty bass-ackwards to dismiss circumstantial evidence as if it's less reliable, considering the wildly varying stories two trustworthy witnesses will tell of the exact same event.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:No more doubts about conviction by westlake · · Score: 1
      Even after the conviction, given the circumstantial case some doubts remained. This certainly removes all remaining doubts.

      It is not reasonable to expect every question to be answered.

      That only happens in detective fiction and in the courtroom melodramas of a Perry Mason.

    11. Re:No more doubts about conviction by hardburn · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize Hans Reiser was convicted in a German court.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    12. Re:No more doubts about conviction by EvanED · · Score: 1

      .... okay, I am officially an idiot.

      I have been under the impression that Reiser was German, and this case has been taking place in Germany, pretty much since the beginning, and I've never gone to verify this. How on Earth did I get under that misconception?!

    13. Re:No more doubts about conviction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His admission that he strangled her also has some weight.

  6. I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.

    1. Re:I can only hope by kcelery · · Score: 1

      Or even worse, he should be sentenced live to maintain the RFS.

    2. Re:I can only hope by JebusIsLord · · Score: 3, Funny

      How very Christian of you.

      --
      Jeremy
    3. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in forgiveness nor do I believe in rebirth. But I do believe in revenge.

      Can you give one reason outside of Christian morality that this man shouldn't be tortured? Please note that the "he might be innocent" excuse just walked out of the door. And don't use the "we'll become monsters too" excuse because it is based on Christian morality (because there is nothing special about humanity).

      The concept of justice requires him to be tortured and executed.

    4. Re:I can only hope by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an ass, nobody deserves that. I know you're a troll, but you're also sadly indicative of a lot of people's attitudes towards prison rape.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    5. Re:I can only hope by ya+really · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can only hope (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:08PM (#24093325)

      that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.

      Re:I can only hope (Score:2)
      by JebusIsLord (566856) on Monday July 07, @10:19PM (#24093487) Homepage

      How very human of you.

      Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

    6. Re:I can only hope by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The object of justice is the dispassionate meting of a society-prescribed punishment. Vengeance and revenge never enter the equation; justice and vengeance are never the same.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    7. Re:I can only hope by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      But it has everything to do with not being a pompous asshole, and thus avoiding pompous asshole-like phrases such as "fixed that for you."

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    8. Re:I can only hope by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. +100 Insightful.

    9. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. That is the watered down Christian morality version.

      Justice is payment if full (and nothing more or less) for crimes committed. Christian justice is a lesser punishment with an emphasis on forgiveness. The US civil courts are the only ones that understand justice. If the US criminal courts were more like the civil courts, then justice would be done. In this case, Hans Reiser would surrender the only thing that has the same value as another human life. He would be executed.

    10. Re:I can only hope by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We'll become monsters too" is not at all based on Christian morality, although it doesn't contradict it either. It's entirely orthogonal (I'm an atheist).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

      Apparently you are a hardcore retributivist. I'm closest to a utilitarian by this scale.

      Torturing him doesn't really help anything and is just an asshole manouevre. In my opinion, it's not that one becomes a monster by torturing another, it's that one already is a monster for wanting to torture.

      I'm not happy for Hans Reiser's suffering. I'm happy to prevent him from causing any more suffering, and in all fairness, if somebody has to suffer it should be the one who forced the issue.

    11. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an ass, nobody deserves that.

      Why doesn't he deserve that? I think any man who has murdered his wife deserves that. Killing your wife is not worse than being raped in prison by a long shot. What is the worst thing that could happen--that he dies during or because of a prison rape? Then he would have only given his life for the life that he had taken. Even Steven.

    12. Re:I can only hope by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That's something he might choose to do.

      Sentence him to life finding and fixing bugs in the MS Windows operating system and NTFS, with no authority to make any design changes / rewrite brokenness.

    13. Re:I can only hope by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why doesn't he deserve that?

      Gandhi? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? We are not barbarians.

      The punishment is the prison time, not rape, let along the long, drawn-out suffering that is an AIDS death. Yes he's a terrible person for having killed his wife, yes he should be punished and no the 15 years he's getting probably isn't enough for someone who can kill their wife and then calculatingly lie to the police and a jury about it for so long. That doesn't mean he deserves to be raped. At the very least it's mob justice, and the reason we have courts to hand out punishment instead.

      The sick individuals gloating at the idea of anyone being raped are no better than the people they wish it upon.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    14. Re:I can only hope by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1
      You've repeatedly called for him to be tortured. Even by the concept of black-and-white reciprocal justice, unless he tortured his wife before he killed her, you're over the line. If you've ever seen the suffering that goes into dying of AIDS, you will know how far over that line you are.

      Your comments are irrational and based on emotion rather than a sense of justice or logic. This is why we have laws and courts in a system set out by people with cooler, more level heads.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    15. Re:I can only hope by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And don't use the "we'll become monsters too" excuse because it is based on Christian morality (because there is nothing special about humanity).

      I would disagree that the "we'll become monsters too" claim requires religion.

      Besides, he might have to use Windows for the rest of his life.

    16. Re:I can only hope by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in forgiveness nor do I believe in rebirth. But I do believe in revenge.

      Can you give one reason outside of Christian morality that this man shouldn't be tortured? Please note that the "he might be innocent" excuse just walked out of the door. And don't use the "we'll become monsters too" excuse because it is based on Christian morality (because there is nothing special about humanity).

      The concept of justice requires him to be tortured and executed.

      I'm an atheist, but I can give you some excellent reasons.

      You will debase the people who carry out the punishment. It's lovely that *you* want someone tortured and executed. What about the person who has to carry out that act? What happens to them, year after year as they carry out revenge killings to make people like you happy?

      You know what happens to them. They go insane and are themselves tortured. You commit a further crime by making someone torture another person. Do you know what most societies do to those who order the torturing?

      Another excellent reason is that making this person suffer isn't impartial justice, it's emotional retribution. It has nothing to do with *why* we have a legal system. In fact, the legal system is partly created to stop this sort of thing happening. We don't want revenge killings and mob justice. We want fairness and impartiality in punishment. And why is that?

      Well, sometimes the courts get it wrong. It happened a lot before blood typing and DNA evidence, and still happens today.

      How do you recompense someone you tortured and killed when you made a mistake, or when people in the system manipulate evidence to ensure a guilty verdict?

      In your retributive world, you'd have to torture and kill members of the bar, the police, the DA and maybe even the jury.

      No, I'll stick with a world where there's an impartial, rational legal system, thanks very much. You can keep your torture fantasies to yourself.

    17. Re:I can only hope by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the civil courts are the ones who award millions of dollars to people who can't manage to keep coffee in their cup and off their laps. Hardly a model system.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    18. Re:I can only hope by Scrameustache · · Score: 0

      You're an ass, nobody deserves that.

      Well, rapists, maybe.
      But instead they get to keep raping, which is double wrong.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    19. Re:I can only hope by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Risk of rape in prison, frankly, seems not much different than the risk of bad food that isn't very healthy or exposure to increased levels of TB. It's a very good reason not to "do the crime if you can't do the time" -- part of the reason people don't want to do time is the nasty environment it's done in. Obviously prison rape should not be sponsored by officials and encouraged, but I'm not too willing to spend a lot of my tax dollars to eliminate it entirely.

      We should go to great pains to avoid convicting innocent people. Indeed, in the case of Hans and my casual following of the case/evidence, I felt (p=0.8) that Nina was killed and Hans did it, but I don't know if I could have been pushed to "beyond reasonable doubt". However, it's hard for me to worry too much about people who commit premeditated murder, arrogantly perjure themselves on the stand for days wasting everyone's time and generally make a mockery of the criminal justice system.

      Indeed, I'd love to see a perjury charge leveled against Hans - although the plea agreement probably precludes that. However, I wonder what the judge could do with a contempt of court twist - he's not a party to the plea agreement. (Of course, IANAL).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    20. Re:I can only hope by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that jail sentence should be about punishment and self reflection/ repenting during the time in prison. Eventual goal should be to have people who are capable in functioning in our society after the sentence. In case we as society would like to give weekly rape as punishment it should be said so during sentencing, not as side effect of failing prison system. In any case weekly rape is unfair method of punishment as half of the prison population enjoys and other half dislikes.

    21. Re:I can only hope by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      I consider it a simple logic exercise. Him hurting someone was wrong. Therefore we are allowed to hurt him. This is a simple logical fallacy (two wrongs, of course).

      --
      Jeremy
    22. Re:I can only hope by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      I am a Christian, but I have a few ideas outside of Christianity:

      1. What purpose would torture serve? Execution might serve a purpose.
      2. Revenge is generally done by the (possibly extended) family or clan of the injured party. Are you related to Nina?
      3. Vendettas have a tendency to get out of hand. A hundred years from now, you'll have a couple groups of people killing each other for revenge and nobody will remember the original cause. Just look at the middle east.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    23. Re:I can only hope by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The punishment is the prison time, not rape, let along the long, drawn-out suffering that is an AIDS death. Yes he's a terrible person for having killed his wife, yes he should be punished and no the 15 years he's getting probably isn't enough for someone who can kill their wife and then calculatingly lie to the police and a jury about it for so long. That doesn't mean he deserves to be raped.

      No one "deserves" to suffer at all as payback for committing a crime. Punishment for punishment's sake is barbaric and has no place in a civilized legal system.

      That doesn't mean no one should be sentenced, of course. But the purpose of any sentence should be to prevent the criminal from reoffending (either by rehabilitating him or just by keeping him off the street), to make him compensate the victim (when possible, which it isn't in this case), and to provide a deterrent to other would-be criminals, not to take revenge on him for being a bad boy.

      Now, it's true that the sentence has to be undesirable for it to work as an effective deterrent, but really, prison is undesirable enough on its own. You don't need to throw in the threat of prison rape or violence; the thought of being locked up for a few decades is enough to deter any rational person, and an irrational one won't be deterred by anything.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    24. Re:I can only hope by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Christian? Try reading Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc.--there's precious little Christian morality in there.

      I said nothing against the death penalty; in fact, for murderers I support it. There's no forgiveness in execution whatsoever. But torture? Torture is not justice. Torture is simply vengeance, a puerile giggling acting-upon of a reptile-brain hate. It is an appeal to the irrational, a cathartic for the emotional side which must never enter into the equation when justice is under consideration. Fools like you are the reason we have the judicial system we do.

      The U.S. civil courts are in many cases irrational, with insane punitive damages. They are hardly a model system.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    25. Re:I can only hope by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      I can only hope (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:08PM (#24093325) that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.

      Re:I can only hope (Score:2) by JebusIsLord (566856) on Monday July 07, @10:19PM (#24093487) Homepage How very human of you.

      Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      That might have been the point of the comment. The more cynical among us might argue that the OP's original vitriolic ranting fits rather nicely with a worldview where those who don't worship the right god get tortured for all eternity after they die.

      As such, perhaps it actually was a very Christian comment.

    26. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      But using religion as a tool to commit indecent acts often has very much to do with being being a wicked person. Over the last decade we have seen religion used to instigate many serious atrocities.

    27. Re:I can only hope by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      And so vengeance is the dispassionate meting of a individually-prescribed or sub-culturally-prescribed punishment.

      And then revenge is merely the above, but done passionately?

      Why shouldn't the only object of justice be the minimizing of crime?

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    28. Re:I can only hope by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't even support the death penalty. There's no justice in that. It's all about vengeance. You took away what I love, so I take away what you love, then I feel better. Just because I kill someone doesn't bring my loved one back. There's no justice in this. It's vengeance. Nothing more, nothing less.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He only said he was really thinking like a Christian...
      You turned his affirmation into a sarcasm!

    30. Re:I can only hope by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My most compelling reason to be against irreversible punishments (and torture is one of them, if you ever have been tortured you know why) is simply that there is a nonzero chance that it could be applied to me. Even innocently. It's not like no innocent man has ever been executed.

      In today's world, where evidence is the holy grail of trials, it has become far too easy to find the wrong person guilty if you have a crafty and intelligent criminal. Worse, I've worked far too long with law enforcement together to believe they really look for "all clues" and do whatever they can to find the real criminal. Far too often, the only goal is to close a case as cheaply as possible. Especially when you have already a lot of hints for a culprit, so you start looking more closely at evidence pointing towards him and far too often others is ignored since it could mean more work (i.e. spending more money) and could create the worst possible outcome: That you have two suspects who are equally guilty. The chances are fairly high that their lawyers will start an in dubio defense, with as much evidence against suspect A as you have against suspect B you can't convict either without reasonable doubt, and the court will be forced to let both of them run free. You can't close your case and your statistics plummet.

      Result? You start digging for evidence against one, and only one, suspect. Yes, you may lock up the wrong one, but your statistics is flawless.

      The world is not black and white, and justice isn't fair. Crime lab people want to make career, too, and having a lot of unsolved cases doesn't help you there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    31. Re:I can only hope by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      In addition, I really don't think it's a good idea to hand over the punishment system to criminals.

    32. Re:I can only hope by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The concept of justice requires - at worst - that he be killed.

      Any more than that and you're committing an unprovoked crime.

      And what makes revenge so morally acceptable anyway? It doesn't benefit anyone. His wife is still dead. Nobody gains from it. Lock him away as a deterrent to other people who might do the same.

    33. Re:I can only hope by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Informative

      The court awarded $480000 in punitive damages. Not millions.

      This was to a company that served coffee at a dangerously high temperature. Coffee should be hot, but not so hot that it causes third degree burns. Damages were reduced because it was her fault she spilled it. So in fact, she was charged $40000 for her clumsiness.

    34. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a religious person has very little to do with being decent. ;)

    35. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a decent person precludes religion.

      There - fixed that for you

    36. Re:I can only hope by Cairnarvon · · Score: 1

      Can you give one reason outside of Christian morality that this man shouldn't be tortured? (...) And don't use the "we'll become monsters too" excuse because it is based on Christian morality (because there is nothing special about humanity).

      Wow. The only other time I've seen someone this ignorant of the origin of morality is when certain fundies try to stereotype atheists.
      I suggest you seek help.

    37. Re:I can only hope by Tano · · Score: 1

      Neither torture, nor execution would do anything to atone for the death of another human being.

      There is absolutely no logical way you could get to that conclusion - the removal of one member of society isn't equaled by the removal of another, either through execution or through locking up.
      Neither does causing that person pain.

      The only thing that might, on a larger scale, somewhat atone for what he did, is making him work for it - work to pay for his kids growing up, even though someone else is raising them.
      Keep the person productive, although outside normal society.

      Even this isn't enough, but it's way better than killing him, or keeping him locked up in a cell for decades on taxpayer money.

    38. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      A lot of people would people would argue that there is a (negative) correlation. So much advocacy of genocide has been done in the name of religion. Hitler ruled partly by coopting the Lutheran Church -- the Lutheran Church has never really apologized for being the tool of Nazi hatred, murder, rape, torture, and genocide...

      (Although notably a very few Lutheran ministers opposed him, unfortunately by their example highlighting how corrupt and brutal most of the Lutheran establishment was by comparison.)

    39. Re:I can only hope by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Coffee is supposed to be brewed at 95C, and served immediately. If anything the coffee was too cold.

    40. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by 'last decade' you mean 'known history of mankind'. Religion has, and always will, be used for evil until it is not given a free pass. Fight back! You don't have to tolerate idiotic ideas to be a liberal, sift and winnow!

    41. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a nerd in prison with a life sentence, HIV+ might be the best thing for you. Drawn-out AIDS suffering doesn't happen to rich people. Under the care of the government you are rich.

    42. Re:I can only hope by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      No. Rapists, once caught, deserve - and get - prison. Your argument suggests that only freelance rape is bad, and government-endorsed rape is A-OK.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    43. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not true either. I can think of plenty of religious pompous assholes.

    44. Re:I can only hope by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      The death penalty is a reasonable punishment for the highest of crimes; it is the forfeiture of the criminal's life to the State. There is no vengeance in the death penalty as it is carried out in the United States--we spend a preposterous amount of money to ensure that there is no pain and suffering (look it up: they use a three-drug course, the first of which is enough to put the condemned into a medically induced coma). There is a cathartic effect for the bereaved, but that is not its intent.

      It could easily be argued that a life sentence is far more cruel than execution. Both are a transference of the entirety of the guilty's life to the State.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    45. Re:I can only hope by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I would not want him tortured... torture is one of the worst things humanity has invented (do yo uknow any other animal species that tortures for any reason?).

      But dead, why not? the guy killed a person, willingly and then lied about it, premeditatedly.

      These are the kind of people that should not be maintained by your our taxes. They should go working hard only to get enough food and water to live, for the rest of their lives, and give the rest to society as a contribution.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    46. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kid yourself, the courts are mob justice too.

    47. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one "deserves" to suffer at all as payback for committing a crime. Punishment for punishment's sake is barbaric and has no place in a civilized legal system.

      That doesn't mean no one should be sentenced, of course. But the purpose of any sentence should be to prevent the criminal from reoffending (either by rehabilitating him or just by keeping him off the street), to make him compensate the victim (when possible, which it isn't in this case), and to provide a deterrent to other would-be criminals, not to take revenge on him for being a bad boy.

      Now, it's true that the sentence has to be undesirable for it to work as an effective deterrent, but really, prison is undesirable enough on its own. You don't need to throw in the threat of prison rape or violence; the thought of being locked up for a few decades is enough to deter any rational person, and an irrational one won't be deterred by anything.

      No no no. Punishment is all about preventing crime. If the punishment for murder was bad enough, maybe Nina would still be alive. Throwing him in jail now doesn't mean much. There is no punishment for punishment's sake- it's meant to be an example for others to avoid.

      Don't forget, it's not just the sentence but also how likely they are to get away with it. And as an afterthought, I doubt murder victims' families feel good about their tax dollars sheltering and feeding murderers.

    48. Re:I can only hope by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Maybe these people are just jealous that somebody else gets to live out their fantasy. Sour grapes and all.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    49. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one "deserves" to suffer at all as payback for committing a crime. Punishment for punishment's sake is barbaric and has no place in a civilized legal system.

      I'm sorry, but your argument works very well in an ideal world. If people are rehabilitated instead of punished for crimes they commit toward other people, that's fine by me... but.. and here comes the point:

      It's not bloody okay if somebody commits a violent crime against me, my family or my friends.

      Why not? You can already hear you ask. Quite simple. My thirst for revenge would be fueled. I might get uncivilized.

      And you know what? There are quite a few people out there thinking and knowing this to be true for them too. They would never, ever, let a person get away with just being 'rehabilitated' if a violent crime was commited against them or their loved ones. To stop punishing people would mean that victims and their relatives/families would start blood-feuds against the perpetrator.

      And that is a very, very bad thing.

      To have a civilized society we need the state to meter out punishment fitting to the crime, so that the victims thirst for revenge is satisfied at the same time as trying to rehabilitate people. If the punishment does not fit the crime - we have a very serious risk of people punishing the perpetrator on their own. That would be bad.

      Now, you can call me uncivilized as much as you want - but no matter how much you disagree with what I've just said, you need to realize what kind of society you would create by implementing rehabilitation instead of punishment. I'm afraid it would be a very short-lived society.

      The last thing I want to point out is that I personally think the punishment "culture" in the US has gone too far. Criminals are punished way harsher than needed to satisfy both what the society is willing to accept as 'strict enough' - at the same time as there is way to little rehabilitation. Other countries again do too little punishment (the scandinavian countries, for example).

    50. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm an atheist, but I can give you some excellent reasons.

      You will debase the people who carry out the punishment. It's lovely that *you* want someone tortured and executed. What about the person who has to carry out that act? What happens to them, year after year as they carry out revenge killings to make people like you happy?"

      My question.

      If you truly are an atheist, what is the "base" against which you feel the executors would be "debased" from?

      As a Christian, I have a very well defined base, and with the exception of confusion as to where it is that your base comes from, I agree with everything you say.

    51. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cat will play, and after, slay.

    52. Re:I can only hope by Hugonz · · Score: 1
      Gandhi? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? We are not barbarians.

      We are not Nina's heirs either. We do not get to decide that he should not be killed in essentially the same way he killed his wife. That mercy is not ours to give, but the victims'.

    53. Re:I can only hope by Astrorunner · · Score: 1

      Well lets face it...

      1 out of 2 people enjoy prison rape.

    54. Re:I can only hope by pfleming · · Score: 1

      I can only hope (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:08PM (#24093325) that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.

      Re:I can only hope (Score:2) by JebusIsLord (566856) on Monday July 07, @10:19PM (#24093487) Homepage How very human of you.

      Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      Being a decent person seems to be inverse to to one's level of religion. The more religious they are the less decent they are. You would think you infidels had learned this by now.
      --------------- +5 Flamebait

    55. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't agree with the GP (Another annoymouse coward), most of your arguments are quite weak:

      What about the person who has to carry out that act? What happens to them, year after year as they carry out revenge killings to make people like you happy?

      I think it's a reasonably presumption that nobody is forced to becamse "head tortuer" at "A. Coward" prison, and that if you have that job, you probably agree with toturing people, and may well be already prepared for it.

      Another excellent reason is that making this person suffer isn't impartial justice, it's emotional retribution. It has nothing to do with *why* we have a legal system. In fact, the legal system is partly created to stop this sort of thing happening.

      Hmm.. Have you looked at the length of prison sentences given lately? There's definately the "emotional retribution" factor there. The last sentence is just a tautology. For all we know, "A. Coward"'s "justice system" may be created expressly for the purpose of faciliating revenge in an ordered manner, rather than a never ending blood feud. It can be argued that "retribution" is not a component of "justice", but you can't just assert this.

      How do you recompense someone you tortured and killed when you made a mistake, or when people in the system manipulate evidence to ensure a guilty verdict?

      And that's the argument which is logical (though prison doesn't do that well in this regard either).

    56. Re:I can only hope by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      It's not bloody okay if somebody commits a violent crime against me, my family or my friends.

      Why not? You can already hear you ask. Quite simple. My thirst for revenge would be fueled. I might get uncivilized.

      Well then, if you act on that "thirst for revenge", you should be locked up as a deterrent to others who might follow in your footsteps, and to keep you from committing any more vigilante acts.

      To have a civilized society we need the state to meter out punishment fitting to the crime, so that the victims thirst for revenge is satisfied at the same time as trying to rehabilitate people.

      No, no, no. What you're suggesting is that the state should preemptively commit barbaric acts in order to preempt its own barbarically-inclined citizens.

      But why bother getting the state involved at that point? If we're going to accept such barbarism, we may as well just let those people dish it out themselves, right? It's no less despicable when the state does it, and surely it'd be cheaper to let you exact retribution with your own hands than to pay a state employee to do it for you.

      On the other hand, if we're not going to accept such barbarism, then we certainly shouldn't have the state committing it in our names.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    57. Re:I can only hope by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      No no no. Punishment is all about preventing crime. If the punishment for murder was bad enough, maybe Nina would still be alive. Throwing him in jail now doesn't mean much. There is no punishment for punishment's sake- it's meant to be an example for others to avoid.

      Yes, that's what's called a "deterrent".

      However, like I said, a prison term is already enough deterrent for any rational person. If someone isn't deterred by the thought of being locked up for decades, then either he's convinced he isn't going to get caught, and so no sentence will be harsh enough because he doesn't believe it'll apply to him; or he's not acting rationally, and so no sentence will be harsh enough because he isn't making a cost-benefit calculation anyway.

      It's nothing but wishful thinking to say that if the sentence for murder were harsher, Nina would still be alive. Hans clearly either wasn't thinking rationally when he killed her (a crime of passion) or was convinced that he wouldn't get caught. He was facing a sentence of what, 25 years already? Surely you don't think another few years would've made a difference.

      And as an afterthought, I doubt murder victims' families feel good about their tax dollars sheltering and feeding murderers.

      I agree, but that's why these decisions are made by judges and juries, not by the victims' families: because victims' families are often irrational and bloodthirsty. Appeasing those people is not a legitimate goal of the justice system.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    58. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not also true that pretty much every person (as far as we know) who wasn't decent was also human? It may be a habit of some to portray them as monsters, but human they are.

      As such, if the point is to comment on the decency of a person's behaviour, is it not most appropriate to directly address that point rather than inferring it via some personal belief of how individuals of a given species/creed/etc should behave?

      Then again, I guess that doesn't leave so much room for people to jump in and flame each other.

    59. Re:I can only hope by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's hard to argue that death is a punishment if the recipient of said punishment never knows he received it. The anticipation may be the punishment, but since we're all going to die eventually, even that is a stretch. The death penalty is vengeance, and an irreconcilable one at that, in that nothing we can do could ever compensate the person for his loss, if we later learn that he was innocent.

    60. Re:I can only hope by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      Ahhh.... over-analysis. It was just an expression. Jesus Christ! :)

      Most real christians I know (was raised one, but I'm very much an atheist) would definitely label the OP's post as un-christian. I've started speaking on the level of the common Jesus freak when morality comes into discussion, because frankly the American "Moral Majority" is almost the polar opposite of moral according to any sane reading of the new testament.

      --
      Jeremy
    61. Re:I can only hope by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      The death penalty is vengeance, and an irreconcilable one at that, in that nothing we can do could ever compensate the person for his loss, if we later learn that he was innocent.

      All judicial punishments are irreconcilable. Money does not replace time served. This is a weak argument against it.

      The condemned most certainly knows he is going to be killed. The punishment is death, not the execution.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    62. Re:I can only hope by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      All judicial punishments are irreconcilable. Money does not replace time served. This is a weak argument against it.

      Nonsense. There are fines as judicial punishments. Money clearly replaces money.

      Time also shares a very close relationship with money; perhaps closer than anything else, and while money may not replace time served, it provides compensation. You cannot compensate the dead.

      Death is not a punishment, it's just a phase of life that some of us try to avoid. It does not teach a lesson, the recipient cannot express remorse (or not) after it's over; it's only of meaning to those who continue to live. In many respects, a death sentence is less of a punishment than a life sentence.

    63. Re:I can only hope by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. There are fines as judicial punishments. Money clearly replaces money.

      It doesn't replace lost opportunity costs.

      Time also shares a very close relationship with money; perhaps closer than anything else, and while money may not replace time served, it provides compensation. You cannot compensate the dead.

      The idea of money being compensation for incarcerated time is preposterous nonsense.

      Death is not a punishment, it's just a phase of life that some of us try to avoid.

      The revocation of the right to life thanks to your actions most definitely is a punishment. Jail is the revocation of liberty. Execution is the revocation of life.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    64. Re:I can only hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

      You can claim the mutual independence of both concepts, but there is a very clear correlation between the two in most world religions.

    65. Re:I can only hope by xmod2 · · Score: 1

      I'm happy to prevent him from causing any more suffering

      Though I suggest the only people who would have had to be worried would be future spouses.

      I'm more inclined to support prison sentences for people who commit violent crimes against strangers, rather than one off occurrence between two people who have a lot of history and vitriol. Putting them in prison doesn't do anything to better protect society and is only useful to satisfy some primitive desire to punish.

  7. R.I.P. NINA by gnudutch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FINALLY

  8. Statistically, this was bound to happen. by suso · · Score: 0

    I'm not talking about Nina's body being discovered or Hans Reiser being guilty or whatever.

    I'm just saying that given enough people in a community, you'll certain amounts of people who lie, cheat, steal and even murder.

    1. Re:Statistically, this was bound to happen. by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm just saying that given enough people in a community, you'll certain amounts of people who lie, cheat, steal and even murder.

      Statistically, given enough people in a community, you'll find certain amount of people who are nice, moral, and respectful of others. This could have easily gone the other way.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    2. Re:Statistically, this was bound to happen. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      It goes the other way all the time - we just don't care about that. Almost all good deeds go unnoticed; only some evil deeds don't.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:Statistically, this was bound to happen. by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      It goes the other way all the time - we just don't care about that. Almost all good deeds go unnoticed; only some evil deeds don't.

      Without my response to the original comment, we would have only focused on the evil. It's people like that who put the focus on the evil deeds, only talking about the statistical odds of bad people instead of the good when I believe that the majority of people are good. I think human nature makes people have to try extra hard to be evil especially if you don't want to get caught.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    4. Re:Statistically, this was bound to happen. by menace3society · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that OpenBSD stopped supporting ipfilter because...

  9. I plead not guilty but hey, here is the body. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get the lesser sentence for cooperating. If you want a lesser amount of time in jail, don't make us go through a trial and then turn the body over only after you've played out the string.

    Maybe he was digging her a tunnel to Russia and got stuck.

    1. Re:I plead not guilty but hey, here is the body. by n0dna · · Score: 1

      No shit.

      Now that they have the body, they need to charge him with obstruction of justice and anything else that could conceivably apply.

    2. Re:I plead not guilty but hey, here is the body. by grogglefroth · · Score: 1

      I don't get the lesser sentence for cooperating

      I suspect the main reason is to provide closure for the family.

      --
      Good, Fast, Cheap - Pick any two. - RFC 1925
    3. Re:I plead not guilty but hey, here is the body. by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      Presumably his lawyer worked this stuff out. That's the lawyer's legal responsibility to his/her client.

  10. So how many "But he's still innocent"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how many "He's still innocent" posts will we see NOW?

    (Posting as AC, because such would probably call this flamebait. But its a serious question.)

    1. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, here's a serious answer: his guilt or innocence does not, in any way, change the fact that he was convicted on scant evidence.

      It's not the destination that matters, it's the journey. A broken system can send an innocent man to jail as easily as a guilty one.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by keeboo · · Score: 1

      This is the very essence of all that controversy.
      Very good, I wish I had mod points.

    3. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here's a serious answer: his guilt or innocence does not, in any way, change the fact that he was convicted on scant evidence.

      And his own testimony, which utterly failed to provide a plausible reason for his odd behavior after his wife's disappearance. In fact, it's his own testimony that's regarded as the final nail in his coffin; on *just* the evidence presented, there would probably be enough doubt to keep him out of jail. His bullshit excuses removed all reasonable doubt.

    4. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, dude, it didn't. He didn't need to explain his behavior. The only reason why his testimony was the final nail in his coffin is because the jury care more about how eloquent he is compared to the DA or his lawyer or the judge. That's wrong. That shouldn't be an issue. It's just like if he was convicted because he was black or because he had a nose ring. The evidence is all that should matter and he should have walked free simply because the police should not have arrested him until they had found the body or even some good evidence - "suspicious behavior" should not be enough. The justice system dodged a bullet here.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      In your opinion of course.

      Who gets to define the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt"?

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    6. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      No, dude, it didn't. He didn't need to explain his behavior.

      That's absolutely right. He had no legal requirement to testify in his own behalf. He chose to, of his own free will. In so doing, he presented an explanation of his actions that the jury found so unbelievable that it (apparently) helped them decide that he was guilty as charged.

      It isn't common, but it does happen. I know, because I've seen it before. A club I belong to was trying to decide whether or not to revoke the membership of a man who'd caused quite a bit of trouble. At the meeting where we discussed this, he was given a chance to defend himself against the charges before the vote. The vote was written and it took a 2/3 majority of all votes cast to expel him. That meant that turning in a blank ballot, or writing "abstain" on it was the same as voting against the expulsion. (This makes it hard to revoke a membership, and that's why it's done; we want it to be hard.) In the end, he lost his membership. A number of the people at the meeting said that they'd been planning on abstaining, or voting against the motion until they heard his defence. It was basically, "This is how I am, this is how I've always been and this is how I'm always going to be." It said, in effect that if he remained a member, he'd just go on doing exactly the same things he'd always done even though he knew they were causing problems for everybody concerned. After hearing that, they voted in favour of the motion to expel. He was thrown out mostly, because of his inept defence. So yes, I can easily believe that Hans Reisner did exactly the same thing.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      The jury didn't think it was scant evidence. This might come as a surprise to you, but the legal system does not revolve around your personal opinion about what is sufficient legal proof and what is not, unless you're actually on the jury.

      In other words, just because you think he was convicted on scant evidence doesn't mean the entire system is broken.

    8. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The jury convicted him on his personality. They even said so.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      How true. Unfortunately there was tons of evidence, and taken together it clearly indicated he was guilty to the exclusion of all other reasonable explanations. That's how evidence works. You don't say "gee, just because there was blood in his car doesn't mean he did it!". You look at that in conjunction with the SHITLOAD of other evidence and say "shit, that dirty fucker murdered his wife and left his children without a mother or father and with a lifetime of trauma".

    10. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The only reason why his testimony was the final nail in his coffin is because the jury care more about how eloquent he is compared to the DA or his lawyer or the judge.

      No, dude, the reason his testimony was the final nail in the coffin is because the jury care about whether a person's story sounds plausible or more like complete bullshit made up to protect a guilty person. By testifying, Hans Reiser eliminated the nebulous specter of "reasonable doubt" where the jury can imagine any alternative explanation they care to, and replaced it with a simple choice: Is Hans Reiser's explanation for his actions remotely plausible? Answer: No, no fucking way. What explanation did that leave? That Hans was lying because the DA's explanation was (at least approximately) the correct one.

      If Hans could have provided a plausible explanation for all the circumstantial evidence, then he probably would have walked. But gee, guess what? It's pretty hard to explain all the actions you took to cover up a murder as anything but what they are -- actions taken to cover up a murder.

      "I sleep in my car, which was dirty, and thus I decided to hose down the upholstery (isn't that how everyone cleans their car and bed?), for the first time ever because it was only then I learned that cars don't have water drainage holes in the floorboard."

      I don't care how eloquently you state that, it's going to sound like bullshit. And that's just one snippet from a long serious of actions that look like covering up a crime, but he gave some crazy illogical explanation for.

      There was plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant an arrest, and even a conviction, though the latter is not a sure thing given only that evidence. Your ideas on evidence are woefully skewed; think for a second about the consequences of requiring a body before you can arrest someone. But that's not the issue. The issue is that Hans explanations of the circumstance around that evidence was such obvious crap, it eliminated all reasonable doubt. The believability of the defendant's testimony is evidence for the jury, and it was that which tied all the circumstances together and said he was lying to cover up his crime.

      The justice system dodged a bullet here.

      Yeah, no shit. If Hans was as smart as he thought he was and listened to his lawyer, instead of thinking he could spin some BS tale for the jury, then he, a murderer, might have walked. Thank God he's just an egomaniac and not actually all that clever!

      Seriously, man, he murdered his wife long before he came up with his ridiculously stupid explanation for all the crap he did to cover it up, and you're saying the jury screwed up by calling him on that BS? That the justice system "dodged a bullet" because he really did turn out to be guilty, just like the evidence and his own testimony suggested? Ridiculous.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:So how many "But he's still innocent"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, except you might want to use better evidence that the system is broken then a guilty man being sentenced.

  11. Choice of file system by Wister285 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system? Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

    1. Re:Choice of file system by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is just one more thing for the 15 year olds who think they're e-badasses because they use Linux to brag about.

      "Oh yeah? Who designed your WinBlow$ file system? Just some monopolist? My file system was designed by a murderer. I totally have you beat."

    2. Re:Choice of file system by ActusReus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to hell for laughing at this.

    3. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? I can understand (but still disagree with) someone being hesitant to use medical research found by amoral means: you know in the back of your mind that you're directly benefiting from someone loss. I disagree because refraining from using it doesn't help the victims or anyone else - may as well make their loss mean something. (Especially if the research can save lives!) Just don't condone it happen again. In this situation, though, I can't comprehend at all the hesitation for using his FS. It wasn't built on Nina's body - if Nina and Hans made up and lived happily ever after we'd still have his FS. It's just related loosely-ish to a wrongdoing - it wasn't the cause or result. If his file system fits your needs (say, you have lots of small files that need to be moved around quickly) go ahead and use it. Using his FS does not mean you support murder.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Choice of file system by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this argument. What do the morals of an author of code have to do with the technical merits of the work? Personally I've never used this particular file system and don't really have any plans to do so. But I wouldn't stop using it because the author did something wrong. It's code. It's not a religion (contrary to some popular beliefs).

      --

      yvan eht nioj
    5. Re:Choice of file system by Wister285 · · Score: 2

      I never said it was logical! It's creepy!

    6. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right behind ya, pal:

      "Oh I use Dead Man's Filesystem"

      in case you can't bring yourself to mention his name.

    7. Re:Choice of file system by Wister285 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't really making an argument, just more stating my feeling. I know that the code has nothing to do with it. It's just a feeling of guilt by association now that I think about it.

    8. Re:Choice of file system by Yannic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

      This doesn't affect my choice in filesystem, nor should it anyone. It doesn't invalidate the work that was done on the filesystem by Mr. Reiser or any other contributor.

      That being said, if we were to find out that the murder of Nina somehow benefited the code, then I would find issue with it. If by looking at Nina's splattered blood, Hans was inspired to create a new tree sorting algorithm, then yes, I'd have a problem with that.

      Once code has been written, it should stand on its own merits, and be scrutinized only for its own flaws.

      Now that I've written this, I'm beginning to reconsider my position on NSA Linux.

      \/\/\/

    9. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      Ah, gotcha. Emotions. Maybe I've been spending too much time with machines - I'm starting to think like one.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    10. Re:Choice of file system by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      No. How is it even relevant?

    11. Re:Choice of file system by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, it shouldn't.
      In my opinion, the file system sucked quite independent of how the author sucked.

    12. Re:Choice of file system by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I use ReiserFS on one of my hard drives. I am unhappy with the stability of it (a power failure caused some data loss). So I am moving back to EXT3, which has NEVER failed me. From what I read, my problem was a rare occurrence with RFS, but was supposed to be fixed in Reiser4.

      The file system has a lot of merit, and I would love to continue to use it. However, I value my data more than I value speedy access to it.

      It's sad that a woman is dead, but honestly, my biggest concern is something that affects countless thousands of people. Who's going to maintain the file system now? Murderer or not, he seemed to be a talented coder, and it's my hope that he can continue to work on the file system from prison, and try to repay his debt to society that way. Because there are still some showstopping bugs in Reiser4 that I would really like to see fixed before I start using it.

    13. Re:Choice of file system by jcarkeys · · Score: 1

      Why would it? Did he commit a crime (or other questionable ethical practice) in his professional life, or just his private life? It's not like trying to use Dr. Mengele experimental results, there's no ethical stickiness attached to Reiser's work. Professional life != personal life

    14. Re:Choice of file system by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      Pfft... It's a well-known fact that most filesystems are created by sociopaths. I think I heard someplace that Rémy Card dresses squirrels up in tiny little dresses and makes them re-enact his favorite episodes of The View.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    15. Re:Choice of file system by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you know in the back of your mind that you're directly benefiting from someone loss.

      We all benefit from someone's loss all the time. If people never died, we'd all be starving, etc. Can you imagine having your overly-senile great-great-great-20-times-removed ancestors hanging around - and ALL their offspring - you'd want to kill them, just to get some breathing room.

      Hate to say it, but the Lion King was right with that "Circle of Life" bit.

      (now try to get that damn tune out of your head)

    16. Re:Choice of file system by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Ah, gotcha. Emotions. Maybe I've been spending too much time with machines - I'm starting to think like one.

      Wait... we can get people to think rationally just by getting them to spend more time with machines? This implies a rational course of action...

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    17. Re:Choice of file system by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      I use the filesystem that came with my OS. You know, like 99.999% of people.

    18. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      No. How is it even relevant?

      If you assume murderers are irrational human beings, I would be loathe to trust my data to the work of someone who had that much influence on the design and implementation of a file system I used.

      In any case, I never used Reiser, but it often came across as a vanity project to me. Interesting ideas, but it never went anywhere in a big way.

    19. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily rationally; if anything spending too much time with machines (and consequently less with humans) will deaden you to completely relevant inter-human interaction skills. The rational course of action here is for people like me to socialize more to smooth over any future human interaction. There may be arguments for increasing the amount of time/knowledge/experience people have with machines, but I do not believe any can be derived properly from my previous post.

      Oh, oh wait... that was a joke. Ha ha! *takes notes*

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    20. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wrote the file system long before he became a murderer (assuming this was his only murder). While it's still pretty creepy, I think there's a big difference in before/after. Merely having homicidal tendencies is not the same as actually going through with it.

    21. Re:Choice of file system by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      (now try to get that damn tune out of your head)

      Maybe I'm lucky that I never heard it. Can you hum a few bars for me? I'm afraid to download it. I could end up being his cellmate. And under today's rules, I could get a longer sentence than he might get.

      --
      What?
    22. Re:Choice of file system by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      Hans Reiser was one of the core developers, he's going to jail for at least 15 years. It's named ReiserFS, it was built on his reputation. Most of the rest of the core developers (if any) will leave for fear of taint by association. This means there is now a substantially greater risk that it will become an orphaned project.

    23. Re:Choice of file system by maxume · · Score: 1

      In the jungle, the mighty jungle, blah blah blah blah blaaaah.

      Just get on you knees for Mickey, you'll be singing free in no time.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Choice of file system by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, that one...my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet...

      --
      What?
    25. Re:Choice of file system by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree, because right now I feel bad for actually having ReiserFS on all of my computers.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    26. Re:Choice of file system by zo219 · · Score: 1

      The replies that follow this post pretty much sort out the aspies from the just plain geeks.

      Just saying.

    27. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bryant: "You know, hate, love, fear, anger, envy..?"

      Deckard: "Ah, gotcha. Emotions."

    28. Re:Choice of file system by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If people never died, we'd all be starving, etc. Can you imagine having your overly-senile great-great-great-20-times-removed ancestors hanging around - and ALL their offspring - you'd want to kill them, just to get some breathing room.

      I imagine I'd be doing it for the meat more than the stress relief.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    29. Re:Choice of file system by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'll be as quick to loudly decry reiserFS's filesystem design, at least.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    30. Re:Choice of file system by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      You'll never win an argument using logic unless the other person already agrees with you and just doesn't realize it yet.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    31. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it should not. i use ext3 because i did not like the codingstyle of reiserFS. thats my oppinion.
      but to address a more general point:
      it should not affect the choice.
      if the answer to the question what is 2+3 is not known, and one kills 3 people and then two people, then counts the bodies and knows the answer, that answer is scientifically right and CAN and SHOULD be used. just because the method was unethically the findings should not be _not used_. also, this should not inspire to kill more people. all i'm saying is: whats done is done. immoral research should be abolished. but scientifc facts that arise ( if they can be reproduced in a moral way ) should not be discardet.

      my two cents.

    32. Re:Choice of file system by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      It's not as funny when you realize some company can AND will use this case to drag OSS through the mud.

      "A major OSS developer was found guilty of murder. Are these the kind of people you trust to write code for your critical infrastructure?"

      This sounds silly, but I believe this line will be used sometime, and it will put OSS in a very bad light once enough people hear it enough times.

    33. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      You'll never win an argument using logic unless the other person already agrees with you and just doesn't realize it yet.

      I disagree. If both parties are willing and able to properly use logic in an argument with the explicit goal of finding the truth rather than "winning" or anything along those lines, the "winner" is simply the individual whose initial understand of the situation matched (or was closer too than his/her opponent's) the final agreed understanding. In this case you would be correct; however I consider this a discussion rather than an argument because, given the axioms, the notion of a "winner" is entirely pointless - the goal was not to win. If we drop that condition and substitute the goal of "winning" the argument while remaining in the confines of logic - irrelevant of what the actual truth is - it is possible to "win" against someone who would, if s/he knew every relevant piece of information, ultimately disagree. This can be accomplished by means of misinformation, withholding information, et al.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    34. Re:Choice of file system by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, my thinking about chosing a filesystem _has_ been affected by this case, but for a different reason. Hans getting arrested has raised strong doubts in my mind about the continuity of ReiserFS. It still remains my favorite*, but I will be watching the developments and see if a better choice comes along at some point.

      Hans being found guilty of murder somehow doesn't factor into the decision for me. I can see how it would, but it just doesn't, for me. If the filesystem is the best choice, I don't see why I would go with a lesser option, just because an important contributor committed murder. That isn't _my_ fault, after all.

      * Strangely, where many others report problems with ReiserFS and suggest various alternatives, for me, ReiserFS has been both the fastest and the most reliable filesystem I've ever used.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    35. Re:Choice of file system by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Actually this is pretty legit as far as FUD goes.

      One guy got into legal trouble and now the filesystem and the whole metadata vision that went along with it is dead. Sucks to be you if you were writing applications against Reiser's APIs.

      Remember that ReiserFS was supposed to be the OSS answer to WinFS? Linux people should be very thankful that MS wasn't able to ship it.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    36. Re:Choice of file system by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

      I have to admit it did the last time I installed Linux on a laptop. For a second I was torn between Reiser and XFS and then I picked XFS and I have to admit disgust played into it.

      I think that if he were to serve his time and be released after 15+ years and he actually were to write a new filesystem, I might try it out, thinking that he had paid for his crimes and should get a new chance to get things right. But right now? Hell no.

      --
      If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    37. Re:Choice of file system by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      No. I've alwaysed used ext3, because although I like ReiserFS, ext3 is more stable and has drivers for Windows if I need them in a pinch. My big 'data' drives that I occasionally give to friends are all formatted with ext3 and a tiny fat partition with an ext3 driver installer for Windows.

    38. Re:Choice of file system by MythMoth · · Score: 1

      A large part of the Oxford English Dictionary was contributed by a murderer. I can't say it feels particularly morbid looking stuff up.

      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    39. Re:Choice of file system by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      One guy got into legal trouble and now the filesystem and the whole metadata vision that went along with it is dead. Sucks to be you if you were writing applications against Reiser's APIs.

      Don't you mean: "One guy got into legal trouble and oh yeah, his wife is dead. However, because the full source code of his database project was available as open source, we're still able to continue developing it."

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    40. Re:Choice of file system by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      No, because the whole "you can fork your own filesystem/RDBMS/OS/Office suite" argument is helmetwearer-level retarded.

      The fact is that there's only a small number of firms in the world that have the talent to maintain these sorts of things. That is why OSS vendors exist.

      I'm really railing on Novell/SUSE and anyone else who shipped ReiserFS here, not the guy himself. If Top Genius #99 at Microsoft or IBM went off to prison, they would simply hire replacements. Paying customers should not expect less.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    41. Re:Choice of file system by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, that one...my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet, my wiener's wet...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fSpI4oZoDc

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    42. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said it was logical! It's creepy!

      But you can turn this into a logical reason not to use it:
      I find it creepy; judging by other people's comments I'm not alone; logically, some people will act on this feeling and it will become less popular and less well supported, throwing the FS's future into even further doubt (beyond the consider doubts already created by the loss of Resier himself); there's probably a significant chance that the FS may go into a 'death spiral'; so logically I should not remain or become dependant on it.

      -"Mr Logic"

    43. Re:Choice of file system by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

      Then I don't suggest you read any history. We all live and enjoy our lives on the work of murderers and other evil people.

      Do you know *anything* about oil? Diamonds? Rap music? You hate MPIAA and RIAA, and they are evil, but have you stopped using their products?

      Using the work of a murderer is nothing compared to owning a diamond.

    44. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does knowing that Hitler designed the original VW Beetle make people hesitant about buying one?

    45. Re:Choice of file system by Spicerun · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, only a small number of OSS developers would even consider taking up the file system.

      There was a time when OSS stood for people who actually liked to program tools and develop a better OSS system, but with the advent of such things like Ubuntu, and "easy to install--don't have to do anything--it just works", people won't deal with it unless it already exists in .deb packages.

      In other words, Its the Windowization of Linux with too many 'Windows Users/trolls' coming to take instead of giving to the OSS community. Just like they do with Windows. Personally, I'd wish they'd just stick to Windows, instead of trying to make Linux/BSD, etc. another Windows 2.0.

    46. Re:Choice of file system by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      This is just one more thing for the 15 year olds who think they're e-badasses because they use Linux to brag about.

      "Oh yeah? Who designed your WinBlow$ file system? Just some monopolist? My file system was designed by a murderer. I totally have you beat."

      Yeah? The guy who owns my OS, he doesn't just kill people, he kills whole companies! He just takes what he wants from them and when they sue, he buys them out! Original gangsta, Billy G.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    47. Re:Choice of file system by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      The problem is that logic doesn't help you find the truth. It helps you find the implications of a set of assumptions.

      This distinction is only academic when you're working with a system that you defined yourself (as in mathematics). But people's assumptions about the everyday world are much more sloppily defined and there are any number of nuances of language to trip over.

      The impact of this is that if you show a contradiction in another person's assumptions, they will likely insist that you are misinterpreting something or if they have to, they'll find a way to slightly reformulate their assumptions to avoid the contradiction.

      In all of the persistent debates of our day, the underlying issue is how good and bad are measured. People try to build logical frameworks for this purpose, but really all they're doing is rationalizing their feelings. Tear down the framework, and they'll just rebuild it slightly differently. To truly win, you have to change the feelings that underly the system. You can never do that with logic.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    48. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. If you were to base your decisions about what you consume* on the actions of the people responsible for making it, you would probably live in cave somewhere.

      McDonalds? No. Nike shoes? No. Gas? Hell no. But also, we're all hypocrites and say we won't go to Wal-Mart. Go figure.

      * yes, I do use the term in a rather ample sense

    49. Re:Choice of file system by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked to see everyone reply this wouldn't stop them from using Reiser. Of course it should! The only reason it's even in the linux kernel is because Reiser bitched and moaned for months. He's the only person who can fully support it. I believe his company is now defunct. Unless someone else steps it to fill Reiser's role as both architect and main contributor using Reiser is a stupid risk.

    50. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not the morbidity that will convince me to change, but rather the lack of updates

    51. Re:Choice of file system by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      We chucked Reiser4 for JFS because JFS didn't cause system loads to spike to 12 and beyond (proceeding to hang the system indefinitely).

      Of course Reiser-philes told me on here we just didn't have it set up right. But then if I need o go into that bastards mind to grok how his f*ing file system works, I think I'll take a pass.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    52. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the volkswagen beetle was designed by hitler. ferdinand porsche only designed the mechanics, but the external apearance of the car was a work of the führer himself.

      now, one of my grandfathers was jew, and this didn't stoped me from having a '71 beetle and liking it.

      so, your point again was ...

    53. Re:Choice of file system by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We all benefit from someone's loss all the time. If people never died, we'd all be starving, etc.

      If people never died, starvation would be a mere inconvenience, since it wouldn't kill you ;).

      Can you imagine having your overly-senile great-great-great-20-times-removed ancestors hanging around - and ALL their offspring - you'd want to kill them, just to get some breathing room.

      Since senility is caused by deterioration in the function of brains associated with age, and it is this very deterioration which ultimately kills you if you die from old age, there is little reason to assume that an immortal would go senile with age.

      Hate to say it, but the Lion King was right with that "Circle of Life" bit.

      No, it wasn't. The "Circle of Life" is simply an attempt to convince oneself that an unpleasant and invariant - at least for the moment - circumstance is "good".

      --

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

    54. Re:Choice of file system by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      More people use the ext file system than ever used ReiserFS, though.

    55. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the CIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRCLEEEEEEE... the CIRRRRRRRCLE of LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE!!! (drumbeats)

    56. Re:Choice of file system by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      How is it even relevant?

      Now that the author's rightfully locked up, it's unlikely the FS will get much or any updating from now on.

    57. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see no reason to let politics influence my choice of filesystem. I’ve been a happy ReiserFS user since around 2005; in that time, I have never had a single major fsckup on any of my systems. Contrast that with ext3 – even with a journal, a single power failure usually means several hours of fscking, often requiring manual repairs (the ones where you can’t use -p – and last time I tried running with the seemingly reasonable -y, it deleted most of my hard disk).

      Having said that, I am planning to move some of my systems to XFS next time I reinstall – primarily because of better performance with large files and the higher maximum filesystem limit – but as strange as it sounds, I feel ReiserFS is the most stable piece of code I have ever worked with (in spite of the developer, in spite of the theoretically unstable design – although I frankly know little about the theory behind filesystems), and given a choice, I’d much prefer to stick with a known reliable codebase, and the hell with the sordid personal life of its developer.

    58. Re:Choice of file system by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system? Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

      Based on simple statistics, odds are that among the tens of thousands of contributors to the average Linux distribution are a smattering of rapists, child molesters, murderers, thieves, domestic abusers, extortionists, con artists, embezzlers, stalkers, and various and sundry other undesirables, just like any other large grouping of ordinary people. And those are the ones that got away with it and are wandering around free writing software. If you let that kind of thing creep you out, you'd better avoid thinking about it altogether.

      So no, I can't say it would bother me to use reiserfs knowing that the principal author murdered his wife. What would worry me is that the principal author has been imprisoned, and there are unlikely to be very many bugfixes and updates now.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    59. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not e-badasses; its called stroking the e-peen

    60. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      I again disagree: logic can most definitely be used to find the truth. It is true that logical analysis of the real world is inherently flawed by the magnitude of the complexity of the real world - we can rarely bring everything to the table. Should a discussion come to a point where a logical conclusion cannot be made with the information any involved parties are able to bring, then yes - it stalls. However I've found the majority of my discussions can in fact be modeled sufficiently to make a logical conclusion - the "truth." One could, for instance, frame the question at hand with the phrase "given everything we know...", but I've found that this is only occasionally necessary. If the goal is to find the truth - not "win" - the problems such as nuances in language are often easily remedied when discovered. If the goal is to "win," irrelevant of what the actual truth of the matter is, then nuances of language are a fine example of "misinformation" or perhaps better fit as a new example of how someone, with out breaking the bounds of logic, could "win" an argument with someone who, knowing everything, would disagree. If someone wants to win more than find the truth, then yes - it is within their power to avoid using logic to find the truth. This does not mean, however, that - should all parties actually care about the truth of the matter more than having their arbitrary previous understanding end up being considered correct by the other party - logic can not be used to find the truth. If you show a contradiction in another person's assumptions - and the goal is to find the truth - the other person will should not act as you have described. Such action is done in order to "win" - or rather here it is in order to avoid "losing" - and should not be done should the individual wish to find the truth of the matter. Rather, the individual should try to find if this contradiction was caused by a misunderstanding or misstep in a logical analysis on either end and, if able, clarify the matter. Only if they are truly unable to, with your help, clarify the matter should the individual insist that you are misinterpreting something without fixing the situation. This would be an example of a stalled discussion. It is perfectly feasible for most discussions to actually come to a conclusion - find the truth - rather than stall like that. I also have an issue with your axiom that most persistent debates of our day can be boiled down to how good and bad are measured. If the discussion is persistent then yes, as in all previous situations the discussion will likely again stall. It's been stalled persistently. If you want to limit using logic to find truths that have been already rigorously discussed fruitlessly, then yes - all future attempts will likely be fruitless, unless a sufficient amount of new information is brought to the table. So what? Due to this very fact I don't engage in such discussions quite as often as those which have a much higher chance of having the truth be discovered. Without limiting us to only considering persistently stalled discussions, most can easily go beyond measuring good and bad. The last three discussions I can recall (which were worked to conclusion): "Should I get a Mac or PC?" "Where should I go to college?" and "What move should I make in a board game?" I also hold that even more abstract questions, such as whether or not abortion should be legalized, can in fact be discussed without necessarily discussing how good and bad are measured. Good and bad measurements in such a discussion can often be set up as agreed axioms - in an abortion discussion I've yet to encounter anyone who did not agree that baseless murder is wrong. I also hold that it is possible (for many people, perhaps not everyone) to discuss the measurement of good and bad objectively, without having their personal feelings come into play. It is possible to define good and bad several ways without feelings. e.g.: Good things are things which ultimately help the survival of a society/civilization, while b

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    61. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it casts a shadow over all of Linux... I believe that all distributions should drop the filesystem completely, as a demonstration of the moral integrity of the free software movement.

    62. Re:Choice of file system by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      This is just one more thing for the 15 year olds who think they're e-badasses because they use Linux to brag about.

      Slow down. First of all, they'd have to discover that Ubuntu isn't the one and only Linux distro. Then they'd have to learn how to convert their file system from ext2/3 to ReiserFS. In other words, they won't be able to brag that they're using it, just that its an option. I'd expect an excuse along the lines of "this file system was made by a murderer, but it sucks, but it was made by a murderer!"

      --
      Your ad here.
    63. Re:Choice of file system by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      I think Linux has surpassed Windows 2.0 by now.

      --
      Your ad here.
    64. Re:Choice of file system by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      ...Mr. Donner?

      --
      Your ad here.
    65. Re:Choice of file system by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      Actually I've chosen XFS over RaiserFS way before this case. It was his "craziness" and incisiveness on spamming users with copyright info every bloody time they use any tool drove me away from the entire FS. And on top of that, calling the FS after yourself, raised some flags for me regarding the ego and "need for attention" and overall metal health of the original author.

      http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/04/msg01295.html

      Calling removal of excessive copyright statements plagiarism is a little crazy to me.

      There is a similar "aura" around the author of cdrecrord

      http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/cdrecord.html

      Of course, I'm not implying that there is any comparison between the individuals, they just both seem "overbearing".

      "Warning: do not use Debian binaries/sources as they include many Debian specific bugs and still do not run correctly on Linux-2.6" in bold red letters on the front page is a little confrontational.

      But then I guess there are "crazies" in the proprietary world as well :)

    66. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi doctors, in line with their campaign for public health were the first to write a major scientific paper linking smoking with lung cancer, I believe smoking was even banned, for a brief time in the Luftwaffee.

      OMG! We must all start smoking right away...

    67. Re:Choice of file system by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Isn't open source supposed to be on technical merits rather than... uh I dunno, other things?

      Anyway I never used reiserfs. ext3 for data I would hate to lose, and xfs for large files (eg. porn collection? ;-p)

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    68. Re:Choice of file system by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      If people never died, we'd all be starving.

      Soylent Green is people!

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    69. Re:Choice of file system by witte · · Score: 1

      Expect the same level of support for the next 15 years.

    70. Re:Choice of file system by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that is absolutely *ridiculous*. Sure, the guy is a murderer. Fine. He killed his wife, he got convicted, he will get what's coming to him. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the file system that he created. A file system is technology, it doesn't care about the morals of the person who made it. Work on that will be taken over by others, who will continue it - this is the nature of GPL software. If there is enough backlash, they may change the name. But not using a particular technology just because of the person who made it (I'm actually leaning toward mentally ill rather than psychopath for him) is stupid. VW was originally started by Hitler, does that mean everyone should stop buying their cars?

    71. Re:Choice of file system by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      Personally, I would have to say so. This is a very sad story. There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

      Well then, you should take a second look at your enjoyment of Democracy, then. Democracy was not invented by smiling grape-eating hippies, you know.

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    72. Re:Choice of file system by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system?

      No. How is it even relevant?

      Development of Reiser4 will be seriously affected, for one thing.

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    73. Re:Choice of file system by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If people never died, starvation would be a mere inconvenience, since it wouldn't kill you ;).

      Never been on a diet, hmmm. :-0

      There are plenty of senile old people who don't know what day it is, where they are, or their names. Senility by itself won't kill you.

    74. Re:Choice of file system by zsau · · Score: 1

      Me? I was pleased I'd converted away from ReiserFS 3 around the time the murder came out and quickly decided I'd stop caring about Reiser4 because the lead developer was a murder. Not because code written by murderers is morally a bit dodgy — murderers are by and large normal people, like you and me, who've screwed up something major and need to sit the next few rounds out — but because, well, who's going to maintain it now? Hans Reiser was selfish, stupid and not as rational as he'd probably like to believe. He did a bad thing and the punishment fits the crime. His filesystem's are now a very poor choice. But he wasn't evil, and his code's not tainted.

      --
      Look out!
    75. Re:Choice of file system by zsau · · Score: 1

      I dunno how true it is, but I heard that there's more people alive now than have ever died in the past (this was a couple of years ago — it might have changed since).

      Hence:

      (a) statistically less than fifty per cent of people die, so there's a good chance you won't.

      (b) if no-one ever died up until this point there would still be only around twice the number of people. I'm assuming here that women continue to become infertile as they age. Also, I would strongly expect that if people never died they wouldn't have as many kids — plenty of evidence suggests that's true even when people do die.

      --
      Look out!
    76. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      large normal people, like you and me

      ...you just said that I am a normal person. You've completely lost any credibility for the rest of your point. Also the fat comment was a uncalled for. Insensitive clod ):

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    77. Re:Choice of file system by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      No, it's not true. Its "for every person alive today, there are 30 who lived in the past" - and this was back in the 1980s. It has to do with the population explosion, and was in the preface of an Isaac Asimov book.

    78. Re:Choice of file system by zsau · · Score: 1

      Hey, I called myself a normal person! Obviously I was using a generous definition. (I'll admit I was assuming that you're not a politician, serial killer or rapist. If I'm wrong, then I do retract my statement.)

      Also I'm not sure what fat comment there was. Some sort of filesystem pun? It's still going over my head.

      --
      Look out!
    79. Re:Choice of file system by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      "large" is a euphemism for one-who-needs-to-move-more. Or is it the other way around... hmm...

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    80. Re:Choice of file system by zsau · · Score: 1

      Aha! But the sentence doesn't parse with that interpretation :) :P

      (I didn't read your selective quoting because it was just what I wrote in the first place.)

      --
      Look out!
    81. Re:Choice of file system by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Never been on a diet, hmmm. :-0

      Sure I have, and a miracle diet at that. I could eat all I wanted, and losing weight was supposed to be the miracle ;).

      There are plenty of senile old people who don't know what day it is, where they are, or their names. Senility by itself won't kill you.

      Senility doesn't cause death; senility is caused by the process of dying. It simply often gets your mental functions before heartbeat. The reaper has a nasty tendency of aiming high - or low, judging by the sales of Viagra - before hitting the target.

      --

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

    82. Re:Choice of file system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it wrong to buy a house real cheap because it was foreclosed on someone?

    83. Re:Choice of file system by chris.evans · · Score: 1

      A talented programmer that got involved in a messy situation. Doesn't have to mean the need to ban the use of an invention.

  12. He duped the great majority of us... by Vthornheart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's unfortunate. A woman is dead, and the large majority of the tech community (myself included) has egg on their faces. We wanted to believe it wasn't true... well, the proof is in the pudding.

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
    1. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He buried her in pudding?

    2. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 1

      the proof is in the pudding.

      That's going to put me off pudding for a while.

    3. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Minwee · · Score: 3, Informative

      the proof is in the pudding.

      "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." (Cervantes, Don Quixote, 1605)

      Here "proof" is used in the sense of "test", so the phrase states that you have to eat the pudding to know how it tastes. The corrupted form of that phrase, "the proof is in the pudding", while not uncommon, is complete nonsense.

      Now you know.

    4. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe she deserved it? maybe she was an absolute bitch to him? maybe she wanted to use NTFS on vista instead of ext?

    5. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, his argument was roughly:

      "She ran away with some russian dude who tried to use black magic and yoga to control my mind."

      The guy was unstable.

    6. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      well, the proof is in the pudding.

      You're calling a dead woman "pudding"?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    7. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      You make it sound as though wishing the murder didn't happen is something we should be embarrassed about. If Hans was caught using NTFS embarrassment may be appropriate; here the tech community is just saddened.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    8. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by NightFears · · Score: 5, Funny

      The correct English idiom is a bit different: the proof of the pudding is in eating. It is interesting to note that the idiom is paradoxical. What proof would remain, if youa ate Nina's body?

    9. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Blah. Life goes on. And you don't have egg on your face just because you thought that he couldn't possibly have done it. It probably says nothing about you either, or if it does, only good stuff.
      To all you guys who say "his poor children", and "a woman is dead" ... Let me hand you the clue-phone.
      A great many children are off far worse than Hans Reiser's children currently are. And lots of much more innocent people die in much more atrocious ways every day.
      Furthermore, he isn't a despicable human being. Very few people are, if any at all. I'm pretty sure that you could drive anyone into killing someone, and even make it look like murder (per the juristic interpretation).

    10. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      What's very sad now is people like you thinking the "majority" thought he was innocent.

      I certainly did not think he was innocent. Take a look at my posting history, I'm pretty certain I said something about this. And I doubt I'm the only one.

      I don't even think the majority of people who posted in response to these stories thought he was innocent. Go read them again.

    11. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      she had it coming.

    12. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Egg on our face for assuming innocence until guilt had been proven?

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    13. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Barny · · Score: 1

      Thats because the OP used it in an incorrect manner, its supposed to be for subjective proof.

      The remnant proof is of course within your mind, that the pudding did indeed, taste good.

      What sort of pudding btw? Not a black pudding I hope :P

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    14. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree. I think it was a small minority that held that view, although what skews memory is that they were very vocal about it. It seemed that they had some great emotional investment in finding Hans innocent, probably because they somehow identified with him (although I have hard times imagining it).

    15. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Egg on our face for assuming innocence until guilt had been proven?

      No, egg on your face for stubbornly clinging to innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, just because he was a programming geek. And guilt is rarely "proven", the standard is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (And NOT "proven beyond all doubt").

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    16. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      If I am presented with a choice between two likelihoods and choose one of them based on the flip a coin, that does not mean I was right to make that choice even if it turns out I am correct. I would deserve no accolades for getting lucky.

      Even creationists, astrologers, and scientologists are correct some of the time.

      We know he's guilty now. Heck, most of us thought it was likely he was guilty. I strongly suspected he was guilty. But that doesn't change the facts as they existed before. Her other boyfriend was a known murderer. That puts a lot of reasonable doubt in my mind.

      Even if they believed they had sufficient evidence to convict him of murder, I still do not believe that premeditated murder has been proved. What evidence has been presented that he planned the killing at all? Didn't he buy a book on murder AFTER she was killed? That's not what you do if the murder is premeditated.

      I'm sure many people here think they arrived at the conclusion he was guilty based on logic. You may be right. I wasn't there at the trial and many of you probably paid much closer attention to this who affair than I did. But, given the evidence I've heard I do not applaud anyone who "knew" he was guilty.

    17. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      He duped no one. You all duped yourselves. I'm sympathetic--I understand what it's like to believe something because you want to believe it. But the whole ./ side of this story is like a cautionary tale against wishful thinking.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    18. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by jjohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Her other boyfriend was a known murderer. That puts a lot of reasonable doubt in my mind.

      The jury never heard about Sturgeon because the police (correctly) concluded that he was a nutcase confessing for attention (a syndrome not unknown to the police). Sturgeon said he killed eight people, but provided no evidence that he'd actually done it. He also didn't confess to eight known murders and go to jail for them. He just wanted some face time with the cops.

      Look at it this way. I kill someone, get arrested, go to trial. You tell the police that you killed eight people, but not the one I'm accused of, whom you knew. The jury is told about your confession, has reasonable doubt, and acquits. The police have no evidence you actually killed anyone, so you can't be tried for the murder. Later, you and I have a beer together.

      I still do not believe that premeditated murder has been proved. What evidence has been presented that he planned the killing at all?

      Premeditation has a fairly wide meaning beyond the classic example of me decided to kill you and carefully planning it for days or weeks. It can count as premeditation if I decide to kill you seconds before doing so. What really matters is a clear, prior intention to bring about your death.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    19. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you weren't the person that the original comment was directed at. Give yourself a hearty pat on the back.

    20. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      No her boyfriend wasn't a known murderer. He confessed to murder, but that doesn't mean he killed anyone. People make false confessions all the time for various reasons (mental problems topping the list). That he isn't currently in jail says the police find his confessions in no way credible. You'd better believe if you confess to 8 murders, and they believe you, that you are going away for the rest of your life.

    21. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by goarilla · · Score: 1

      i guess we feel we're entitled to our OJ

    22. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also uses a somewhat dated form of the word "proof" -- a meaning much closer to "test". "The test of the pudding is in the eating" would be closer to the original meaning.

    23. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He buried her in pudding?

      No, hot grits. Wait... are we talking about Natalie Portman now?

    24. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He buried her in pudding?

      Pudding, of course! Have they arrested Bill Cosby yet?

    25. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      What proof would remain, if youa ate Nina's body?

      Bones, teeth, hair, implants, kidney stones, DNA traces...?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    26. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all the majority of the tech community doesn't use ReiserFS. The majority of the tech community doesn't even use Linux. Your "majority" is really a "tiny little niche of Linux users who also happen to use ReiserFS".

      Second of all, you would have to be incredibly stupid to have believed that Hans Reiser was innocent. With all of the evidence against him, even without a body it was clear to all but the most idiotic that he was guilty of murder.

    27. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Egg on our face for assuming innocence until guilt had been proven?

      Yes. Assuming innocence is absurd. He did it or he didn't. No finding in court will ever change that. Nearly all murders are committed by the spouse/partner. That is a reasonable assumption and in the absence of all other information, sufficient for a preponderance of the evidence with no evidence. But then there were all those that complained after the conviction (and thus the loss of the presumption of innocence). If it took him pointing to the body to convince anyone, then it wasn't any "presumption of innocence" (a legal concept, not a personal belief) at that point, so bringing it up only shows that you weren't following the legal concepts it is based on, yet using it to defend a personal belief.

      In other words, there is no "presumption of innocence." That is a guideline in how the courts are supposed to treat accused, not on how anyone should think or believe. To use it as a shield for personal opinions is a perversion of the term and our justice system.

    28. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      No, egg on your face for stubbornly clinging to innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt

      Prior to his confession and the discovery of the body, the evidence against Reiser could justly have been described with many different terms, but "overwhelming" could hardly be one of them. The case was entirely circumstantial. And it's possible to be justly convicted on circumstantial evidence, but to my mind, "overwhelming" is a term that applies when you have a confession, eyewitnesses, and a body; until just now, the case against Reiser had none of these things.

      The people who thought he was guilty were right. Accept that. Be glad about it. Don't idiotically overstate your case by throwing around terms like "overwhelming."

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    29. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Be glad about it. Don't idiotically overstate your case by throwing around terms like "overwhelming."

      Sorry, but I can only assume you haven't seen the list of evidence, and read Reiser's (literally) insane explanations. It's the murder equivalent of a cookie missing from the cookie jar and your five year old son saying he didn't do it while crumbs are all over his face. Technically, yes, the evidence is circumstantial, and yes, we don't have the body of the cookie, but it doesn't take a mind reader to know that a burgler probably didn't sneak in to eat the cookie.

      I like the analogy another poster made: if this had been Bill Gates and Melinda was missing, most Slashdotters would've convicted him instantly based on the evidence we had.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    30. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by crashfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but I can only assume you haven't seen the list of evidence

      No, I've seen the list. Now that there's a body and a confession, sure, you might have an argument for "overwhelming".

      In the trial, though, what you had was a missing person (who held dual citizenship and had every plausible motive to want to disappear), a missing car seat, one spot of blood that was never determined to be Nina's, and two books on criminalistics.

      That's not really overwhelming evidence of anything. It wasn't even overwhelming evidence that Nina Reiser was dead.

      It's the murder equivalent of a cookie missing from the cookie jar and your five year old son saying he didn't do it while crumbs are all over his face.

      Except that there weren't any "crumbs" on Reiser; there was nothing physical to tie him to the murder because until he produced the body there was no physical evidence of any murder.

      And if we were talking about sending my five-year-old son to jail for 20-to-life, I'd want a whole lot more evidence than a few crumbs on his face. Which, again, we didn't even have in the Reiser case.

      Technically, yes, the evidence is circumstantial, and yes, we don't have the body of the cookie, but it doesn't take a mind reader to know that a burgler probably didn't sneak in to eat the cookie.

      Cookies don't walk off by themselves, but people do. Just because someone has disappeared doesn't mean they've been murdered. Often people disappear completely on purpose.

      I like the analogy another poster made: if this had been Bill Gates and Melinda was missing, most Slashdotters would've convicted him instantly based on the evidence we had.

      That's a bit of a stretch. Just from the comments in this thread it appears that Hans Reiser was liked even less than Bill Gates.

      The evidence was clearly enough to convince a jury. In that sense, it was satisfactory. What we learned from the media was anything but, and only a great idiot would pretend that a missing person, a car with no seat, and two books about real-life CSI constituted "overwhelming evidence" of being a murderer.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    31. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what you had was a missing person (who held dual citizenship and had every plausible motive to want to disappear)

      Yeah, every possible motive. Like being scheduled to have a work interview that morning. Or losing the child-support money. Or not having to see her children again (how could anyone have guessed they'd end up in Russia?). etc. Meanwhile, in reality, she had no reason whatsoever to disappear.

      a missing car seat, one spot of blood that was never determined to be Nina's, and two books on criminalistics.

      You forgot to mention the "sleeping in a watersoaked car", or "going to pick up the kids, even though it wasn't his turn", or "running in a car chase from policy", etc. etc.

    32. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the "sleeping in a watersoaked car", or "going to pick up the kids, even though it wasn't his turn",

      These are evidence of nothing, except how easy it would be for an innocent person to be fingered by police, if something as innocuous as picking up your own children from school can be evidence for murder.

      But, sure, let's add all that stuff too - sleeping in a wet car, picking his kids up. The "car chase with police" is a figment of your imagination, so let's discount that. Without the body and the confession, it was still pretty idiotic to pretend that the evidence was "overwhelming." At best it was sufficient; many of us felt that it didn't rise to even that level.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    33. Re:He duped the great majority of us... by phorm · · Score: 1

      The fact that the crazy then-boyfriend admitted to a bunch of murders, as well as a bunch of other weirdness, likely contributed as well. That he was a geek no doubt gained attention, no doubt. However, there were a lot of frankly *weird* things going on that cast a lot of doubt on what actually happened.

  13. Re:guilty, guilty guilty!!! by mrbluze · · Score: 0

    I knew he was guilty all along - just wanted to say a big HAHA to all the trolls that said he was innocent just because he wrote FOSS.

    Is that you Hans?

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  14. I guess this means he falls under the messy type.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are two archetypes of nerds, which oddly parallel serial killer archetypes: disorganized and spontaneously creative vs organized and methodically calculating.

    The M.O. he demonstrated in the crime indicates the disorganized type.

    If he were the methodical type, his crime might not have even been noticed.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  15. Blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I hate the world.

    1. Re:Blah by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Dont hate the world, It's the sick asswipes that populate it that are the problem.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this sick asswipe already started breeding. A murderer and a cheat have children, then subject those children to the fucked up circumstances that cause both of their parents to disappear. Hope they turn out well.

    3. Re:Blah by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Can't blame the kids for the parents. Despite what you might like to think, rape isn't a genetic trait, neither is murder.

    4. Re:Blah by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      Dont hate the world, It's the sick asswipes that populate it that are the problem.

      That's why we have murderers.

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
  16. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by mixmatch · · Score: 2, Funny

    queue?

  17. rest in peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is nothing more sad then the Truth

    1. Re:rest in peace by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Funny

      there is nothing more sad then the Truth

      ...then the Truth what?

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:rest in peace by servognome · · Score: 1

      ...kills you?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  18. The kids... by ulash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No matter how much we argue or try to make "programming jokes" about this incident the truth is these kids' mother is dead, their father is going away for a long time and they are going to be the ones bearing one of the heaviest burdens in this particular case.

    1. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that there are two important points here:
      1) You can always joke about something (and often should).
      2) That joking and laughter doesn't help the kids who are the real victims. (The mother was the victim, but the kids will continue to suffer for a while yet.)

      So I ask this of Slashdot: Should the open-source/tech-community raise some money or do something nice for these kids?

      We don't have any obligation to, but some one from our community has hurt his kids and his kids are suffering. Should we do something to help out? (Scholarships? I nice thing of flowers?)

      I don't know the answer to this, but I think that it is worth some discussion.

    2. Re:The kids... by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, the vast majority of us know what happened as well as you do. Kids are in a tough spot. Murder is a creepy thing for nearly everyone (directly involved or not), and most people can't just store it away for future reference machine-like and be done with it. People have different ways of coping with it - some through discussion ("argument") and others through jokes. We're not trivializing it by doing this; we're just trying to deal with it in our own ways. I can't undo murder, but if I can make someone in a bummed mood smile I feel that much better myself.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    3. Re:The kids... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went to high school with two brothers that "survived" their father killing their mom when he caught her screwing around. The most messed up part of their lives seemed to be they were the center of attention for all the wrong reasons.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    4. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how much we argue or try to make "programming jokes" about this incident the truth is these kids' mother is dead, their father is going away for a long time and they are going to be the ones bearing one of the heaviest burdens in this particular case.

      Maintenance of the filesystem code?

    5. Re:The kids... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      It would be a nice act. I'm sure it would be appreciated. But I
      A scholarship would be a great idea for these kids. But any condolences should be worded carefully. The last thing these kids need is a bouquet of flowers with a card that says something insensitive about how wrong it was for their dad to be persecuted for being a geek.

      However, the fact that Reiser was from this community means nothing. And it should mean nothing to you. Reiser was a part of a lot of different communities. He was part of the Oakland community, the UC Berkeley community, the extended IBM community, and so on. I say this so there's not a sense that there's a shared OSS community responsibility to take a formal position.

    6. Re:The kids... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's always the kids who get the worst of the pain when the parents mess up. :-(

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    7. Re:The kids... by menace3society · · Score: 1

      We should set up a scholarship fund (or Namesys should set it up and we can send in money) that will pay for the kids to get CS degrees.

      Yeah, I'm sick.

    8. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not going away long enough, IMO...but he is white so murder is acceptable...

    9. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear. The sooner those orphaned child processes are sorted out, the better.

    10. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was a foundation on PayPal, I'd donate. Even if it was just 5$US.

      I figure a slashdot effect of even 99-cents-each could be quite a sum ..

    11. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it's funny 'cause we don't know them.

    12. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these kids' mother is dead, their father is going away for a long time and they are going to be the ones bearing one of the heaviest burdens in this particular case.

      Are we talking about the burden of Reiser 4 maintenance/development or... ?

    13. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but maybe they can get royalties for their father's work....

      oh wait..

    14. Re:The kids... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      However, the fact that Reiser was from this community means nothing.

      Did he ever actually post on Slashdot?

    15. Re:The kids... by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      However, the fact that Reiser was from this community means nothing.

      Did he ever actually post on Slashdot?

      See: http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    16. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I ask this of Slashdot: Should the open-source/tech-community raise some money or do something nice for these kids?

      Naw, I'd rather pay a prisoner to make sure Hands falls down the stairs a few extra times. The guy was a smug bastard who had it all, tossed it away, and couldn't even come up with a good defense. Stupid asshole.

    17. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given this development, it is probably a very good thing for the kids that their father is going away for a long time. Better that they be raised by foster parents than by the man who killed their mother in cold blood.

      The burden they have is losing their mother and having a really shitty father. His being convicted is a blessing for them, however difficult it may seem.

    18. Re:The kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That joking and laughter doesn't help the kids who are the real victims

      That all depends on how great the kids' sense of humour is! I'll post AC because I'm sure I'll get modded down -1 Tasteless :-S

  19. The Ends Justify the Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This whole case sets a terrible precedent, the more so now that the damn prosecutor can gloat about "being right all along." Hans was still convicted without a shred of real proof, and that is still a horrible tragedy for the justice system (if it can even still be called a system).

    Here's the lesson, kids: you don't need proof as long as you *happen* to be right.

    1. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by inotocracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He did some odd things after the murder that didn't really help his case, and its now obvious why he did those things. The lesson isn't what you said, its this: don't murder your wife.

    2. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, come off it ... there was no reasonable doubt. Doubt that isn't reasonable isn't sufficient to let him walk, and the *jury* - not the prosecutor - got it right.

      Bottom lne: Hans tried to bullshit them, and they saw through it. If he had shut his moutn, maybe he would have walked, but he thought he could "put one over" on a bunch of "dumb jurors."

      He forgot that jurors don't have to be smarter than the accused - in his case, all they needed was a baloney-meter.

    3. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not murdering ANYONE is probably a good general rule, but an even better lesson is don't marry a woman who will lie to you, cheat on you, steal from your company and put your kids in danger.

      Not that she deserved to die, but she was no saint either. The kids are the real victims here.

    4. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole case sets a terrible precedent, the more so now that the damn prosecutor can gloat about "being right all along." Hans was still convicted without a shred of real proof, and that is still a horrible tragedy for the justice system (if it can even still be called a system).

      Stop being such a fucking moron. There was plenty of evidence and Reiser couldn't explain any of it. The police, prosecution, and jury could all see it. You just let your prejudices cloud your judgement. Grow a pair and accept that you were wrong.

    5. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by capnkr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are the quotes in your post put their in order to signify that those are exact words spoken by Reiser?
      Or are those words simply representative of some supposition (yours or anothers...) about what Reiser may have been thinking?

      If those words were spoken or written by Reiser, do you have the cites? If not, would you clarify that?

      Just wondering. This has been an interesting case to follow, but I don't recall reading that he said those things, and would be interested in the facts, purely out of curiosity in the bizarre...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    6. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by novakyu · · Score: 1

      He did some odd things after the murder that didn't really help his case, and its now obvious why he did those things. The lesson isn't what you said, its this: don't murder your wife.

      No, the lesson is this: don't do odd things after murdering your wife or significant other.

    7. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His actions in court made it pretty obvious what he thought of the jurors.

      Try sitting as a juror on a murder trial - it's quite an experience, not at all like on TV.

      The man believed he could con everyone. He forgot that even the most brilliant people make mistakes, as well as that his own perspective may be untrustworthy.

      Of course, when you're so full of yourself as he was, it makes it easier to "justify" killing someone else, since they aren't as "worthy" as you are.

      Some people have said he's disturbed. No - he's just a conceited scumbag who has no empathy for others, and let his ego get the better of him, a la OJ Simpson.

    8. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are such F*&$ing hypocrits!.. "oh I don't know if I can use this filesystem now that I know a murderer wrote it"... ..

      "Woops look at the time; I have to get going to my job at Lockhead-Martin and do my part in the creation of weapons that will wipe out
      hospitals full of innocent men, women and children at the press of a button"... of course .. it isn't murder when it's for oil right?

      nope.. better not use RiserFS.. espically at work .. wouldn't want to use the work of a murderer in the production of tools that create mass murderers of 18 year old kids who are 'just following orders'.

    9. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're actually guilty, then being convicted that way is perfectly fine by me. As long as it goes through legal courses and puts murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. away, I'm OK with it.

    10. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Here's the lesson kids...you're all pissing me off. There was plenty of evidence. You're just too stupid to know that circumstantial evidence, taken in an additive way, is perfectly valid evidence and can most certainly be used to convict someone in good conscience.

      Did you know that in real life most murderers don't leave a bunch of semen at the crime scene?! Oh, and they don't leave big old bacon grease fingerprints, either! Oooh, and they hide the body! Oh, also, they sometimes try to kill people with no witnesses and out of a camera's watchful eye! It's amazing.

      Yet somehow even the 95-105 IQ jurors in this case were able to deduce that he did it. I know how they did it, because I understand what circumstantial evidence is and how to use it to eliminate the possibility that the suspect didn't do it. Maybe if you go read some basic math books, and think on it real hard you can understand too!

    11. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by multisync · · Score: 1

      This quote from the April 28 Wired article supports what you're saying:

      The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.

      In his 11 days of testimony, Reiser offered lengthy and verbose explanations for every piece of circumstantial evidence. But Reiser's version of events often drew disbelieving head shakes from jurors -- and occasional smirks from the trial judge.

      It seems his own actions resulted in the correct verdict.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    12. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Is making weapons murder?

      If so, is making the materials that the weapons are made from murder?

      Is so, is mining the ore that makes the materials that makes the weapons murder?

      If so, does it mean that you're a murderer if you recycle a coke can and that ends up in a weapon that kills women and children?

      Weapons do have legitimate uses. Only a small minority end up killing the innocent. The 18 year old kids who are "just following orders" are following orders that say "kill people".

    13. Re:The Ends Justify the Means by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The man believed he could con everyone. He forgot that even the most brilliant people make mistakes, as well as that his own perspective may be untrustworthy.

      He's also probably not nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. He took 13 years to get his B.S., and his main claim to fame is writing a bad filesystem.

  20. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What jokes?

  21. I hear that by Travoltus · · Score: 0

    I was hoping he wasn't guilty but damn, he is guilty. He knows where the body is! I hope he gets his in prison.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:I hear that by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope he gets his in prison.

      As understandable as the sentiment is, that won't bring Nina Reiser back. I've lost a loved one to a drunk driver, and it isn't much comfort that the bastard went to prison. I hope his kids get a little bit of peace from the fact that at least they have a final answer on the matter, and that they'll be able to visit their mother's grave. This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.

    2. Re:I hear that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nothing like a little cruel and unusual punishment.

    3. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't be so hard on the man, until you yourself go through a bitter divorce! Believe me, he already got his...which is why he probably did it.

    4. Re:I hear that by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (by the way, I am a divorcee. Just for the record.)

      I have never understood, and as time goes by, I become aware of how alien the mind of a murderer is to me. I am almost 40 and have seen and experienced many things in my life. I still don't get how can someone cross that red line - and take someone's life.

      But apparently, I am a minority. You, for instance, seem to be able to cross that line? Or maybe you were just very cavalier in your wording?

      Anyhow, the mind of a murderer is something I can not understand. I can get angry, sure, but to resort to violence, or worse, to have someone's life on my conscience, that's just unfathomable for me.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:I hear that by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Don't be so hard on the man, until you yourself go through a bitter divorce!"

      Yeah, because bitter divorces overwhelmingly lead to murder.

      Wait...they don't? The vast majority of people involved in bitter divorces simply go on with their lives with some varying degree of contact with their ex spouse? That's impossible! That would mean that Hans Reiser is simply a murderer! That just can't be!

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    6. Re:I hear that by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh fuck off. Let's even forget his wife and assume she was a horrible person (I don't know this and am just saying it for argument). As someone else said - look what this lowlife piece of shit did to his kids. No father. No mother. Trauma for the rest of their lives.

      I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.

    7. Re:I hear that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you never have kids.

    8. Re:I hear that by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.

      I was with you up to this point.

      There's this little part of the Constitution you are ignoring that forbids "cruel and unusual punishment". 15 to life in prison is not cruel and unusual punishment. Being brutalized and savaged is cruel and unusual punishment.

      Why not just hand him to the mob to string him up and teach him a lesson?

      Your comment makes me think that you (and whoever modded you insightful) are a bit of a sociopath who is willing to shred the Constitution and pull out that old canard, "think of the children!".

      "Oh fuck off", indeed...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    9. Re:I hear that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.

      Hey, why not just flay him alive and take his organs out and show them to him, all shown live on TV?

      Has it occurred to you that the men most likely to be doing the brutalizing and savaging (and presumably enjoying it) have quite possibly done much worse than Reiser himself (multiple rapes/murders/tortures, destroying several families etc.) so logically it would make more sense if Reiser was doing the brutalizing and savaging?

      BTW I have no doubts about his guilt and think he deserves to be locked up for a long time (possibly the rest of his life); and that if he gets out in as little as 15 years this would be a serious injustice; it's just that you sound like you'd be more at home with the 'justice systems' of the dark ages.

    10. Re:I hear that by k_187 · · Score: 1

      Somebody tell Jack Thompson about this! Divorces are just as bad as videogames!

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    11. Re:I hear that by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Ok all of your very civilized and reasoned arguments aside, prison rape for Hans Reiser is NOT cruel and unusual punishment. You see he can recover from prison rape. His wife can never recover from being dead. Unless the state EXECUTES Reiser then its not a disproportionate punishment AND he's only going to have to endure prison rape for 15 years instead of life in prison as most murderers get.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    12. Re:I hear that by xtracto · · Score: 1

      My mother did the life of my father quite unbearable for 15 years. Starting from a bad decision made by him (of moving from to another city).

      My father waited until my brother and I finished school and then just went away with another woman he knew.

      Personally, I think my father should have done it before.

      A bitter divorce is thousand times better than living somehow in a "theatre" family. My brother and I never needed anything, appart from the absense of "love" showing between my parents.

      Now, I know my father's girlfriend, and I am really happy seeing that he is happy. My mother is also quite happy not having to see my father around. They of course can't see each other.

      So yeah, bitter divorces are bad. But I would suggest no one to avoid divorcing just "because of the kids".

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    13. Re:I hear that by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      No, I just have a somewhat old fashioned sense of justice. Probably I watch too many of the "forensic files" type shows. It just enrages me what one human being will do to another, and I allow my baser instincts free reign. When some low life tortures and murders an innocent father of 3 for no reason, I want that low life to be tortured to death. When someone rapes and murders an innocent 12 year old girl I want that someone to be tortured to death, slowly and over the course of weeks if possible.

      Some people just deserve to die horribly. Even within the realm of decent society our laws are pathetic and our sentencing ridiculous. You can go to jail longer for a few drug charges than for murdering your wife. You can poison your spouse and they can die horribly over weeks and then you can just get 10-15 years of prison. You can rape someone and go on a high speed chase, putting lives at risk, and just spend a few years in prison.

      We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.

    14. Re:I hear that by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that if the vast majority of people involved in bitter divorces thought they could get away with murder, the occurrence would be a *lot* higher.

      I've watched lots of people go through bitter divorces, and in every case I've seen both sides break every law they could get away with in dealing with their ex during the divorce process. Perjury to obtain restraining orders (to use to obtain custody of children, not 'cause there was actual abuse or threats of abuse), vandalism, theft, harassment...

    15. Re:I hear that by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It's the justice system, not the vengeance system. Our society is supposedly built on the idea that nobody can be stripped of their rights. As punishment, he is relieved of his privileges and freedoms. It is unjust to go further than that, even if it would make you feel good.

    16. Re:I hear that by repetty · · Score: 1

      I've got a few years on you but my views are quite different from yours.

      I've seen stories where individuals are physically beaten, battered, and chopped up almost beyond belief and, yet, they lived on. And I've seen stories where where people are instantly killed from the most innocent and timid little thumps.

      There's enough variation in the sort of events necessary to kill a person for me to easily believe that people can be "accidentally" killed.

      As far crossing the line (purposely exercising violent force sufficient to kill another person)... again, I've seen and heard enough stories to be very confident that everyone is well capable of killing another person on purpose.

      Several situations can be contrived to induce YOU to kill another person, for example. The pope can kill; in the correct circumstances, anyone can make the decision to kill.

      Got any kids? If you do, well, it's way too easy to induce you into killing-mode to even be considered a sporting challenge.

      Further, this is typically done by people in emotional distress. Reiser's unlikability notwithstanding, he was obviously emotionally pretty fucked up -- he'd never killed before, for instance.

      > Anyhow, the mind of a murderer is something I can not understand.
      > I can get angry, sure, but to resort to violence, or worse, to have
      > someone's life on my conscience, that's just unfathomable for me.

      You are a lucky man. So am I. Pray that our situations stay that way.

      --Richard

      PS: I'm not defending Hans Reiser -- no way.
      But it's really easy to come off being morally
      arrogant when we have got nothing on the line.

    17. Re:I hear that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being brutalized and savaged is cruel and unusual punishment.

      That wasn't part of his sentence, and isn't part of the punishment the government will be meting out on him. Therefore, your reference to the Constitution is totally irrelevant here.

      That said, I won't shed any tears if another inmate decides to use him as a punching bag.

    18. Re:I hear that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.

      Except the DA.

    19. Re:I hear that by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.

      This particular platitude always bothers me. Nina Reiser and her family did not "lose" her, as if someone misplaced their luggage or lost their car keys. Her life was taken from her, violently and without just cause. And Hans Reiser is the one who did it. The victims deserve sympathy. Murderers deserve punishment.

    20. Re:I hear that by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Well, being brutalized by other prisoners in jail is not cruel and unusual punishment because it isn't punishment, it's just a terrible event. The punishment is the jail time. If he were sentenced to torture, or if the torture came at the hands of the guards (which sometimes it does), or if the torture were inescapable reality for inmates (it isn't, although it is common), then that would be punishment. But if we send you to jail, and try to protect you from other prisoners (which, believe me, we do), and yet the other prisoners still get to you and beat you up -- well that isn't punishment for your crime, that's an unfortunate social interaction.

      But, if the justice system "handed you over to the mob to string you up and teach you a lesson", then that would be cruel 'punishment'.

      There is a sliding scale and a fine line here. I'm not sure where the line is, but having another prisoner smack you around (or rape you) isn't punishment, so it can't be cruel and unusual punishment.

    21. Re:I hear that by mok000 · · Score: 1

      I find it quite chocking that americans seem to think it is acceptable that the human rights of prisoners are violated in prisons, and that the authorities also seem to accept this, or are simply unable to uphold law and order within the prison system.

      In discussions of this nature, you often see more or less discrete acceptance of references to "Bubba" or gang rape or other victimization of inmates.

      This attitude is reminiscent of a medieval revenge or blood-for-blood mentality which is not appropriate for a modern civilized society.

      The conviction and punishment is given by the court, and no mistreatment, torture or humiliation must arbitrarily be added by anybody else. It is the duty of the prison system to protect inmates from abuse and violence.

    22. Re:I hear that by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree that Reiser deserves a hefty load of punishment for the crime. That said, I read the balance of your reply as semantics. Any reasonably intelligent person can discern the contextual differences you listed for the term "loss." As indicated in my original post, I'm certainly not making any attempt to minimize their situation.

    23. Re:I hear that by dangitman · · Score: 1

      How does him being savaged in prison bring his wife back, or help the kids?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    24. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1
      I am a peace loving dude, yet I am no longer a pacifist. I will not ever initiate aggression, but I will defend myself -- and my family.

      Indeed, if anyone takes any deliberate action that threatens to endanger my family members, well...

      Personally, I've been kicked in the teeth so many times in my life I can't take it anymore. I mean, how many times must I endure false allegations, frivolous calls to 911, cops treating me like I am a dangerous criminal, etc., when I've done absolutely nothing wrong?

      Sorry. Everyone has their limits. Hence, I am no longer a pacifist.

      I will never initiate aggression, but you better be sure I will finish it.

      People should learn to:

      1. Mind their own business.
      2. Stay out of mine.
      3. Educate themselves on the fact that just because a person is not like them does not automatically mean said person is evil.
      4. Don't call the police unless you actually *see* the person doing something wrong, not because you *think* they "don't look right".

      You know, I thought this human species was capable of such simple levels of logic and sensibility. But I have been proven wrong time and again, over and over, and I am just tired of the same.

      All I've ever wanted to do was help people and create new, cool, stuff. Whether it's new software, poetry, or something that would end aging, wipe out illness, or other wonderful stuff that would help many.

      For my efforts I get treated like a criminal, accused of the most inane stuff, and even my own (now ex) wife physically attacked me from time to time despite the fact I've done nothing but good for her over the 15 or so years of our marriage.

      Well, enough of my rant, but people do have their limits. If I truly wanted to be "evil", it would be very serious.

      But if people continue to treat me as though I am their "worse nightmare", perhaps I should show them what true nightmares are made of!!!!

      But then that would take away from all the good I still desire to do for this sorry species, so I guess I won't give them what they keep asking for.

      So, maybe I am still a pacifist at heart.

    25. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1
      The problem with some divorces is that the woman flexes her unfair advantages she has in court, and tries to ream the poor guy all she can. This is basically the story of my own divorce.

      It's quite crazy and it's a wonder I've managed to maintain my sanity through the entire affair.

      So, while not agreeing with what Hans DID, I do think I understand WHY. One guy can control his rage; another guy breaks down and gives in.

      Perhaps if guys had a fair shake in this so-called "blind justice" system, things would be different.

      And where are all the feminists out there screaming about the unfair advantages they have in court? Oh no. They are loving every bit of it. So much for "equality". What a joke.

      Oh yeah, I forgot -- some get to be more "equal" than others...

    26. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that if the vast majority of people involved in bitter divorces thought they could get away with murder, the occurrence would be a *lot* higher.

      I've watched lots of people go through bitter divorces, and in every case I've seen both sides break every law they could get away with in dealing with their ex during the divorce process. Perjury to obtain restraining orders (to use to obtain custody of children, not 'cause there was actual abuse or threats of abuse), vandalism, theft, harassment...

      And not only does the system allow this farce, but also encourages it. the government just loves it when we are at each other's throats.

    27. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1

      Oh fuck off. Let's even forget his wife and assume she was a horrible person (I don't know this and am just saying it for argument). As someone else said - look what this lowlife piece of shit did to his kids. No father. No mother. Trauma for the rest of their lives.

      I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.

      It is a tragedy what his kids had to endure. I am NOT belittling that at all.

      But to tell me to, in your words, "fuck off", just because you disagree with me...!

      I think it's a real test of courage to endure the crap many have to endure in a divorce and NOT do something rash.

      From what I've heard of Nina, she was no saint. Does it merit her murder? Of course not. Do I excuse Hans? Not at all.

      But if you are incapable of understanding the human trauma and emotions in this case, then you, sir, are rather shallow.

      And see, I don't have to resort to any expletives to insult you back!

    28. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1

      ...We don't have the will in this country to do what's necessary to get these fucking animals out of society. And I'm talking just straight, humane prison time here not Extreme Justice. What we need to do is decriminalize drugs, but make any crime committed while under the influence of drugs a much more severe penalty. Then spend the resources keeping the real scum behind bars.

      The true test of human dignity and intelligence is not responding like an animal yourself to animalistic acts.

      Yes, our Injustice System is a plain mess on many fronts. And so is Law Overenforcement, whom I fear far more than any supposed criminal -- they can shoot you and get away with it, not even see any jail time.

      If I were to give in to my animal side, as you apparently do, I would do what an animal does. But no one wins in that scenario.

      And so when even the emotions run hot and high, logic, intelligence and reason MUST win in the end, or we are no better than our simian cousins.

      I sued the pants off of Allison Beal, Clarence Beal, Andrew Bizier, and the restaurant that got involved with a very vicious false allegation they made against me. I also had a front-page news article appear in the local paper about it. I "won" in the end -- but the cost was great, so great I might be inclined to follow my animal side.

      But I am led by rationality and logic, not the lower, primal parts of my brain caught in an evolutionary past that is no longer relevant to today's world.

      So, yes, there are really sick people out there. You do well to not become one of them.

    29. Re:I hear that by flajann · · Score: 1
      But the "justice" system is not about justice at all. That's the lie we're all fed, but if you look at what truly goes on, it's horrific at best.

      How many innocent people wind up convicted of a crime they did not commit? This is a double injustice, because not only do you destroy the life of an innocent person, but there still remains a guilty person free, smug in the fact he skated the system, and is free to hurt more innocent people.

      It's a fine mess, and it's not going to be cleaned up overnight -- if at all.

    30. Re:I hear that by PerpetualStrange · · Score: 1

      Ditto here. I will forever be a stranger to the type that even contemplates murder. I will forever be a stranger to the type that discusses killing another human being in such a cavalier manner as some on this board have. I will forever be a stranger to the type that see women as evil, bad or toys of murderous obsession. I will forever be a stranger to romanticizing the murder of another, especially a woman or a child. I am intensely ashamed and horrified by some of the posts on this board regarding this matter. She was not his slave, she was not his property, and he had no right to take her life. I hope Hans Reiser meets with a well deserved poetic justice in prison. What a low life, totally devoid of humanity. I have no iota of sympathy for such a cold blooded murderer, who else but a cold blooded murderer would kill a woman that had given him significant years of her life, who had trusted him. Only weak, shallow and cowards would use lethal force on a woman. He was just a little kid in a grownup body, a little kid so weak and so terrified of abandonment, he had to kill Nina, if he wasnâ(TM)t going to have Nina. I did say to my wife, that if it ever came to the point she was no longer interested in me, to please let me know and I would be alright with it. I also did tell her, that should I find her with another man, I will never ever contemplate using force or violence against her, but that I had the right to leave the relationship. Real men are mature enough, strong enough; men enough to understand relationships may come and go. If itâ(TM)s not mutual then I donâ(TM)t want it. So for some of the men here that see this as some intellectual exercise, it is not. This is a deadly and abhorrent matter. I am sorry for the kids and Ninas family.

    31. Re:I hear that by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      You are correct, except that the GP stated that he hoped Reiser would be brutalized and savaged.

      Advocating that is sociopathic.

      The punishment for murder that our society has agreed on is time in prison, nothing more.

      If you want to see the punishment for a crime to be rape, then you should act to get the law changed to provide that punishment. Otherwise, STFU about wishing that on anyone.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    32. Re:I hear that by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      But if we send you to jail, and try to protect you from other prisoners (which, believe me, we do),

      You actually believe that?

      Do you also believe in the Easter bunny?

      Read this: http://www.spr.org/en/news/pre2002/doc_01_answerme.asp

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  22. Mods are sure insecure tonite by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

    Why is parent modded 'troll'? HR has been discussed numerous times on slashdot. Parent's question does seem relevant.

    1. Re:Mods are sure insecure tonite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is parent modded 'troll'? HR has been discussed numerous times on slashdot. Parent's question does seem relevant.

      Fear not, for the meta-moderators are safe in their cowardly anonymity and will send swift punishment to our moronic moderating overlords!

  23. Re:I hope he gets to make Ext4 from jail by ya+really · · Score: 1

    I hope he gets to make Ext4 from jail (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:12PM (#24093379)

    its my favorite for using on linux

    I believe you mean Reiser4, which is the successor to ReiserFS, not ext4.

  24. Re:Sooo it's true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like some people can't take a joke.

  25. Minority, not majority... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He duped a minority, methinks.

    There were lots of us who thought he probably did it: the "she ran away" excuse just never floated, and there was too much stupid circumstantial excuses (I don't care HOW much of a geek you are, doing BOTh the seat AND flooding the car AND saying you slept in the wet sopping car is just ridiculous)

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Minority, not majority... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I don't care HOW much of a geek you are, doing BOTh the seat AND flooding the car AND saying you slept in the wet sopping car is just ridiculous

      You've never done that? I thought everybody did that.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Minority, not majority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also those of us who thought he probably did it, but also thought (at least in the beginning) that the evidence shouldn't have been enough to convict. Sentencing someone for murder is one of the most severe penalties in the justice system (short of mass murder) and you better have really solid backing for putting someone away for life.

      Although, after he took the stand and made a fool of himself, he probably killed his own chances of appearing innocent.

    3. Re:Minority, not majority... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Initially we were only getting a small part of the story in the press with a whopping great big red herring packed in with the story. The jury heard a lot more.

    4. Re:Minority, not majority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing BOTh the seat AND flooding the car AND saying you slept in the wet sopping car is just ridiculous

      Ridiculous yes, unbelievable no. I've known a number of people that flat-out strange. About one in five was extremely smart in an obscure field before deteriorating that much, and retained those smarts while they got less functional. Highly skilled in music, multiple languages, that sort of thing.

      From way the heck out here at the far end of news reports, Reiser fit that description, and it did look like he talked his way into jail at the trial, which also fits the description. I couldn't say if he was guilty or not, nor did I opine so here, so I did wonder if he didn't do it & the investigation should remain open.

      Closed now, definitely, only pending final confirmation of the remains.

    5. Re:Minority, not majority... by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hi Nick.

      (As context, Nicholas was tangentally involved with Hans while we were all at Berkeley together, and I knew Hans more closely because I was there earlier / closer in age to Hans).

      I'm not in touch with a whole lot of the rest of the crowd that knew him in the late 80s / early 90s at Cal. However, the people I am still talking to had a range of opinions... Hans was wierd, but not wierd in the way that would make you think he'd hurt or kill someone eventually. There was doubt - Nina was clearly wierd, too, as were several other people involved (Sturgeon, for one, made a better potential killer). Many other things could have been the underlying factual truth. I was personally hoping that I hadn't gone to school with someone who later became a murderer.

      Plenty of innocent people have been caught up in situations that made them look guilty with various evidence and eyewitness reports... Hence the current spate of DNA evidence based overturned convictions. Think how many other innocent people were convicted of things but can't prove it because the real murderer didn't leave DNA that was found...

      Yes, it was always suspicious. I don't know anyone who didn't at least put significant weight on the possibility he had killed her. I hoped not, and I'm very disappointed, and sad for his kids, and their grandparents, and for Nina.

      This isn't a situation to be getting self-righteous over. No matter what the "right"/"true" answer was, it was a terrible situation, and this was not the best possible outcome. I know several geek community people that I hope this pushes into relationships counseling and anger management counseling.

      Sad day.

    6. Re:Minority, not majority... by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      A lot of people here seem to want the courts to only convict people of murder when there is absolute certainty of guilt. The trouble is, certainty doesn't exist.

      An erroneous murder conviction is a horrible thing, but you have to remember that an erroneous acquittal is really bad too. As a society, we have to come to terms with the fact that we have to weight these two potential evils against each other and make decisions even when we're not sure what's right.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    7. Re:Minority, not majority... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised the guards didn't moisten his bunk with a firehose.. you know.. to make him more comfortable.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Minority, not majority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not duped. Rather I believe in the prerequisite to justice known as innocent until proven guilty. From what I knew of the trial, the prosecutor's case left many doubts as to the supposed guilt of Hans Reiser of the crime. (A poor case and a strong case have no effect on the actuality of the thing they are trying to prove.)

    9. Re:Minority, not majority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would rather 1000 murderers go free than send 1 innocent man to jail for life (or, in Texas, given the death penalty).

      If you have a problem with that sentiment, then you shouldn't object to being that man.

    10. Re:Minority, not majority... by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      I wanted to believe that he was innocent because, well, he's a fellow geek.

      But as the trial went on and his behaviour after the fact became clear, I felt like the time when I was losing my religion: I didn't really want to consider it, but I also couldn't ignore the facts staring in my face.

      In any case it's nice that he decided to come clean, so at least now there are no doubts that he commited the crime (though that was pretty obvious already).

    11. Re:Minority, not majority... by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      If that's the standard you want to apply, then that's fine. But is it OK to set 10000 murderers free to avoid wrongly convicting 1 innocent man? What about 100000 murderers?

      No matter how steep you set the standard, there's always going to be a chance that someone will be falsely convicted. Both false positives and false negatives have consequences both to individuals and society at large. You can only eliminate false positives by never convicting anyone.

      If you're a juror you have to make a decision and setting your standard for guilt impossibly high is refusing to accept the consequences of your actions. You have to decide where the line should be drawn and try to realistically assess whether or not the case at hand lies beyond the line or not.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  26. oh well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ext3 fo' lyfe yall

  27. Bad News for Geeks by New_Age_Reform_Act · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With things like this coming out, it is going to be much, much harder to find a wonderful woman. Let alone getting 1000 points in an hour playing Team Fortress 2.

    --
    "The New Age. The New Beginning."
    1. Re:Bad News for Geeks by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      No worries, mate: most non-technies won't hear of this, or if they do it'll go in one ear and out the other. Additionally, most women are non-technies. Therefore, it most likely won't hinder your women-search. QED. If a women wants a nice guy she'll most likely not know about this. However, she wants a bad boy...

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    2. Re:Bad News for Geeks by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      With things like this coming out, it is going to be much, much harder to find a wonderful woman.

      Because they are all dead?

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:Bad News for Geeks by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      With things like this coming out, it is going to be much, much harder to find a wonderful woman.

      Because they are all dead?

      You can always ask Hans to dig one up for you ...

    4. Re:Bad News for Geeks by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Just make sure that when you ask her out, you promise you won't murder her in the car and then bury her body in the bush. That should put aside any doubts she has about you.

    5. Re:Bad News for Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can always ask Hans to dig one up for you ...

      This is the Devil here... when you die, please take the escalator down, not up. I need to have a word with you.

    6. Re:Bad News for Geeks by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Just make sure that when you ask her out, you promise you won't murder her in the car and then bury her body in the bush. That should put aside any doubts she has about you.

      Damn it, stop stealing my best pick-up lines!

  28. Closure by m.dillon · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Its a sad ending to a painful story, but I'm glad we have closure.

    -Matt

    1. Re:Closure by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why this modern obsession with "closure"? It's almost as if

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Closure by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1

      as if?
      as if??
      as if what? goddamit??
      What do you mean by as if?? Just what are you trying to say? I need to know what you mean by that! What exactly is your point?

    3. Re:Closure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the prosecution made the deal just so you could finally have closure.

    4. Re:Closure by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, he'll dig up the ending to that sentence in a few months.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  29. I blame George W. Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a loyal Slashdot commenter, I blame The Jew puppet George Dumbya Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtan.

    We may have been wrong about Hans but we'll never question what else we were wrong about.

  30. add Hans to the Scientists Wall of Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Count Rumsford (thermodynamics) - traitor
    Ludwig Boltzmann - suicide
    William Shockley (transistor) - racist
    James Watson - big mouth

    1. Re:add Hans to the Scientists Wall of Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how nice of you to put Ludwig Boltzmann on this list - not only because he commited suicide, which surely deserves him to be on this list, but also because he did it in a bipolar-disorder-induced bout of depression.
      </sarcasm>

    2. Re:add Hans to the Scientists Wall of Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alan Turing - gay, suicide

    3. Re:add Hans to the Scientists Wall of Shame by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Alan Turing - gay, suicide

      Why's "gay" on that list? It shouldn't be viewed at a source of shame. It also wasn't directly the cause of the suicide; attempts to make him NOT gay were.

    4. Re:add Hans to the Scientists Wall of Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't he murdered?

      "On 8 June 1954, his cleaner found him dead; the previous day, he had died of cyanide poisoning, apparently from a cyanide-laced apple he left half-eaten beside his bed. The apple itself was never tested for contamination with cyanide, and cyanide poisoning as a cause of death was established by a post-mortem. Most believe that his death was intentional, and the death was ruled a suicide. His mother, however, strenuously argued that the ingestion was accidental due to his careless storage of laboratory chemicals. Biographer Andrew Hodges suggests that Turing may have killed himself in this ambiguous way quite deliberately, to give his mother some plausible deniability.[28] Others suggest that Turing was re-enacting a scene from "Snow White", his favourite fairy tale.[29] Because Turing's homosexuality would have been perceived as a security risk, the possibility of assassination has also been suggested."
      WikiPedia

  31. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they agree to reduce his sentence?

    1. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reduces the likelihood of appeals. They probably didn't want to risk have him walk out five years down the road because some loophole in the way evidence in the case was collected.

    2. Re:Why? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Because otherwise he wouldn't have showed them the location of the body.

      Right or not, most places that act is viewed as giving closure to the family, and a lighter sentence is fairly often given in exchange for that closure.

  32. ITYM "has led" by Tommer · · Score: 1

    HTH.
    HAND.

    --
    -- Tom Rathborne
    1. Re:ITYM "has led" by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You don't know anything about standard journalism writing, do you?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  33. Re:Should've used ext3 by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    ... that's because it's an unrecoverable error due to corrupt media.

  34. Epic fail by caller9 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe a brain that cunning would be so stupid.

    I entertained the idea of ReiserFS at one point but decided to go with ext3 even though I had a ton of small files. I think even the looming doubt of his guilt was enough.

    This sucks, apparently he failed to traverse the tree of future consequences to a sufficient depth or chose a really bad pruning mechanism for said tree. Sorry, bad joke, had to do it.

    1. Re:Epic fail by caller9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just thought of something. Maybe he thought his nerd fame carried some weight "on the street." To put it as nerdily as I can, the union of the set of people who care about a filesystem and the legal system is an empty set.

    2. Re:Epic fail by caller9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well crap, I meant intersection. I fail at discrete math. Note to self - don't kill ppl with plans based on set theory or discrete branching algorithms.

    3. Re:Epic fail by miraboo · · Score: 1

      To put it as nerdily as I can, the union of the set of people who care about a filesystem and the legal system is an empty set.

      Or more efficiently the people who care about file systems and the people in the legal system are disjoint sets. But I'm not altogether sure you are right; while there may be a negative relationship between the two sets there are of course some people who are involved in both, though perhaps not many of these people occupy the criminal justice section of the legal system.

    4. Re:Epic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it as nerdily as I can, the union^Hintersection of the set of people who care about a filesystem and the legal system is an empty set.

      Aha! Proof by counterexample. CS degree, worked as a programmer, and just finished my law degree. Math major too (fixed your quote). I am multitudes, hear me roar.

  35. Yes, but only because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will impact future development in a negative fashion. If there were others that could seriously continue development, then sure, I'll keep using it. And I'll keep watching Chris Benoit wrestling matches.

  36. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Does this whole situation affect your choice of file system? Personally, I would have to say so."

    I hope you also don't wear anything with Cotton in it. I mean, unless you are pro-slavery of course. And I certainly hope you wouldn't drive a VW or other German car ... or are you pro-Nazi?

    I can understand you being a bit emotional at the moment, but at some point you need to start to think reasonably. If you stopped using quality products because of the nature of some of those involved in their design and production, you'd probably be naked, and starving. The above was but a small sample of examples. Also, namesys is more than Hans Reiser, and throwing the baby out with the bath water is an expression for a reason.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by michaelg1987 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you also don't wear anything with Cotton in it. I mean, unless you are pro-slavery of course. And I certainly hope you wouldn't drive a VW or other German car ... or are you pro-Nazi?

      I can understand you being a bit emotional at the moment, but at some point you need to start to think reasonably.

      So to "think reasonably" means that all Germans are Nazis, or that all cotton (especially present day) is affiliated with slavery? It scares me that someone like you is arguing in favor of reason.

    2. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by antibryce · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm a pro-slavery nazi, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So if Edison had killed someone, you would say don't use light bulbs or electrically-powered equipment?

      The bad thing this guy did is no reason not to take advantage of the good things he did.

      The filesystem is all fine and well.

      However, future versions/forks, if there are any, should not be named the "reiser" filesystem.

      It's just that the name "reiser" has become tainted; credit him for his work which is being snagged, but don't name the project in rememberance of reiser the individual by naming the product after him.

    4. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stopped using quality products because of the nature of some of those involved in their design and production, you'd probably be naked, and starving.

      Well the thing here is that by all accounts, reiserfs is not a quality product.

    5. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just saying that it might be along time before any updates.

    6. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by BootNinja · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no, what he is doing is equating the gp disdaining RFS because of Reiser's wrongdoing to disdaining cotton because of the history of slavery and german engineering because of WWII.

      It's a syllogism. and a contra-positive with a bit of reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure.

    7. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "It scares me that someone like you is arguing in favor of reason."

      I accept your apology. ;-)

      (see BootNinja's reply)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by michaelg1987 · · Score: 1

      The difference being that Reiser is one person, versus the Germans and African Americans who are several people (and who were not all nazis or slaves, respectively). Thank you for your (misplaced) lesson on literary elements, but his comparison is not valid.

    9. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You would do well to learn from the Ninja, Grasshopper ...

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by michaelg1987 · · Score: 0

      You would do well to be logical as you point out the flaws in other peoples' logic. While your thoughts were intelligent and reasonable, your delivery method was weak and (unfortunately) typical.

    11. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      And I certainly hope you wouldn't drive a VW or other German car ... or are you pro-Nazi?

      I don't buy Bayer asprin. It's much more difficult to avoid things with chemicals supplied by BASF in them, but I make an effort.

      ~X

      --
      sig?
    12. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      unless you are pro-slavery of course.

      I sorta am. I mean, as a punishment from the justice system, not a 'free' market.
      Have Reiser contribute full time to open source projects for the duration of his incarceration, to repay his debt to society he should have to spend some time working for everyone except him, while he's locked up.

      Give him time off for good performance as a carrot and information denial as a stick (tell a geek you're taking away all his electronics and paper, he'll freak).

      The scary specter of greed-based convictions already exists thanks to private prisons and their innate need to maximize profits, so the exploitation front shouldn't be a deal breaker. I think it would be better than having them do push ups and fight amongst themselves, MUCH better for rehabilitation and society than the shellshocked hepatitis bonanza of prison rape.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Slow down grasshopper. You have yet to learn your lesson from the Ninja. It will take a lifetime of effort to prepare yourself for but a single lesson from the master. Go forth and study hard, safe in the knowledge that when the student is ready, the master will appear.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by michaelg1987 · · Score: 0

      sed 's/master/troll/g' comment-24094917.txt

    15. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you also don't wear anything with Cotton in it. I mean, unless you are pro-slavery of course.

      Or unless you are worried about your clothing becoming saturated with water, impossible to dry and loosing all of its insulative qualities. Those people make me sick.

    16. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Draek · · Score: 1

      So to "think reasonably" means that all Germans are Nazis, or that all cotton (especially present day) is affiliated with slavery?

      Not unless you also think that all of the reiserfs code was written by Reiser himself, or that Namesys had only one employee.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    17. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      You are speaking of a difference in degree, not in kind. While it is true that not all germans were Nazis and not all African Americans were slaves, that doesn't change the fact that people boycotting cotton because of slavery or german automobiles because of the nazi atrocities is an irrational response, just as boycotting ReiserFS due to Hans Reiser's criminal act is an irrational response.

      The comparison is indeed valid. Godwin's Law, notwithstanding, of course.

    18. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by lysse · · Score: 1

      Actually, doesn't that make you the insensitive clod, by definition?

    19. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The difference being that Reiser is one person, versus the Germans and African Americans who are several people (and who were not all nazis or slaves, respectively). Thank you for your (misplaced) lesson on literary elements, but his comparison is not valid."

      Allow me to fix that for you:

      The difference being that Hitler is one person, versus namesys who are several people (and who were not all murderers). I only wish I had quelled my (misplaced) criticism, because clearly his example does map perfectly! Gee wiz willikers golly gee, do I - michaelg1987 - feel foolish!

      ROTFLMAO ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    20. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Sapphon · · Score: 1

      I'm pro nazi-slavery, you insensitve clod!

      --
      Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
    21. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by SaDan · · Score: 1

      It was way ahead of anything available for Linux at the time ReiserFS v3 was released. It still performs better than other filesystems by leaps and bounds depending on your application.

      ReiserFS was very good stuff, and still is. It's unfortunate that it has to be associated to a psychopath killer.

      Hans can rot in prison for all I care. I'll still use the filesystem.

    22. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      It's a syllogism. and a contra-positive with a bit of reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure.

      Of course! It's so simple!

      --
      Your ad here.
    23. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      I'm a pro-slavery nazi, you insensitive clod!

      My grandfather was a Nazi slave, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    24. Re:Why throw the baby out with the bath water? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I'm not THAT ninja, I'm a different one. But seriously, you should listen. Cotton in North America was at one time, largely produced by slaves. Similarly, Volkswagens are produced by a country who in modern times is most well known for a failed attempt at eliminating an entire group of people.

      The other ninja's post (how surreal is this post?) merely served to emphasize that no matter what time period you live in, since those events did happen, it doesn't necessarily have to taint the products that resulted. Those activities are over.

      The short moral is that the source should have no bearing on whether you use the product or not. What matters is that the product exists, and you would be a fool to refuse a quality product simply because of its source. Of course, it would be different if the activities were ongoing (I would not condone buying Volkswagens during WW2), but they are not. This was a one-time event that's unlikely to repeat.

  37. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Jonny_eh · · Score: 0

    If he were methodical he probably wouldn't have committed murder, what a stupid thing to do!

  38. and slashdot joins.... by deft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all the people from LA.

    last time I saw that sort of hopeful thinking it was kobe and people saying he didnt cheat on his wife. And he did. We all love our heros, dont we?

    Well, heros are usually only good at the one thing they are touted for... im not asking kobe to fix my car for sure.

    With all the smart people around here, why would anyone think that a computer programmer is any less suceptible to violent acts than any other?

    I mean, is it just because computer geeks are well known as the most well adjusted people on the planet? :)

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:and slashdot joins.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheat on his wife??? How about the little issue of rape??? Seriously, the "it was consensual" defense just was not consistent with the amount of blood on that girl's clothes.

    2. Re:and slashdot joins.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      last time I saw that sort of hopeful thinking it was kobe and people saying he didnt cheat on his wife. And he did. We all love our heros, dont we?

      It's kibo not kobe. If you spell his name correctly, he might respond!

    3. Re:and slashdot joins.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      Because he was more like many of us that Kobe. He was a thinker not an athlete.
      Because he built something that we value more than playing a sport to entertain people. He built something useful, then released it to the world. A donation to humanity.
      Because many of us tend to be quiet and unassuming. We sense a correlation between athletics and aggression. We know what it is like to be at the bottom of the social ladder. Many above us were both athletic and aggressive.
      Because we see ourselves as a productive oppressed minority.

      Because he was one of us. Now he is a murderer.

    4. Re:and slashdot joins.... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I followed this case back when I was on a Court TV binge. Kobe didn't do it. Going from my memory:

      • She was examined the day after the alleged rape:
        • No evidence of rape was found on her body after examination. No bruises or anything. After a later examination, there were claims that a thumb impression was found on her neck.
        • She had semen from more than one individual in her, including one guy she'd had sex with AFTER Kobe that night. Not exactly the behavior of a rape victim.
        • The blood was supposedly from anal sex, and there was a miniscule amount on her t-shirt.

      • The case was dropped a few days after the "victim's" text messages were released by her service provider. She'd been bragging to friends that she'd had sex with Kobe. Very likely that the text messages confirmed it.
      • The "victim" settled for what I remember being $50K. Doesn't sound like a grieving rape victim to me.
      • And the case was dropped after all. How the hell does a prosecutor pursue a case, then drop it unless there's practically no evidence or exculpatory evidence?

      So, based on outcome and not the BS jury tampering insinuations that prosecutors love to leak to the press, you have to assume that "it was consensual" was indeed the case.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:and slashdot joins.... by m50d · · Score: 1

      Heroes is right. Hans was the person I strove to emulate; I saw a lot of myself in him. I don't want to think he's killed someone, because what does that say about me? Can I have my little piece of irrationality, for a little while?

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:and slashdot joins.... by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      By "didn't cheat on his wife" you mean "didn't rape that girl" ?

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    7. Re:and slashdot joins.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kobe didn't do it.[...]The case was dropped a few days after the "victim's" text messages were released by her service provider. She'd been bragging to friends that she'd had sex with Kobe. Very likely that the text messages confirmed it.[...]you have to assume that "it was consensual" was indeed the case.

      Would you care to explain how the fact that it was consensual has any bearing on the fact that Koby cheated on his wife? I just can't figure out how you went from "it was consensual" to "Koby didn't do it".

    8. Re:and slashdot joins.... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to the rape allegation. He definitely cheated on his wife.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:and slashdot joins.... by DarkEmpath · · Score: 1

      and slashdot joins....
      all the people from LA.

      I'd phrase it more like "and Slashdot joins the human race."

      As soon as emotion is involved, humans tend to polarise into "Of course he did it!! Famous people think they can get away with anything!" and "He's innocent! It's tall-poppy syndrome!!"

      I think your heroes are guilty, by default. You admire them for stupid reasons, otherwise I'd like them, too. Of course, my heroes are innocent, by default.

      People very rarely re-evaluate their opinions until they're forced to (by, for example, a body being found). What I find more interesting is how the same people that espoused his innocence before, not only want him tortured or executed now, but they genuinely believe they've had that opinion all along.

      How does that work?

  39. No! He didn't do it!! by Macrat · · Score: 1

    He's just proven that he is psychic!!

  40. Re:Still could be innocent by flanksteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence.

    I would be interested in your theories of how he could have had knowledge of the murder and not be guilty.

  41. Re:Sooo it's true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly so, but the joke already being the second post in the thread doesn't help much. /Posting anonymously because the "Aspie Hans is still my hero" mods are out in force tonight.

  42. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by y86 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If he were methodical he probably wouldn't have committed murder, what a stupid thing to do!

    Murder has it's place. Ask the CIA.

  43. NOT GUILTY by twistah · · Score: 2, Funny

    This case is all based on circumstantial evidence. I mean, first we're convicting people based on the books they read, and now on the bodies they can find! FREE PAUL REISER!!

  44. Someone got it wrong... by Onyma · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone goofed...

    http://www.heliumraven.com/ninareisercase


    RIP Nina.

    --
    Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
  45. wrong question by speedtux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're asking the wrong question.

    The question to ask is whether Reiser should have been convicted. At the time, I thought it was more likely than not that he had done it, but I also thought there wasn't enough physical evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Of course, one can't know what exactly went through the jury's minds, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I do find it worrisome that several jurors basically said that they convicted him because they didn't like him.

    1. Re:wrong question by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to agree. We're all screwed if put in court because "normal" people don't like geeks. They don't fit social norms and that makes people uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable makes them want to get rid of us like Jews at a Klan rally (chalk me up for the Godwin's law point).

    2. Re:wrong question by Liquidrage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The wife killing sociopath didn't come across as a normal geek. And despite what the parent stated not a single juror stated they convicted him because they didn't like him.

    3. Re:wrong question by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you would give them the benefit of the doubt, when you doubt that they extended the same courtesy.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    4. Re:wrong question by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do find it worrisome that several jurors basically said that they convicted him because they didn't like him.

      Gut feelings, intuition, aren't just random whimsies, they can be your subconscious' way of communicating its' analysis of anothers' subconscious body language and uncontrollable facial subtleties.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:wrong question by dodongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has been my single, begrudging damn point all along. *I* thought Reiser was guilty too, but despite following the court case closely (SFGate.com had liveblogging, basically), I felt D.A. Hora did a pretty miserable job of building a convincing case for *first degree murder* (of which Resier was convicted), which carries with it stipulations about things like premeditation. Hora never once came close to demonstrating, circumstantially or otherwise, that Hans Resier planned to murder his wife, much less that he killed her at all.

      Despite luckily ending up with the right decision, justice was not served by this trial; contempt for a sad, aloof, kinda-crazy man was the only social mechanism that really had its day in the sun.

    6. Re:wrong question by speedtux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gut feelings, intuition [myersbriggs.org], aren't just random whimsies, they can be your subconscious' way of communicating its' analysis of anothers' subconscious body language and uncontrollable facial subtleties.

      They can be. But they are (demonstrably) not reliable enough to convict someone.

    7. Re:wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physical evidence? The majority of all crimes are convicted solely on the basis of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. There will always be ways to convict without a shred of proof so that society can rid itself of those clever enough to eliminate all evidence, and those that don't play by the rules even though they haven't committed a crime. Hans Reiser fits all of those bills.
      And oh yeah, he killed his wife--which vindicates the measure of conviction without physical proof.

    8. Re:wrong question by speedtux · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you would give them the benefit of the doubt, when you doubt that they extended the same courtesy.

      Innocent until proven guilty isn't a "courtesy" to murderers, it's a fundamental principle of law designed to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. That is, it's there to protect you and me.

      As the large numbers of wrongful convictions for murder show, the principle is not being applied enough:

      http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    9. Re:wrong question by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      True. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. And sometimes, they are your subconscious telling you that that guy is evil because he's got a funny accent.

      However, there is no way to distinguish between the two situations other than outcome, which is why it isn't used as any sort of evidence.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    10. Re:wrong question by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Good point, except..for all the evidence. It's hilarious to me that you dweebs are _still_ lamenting the jury's decision. And I do understand the concept of reaching the right decision the wrong way. Only, you know...all the evidence.

      Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her? We're talking lottery odds. And most criminal cases like this come down to odds, there's no camera and no witnesses. You just have to take all the evidence and come up with a percent likelihood that he didn't do it. In this case, that percent was diminishingly small.

    11. Re:wrong question by dodongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I've been quite willing to accept the circumstantial evidence as valid evidence that, in fact, Resier did commit the murder -- you'll notice I copped to that in the grandparent to this post.

      What I have an incredible amount of disdain for is the fact that there wasn't any circumstantial evidence that pointed to premeditation, which is a mandatory part of first degree murder in the state of California. You seem to be on the bandwagon that not only did Resier ostensibly commit the murder -- a point which I haven't really refuted, yet you evidently think I have -- but that he must have premeditated it. I'd like to ask you, for all the bungling of this crime that he did, where is the circumstantial evidence that indicates he planned the killing of Nina? Please, enlighten me.

      You say:

      "consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her"

      But that doesn't constitute or imply premeditation.

      You say:

      "Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her? We're talking lottery odds. And most criminal cases like this come down to odds, there's no camera and no witnesses."

      But that doesn't constitute or imply premeditation.

      And you say:

      "You just have to take all the evidence and come up with a percent likelihood that he didn't do it. In this case, that percent was diminishingly small."

      And I agree with you, the circumstantial evidence indicates that beyond a reasonable doubt he killed her. But it does not constitute or imply premeditation.

      So I'll admit, I'm totally trolling for an "I am a lawyer and here is your ass on a platter" response, but I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my skepticism of the verdict. My qualms with the outcome extend solely to the realm in which the DA did NOT do an adequate job of accounting for the statutory requirements for a first degree murder conviction.

      To say it again completely, I believed all along Hans Resier killed his wife; I do not believe the evidence presented to the jury by the DA adequately accounted for the burden of proof that the murder of Nina Reiser was premeditated. My issue with the jury extends only to the degree of the crime, not the fact that he was found guilty of the crime. Sorry if that's too nuanced for you to grasp ;)

    12. Re:wrong question by dodongo · · Score: 1

      While I'm on the clarification track:

      "Hora never once came close to demonstrating, circumstantially or otherwise, that Hans Resier planned to murder his wife, much less that he killed her at all."

      This is a poorly worded sentence, and I apologize. I meant to convey the point that "Hora never once came close to demonstrating, circumstantially or otherwise, that Hans Resier planned to murder his wife, much less THAN THAT he killed her at all."; in other words, that Hora did a reasonable job of circumstantially arguing Hans Reiser's responsibility for her death.

      But that is NOT in any way to say that Hora did a reasonable job of circumstantially arguing Hans Resier's responsibility for the first degree murder of Nina, which has a number of additional requirements beyond 'caused someone to become not alive anymore' (i.e., 'killed'). I don't understand where the idea that first degree murder was the right conviction comes from, based on the evidence presented by D.A. Hora; that said, I do understand where the conviction for killing Nina comes from. This is not an argument based on the fact that Hans Reiser killed his wife; this is an argument based on the fact that the evidence wasn't presented in the courtroom to convict Resier of first degree murder, IMHO.

    13. Re:wrong question by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Well, then you're at least smarter than most of these idiots. But still wrong ;) The burden isn't as high as you think, see: http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/3killoffenses.pdf

      He's getting off too easily anyway, he's taken one life and ruined multiple other lives. Once murder is established, the burden should be on the defendent to prove it wasn't premeditated. Were I a juror, being free of thought, I would vote based on that regardless of the law.

    14. Re:wrong question by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Good point, except..for all the evidence. It's hilarious to me that you dweebs are _still_ lamenting the jury's decision. And I do understand the concept of reaching the right decision the wrong way. Only, you know...all the evidence.

      Use your purportedly big old nerd noggins and consider all the evidence which does point to him murdering him and the...none that points to him not having mudered her. Seriously, what are the odds of all that stuff coming together with _no_ evidence that he _didn't_ kill her?

      Cool. You're halfway there. Now you just need to get your head around the concept of proving guilt vs. proving innocence. It's kind of a cornerstone of the US judicial system (and what is so wrong with the "trial by media" situation).

      On a related note - I'm not surprised by this turn of events. I found the situation really fishy and had suspected the man was guilty. But that's not the point here. I'm also troubled with how the jury came to its conclusion.

    15. Re:wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, didn't he have entries in his browser history to Google searches on e.g. "how to commit murder" and buy books on murder? That would definitely constitute premeditation.

    16. Re:wrong question by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Reiser is hardly your typical nerdlinger geek though. He's physically fit, normal looking, well-spoken, and successful in his field.

      Its also worth noting that he chose to testify in his own defense against the advice of his lawyer. If he saw himself as a "geek", as you apparently do, he would have never done this. Fact is that he thought he had superior social and persuasion skills.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    17. Re:wrong question by dodongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bless you for a thoughtful, documented reply. And agreed on the cost of lives ruined. I disagree with your normative argument that "Once murder is established, the burden *should be* on the defendent to prove it wasn't premeditated", emphasis mine... But perhaps we can agree that it may make sense that the DA's office is using the second degree plea bargain in order to recover the body due in part to their in ability to -- circumstantially or otherwise -- prove 'reflection and calculation' in the commission of the crime; to wit:

      "While first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree murder with express malice both require a purpose to kill, an individual cannot properly be convicted of first-degree murder if the murder was purposeful, yet without reflection and calculation." (p. 12)

      Moreover, the document notes that the only burden of proof the Defense has to offer in charges involving murder refers to 'the mitigating factor of provocation' which 'distinguishes murder from manslaughter' (p. 21). In other words, "premeditated murder includes both a purpose to kill as well as a preexisting reflection, second-degree murder with express malice only requires a purpose to kill. Thus, if the prosecution proves that the defendant purposefully killed, but does not prove premeditation,(93) the verdict
      should then be second-degree murder, not first-degree murder." (p. 11)

      So the burden of proof for murder is not that high (I have not said it is), but the burden of proof for reflection and consideration indeed is on the shoulders of the prosecution, no? And that proof of reflection and consideration is the primary differentiation between second-degree and first-degree murder. So, again, did D.A. Hora truly demonstrate reflection and consideration prior to the crime, or did he simply demonstrate a flailing, brilliant, antisocial software developer turned murderer? Methinks actions *after* the fact (hosing down the driveway, removing batteries from the cell phone, cleaning the car, ditching the seat) are not actions of a planned, contemplated murderer, but one of someone flailing about and trying to escape the consequences as best they can, ex post facto.

    18. Re:wrong question by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      It's a shame you don't understand and I have to explain yet again. Someone has a premise that he murdered his wife. They then proceed to present evidence. No one piece of evidence would convince a reasonable person of guilt. Taken in conjunction, all the evidence eliminates all other possible causes of Nina Reiser being missing other than his having killed her to a very high degree of certainty. It's really very simple.

      I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.

      In short, they absolutely proved that any explanation other than his having killed her was unreasonable and ridiculously unlikely. That's kind of how most murder trials work, murderers tend to try not leaving much physical evidence, or witnesses, or smoking guns, etc...

    19. Re:wrong question by dodongo · · Score: 1

      While RightSaidFred99 and I are certainly having a vigorous discussion about this, I'm going to side with him on this one... You do NOT, ever, ever, ever, EVER -- repeat after me, EVER! -- prove innocence in a courtroom. You are found guilty or not guilty; liable or not liable, but you are NEVER found 'innocent'.

      The closest thing a defendant would ever bother to argue to a standard of proof would be some mitigating circumstance (in the case of Hans Reiser and a murder trial, that circumstance might be provocation, which is reason to lower charges from murder to manslaughter). The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, who are charged with proving guilt. No one is ever (AFAIK) charged with proving innocence, since one of the founding tenets of the legal system is "innocent until proven guilty"; the charge is on those alleging guilt to prove guilt, and the verdict is rendered on whether or not the standard of guilt (or culpability) is met, hence "guilty" or "not guilty". Never "innocent".

    20. Re:wrong question by menace3society · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They were books on murder investigation, not committal. He could easily play that up to say that he killed her in a fit of passion and afterwards tried to cover it up. That sort of explains the arrogance: he'd read the books, and figured he would be able to outsmart the police and the DA.

      Oddly enough, that seems to fit the evidence better than premeditation. If he'd killed her with malice aforethought, I'd imagine he'd have been able to dispose of the body without so much mess.

    21. Re:wrong question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable doubt != any doubt. The arguements to the contrary was so contrived or unlikely that it didn't amount to reasonable doubt.

    22. Re:wrong question by lysse · · Score: 1

      Except that (i) people with Asperger's Syndrome tend to speak body language which is unintelligible (it's one of the diagnostic criteria); and (ii) juries are not instructed to determine guilt or innocence on their gut feelings, but on the evidence presented to them and that alone - if they don't do that, they're not doing their job.

    23. Re:wrong question by Cuppa+'Joe'+Black · · Score: 1

      However, I do find it worrisome that several jurors basically said that they convicted him because they didn't like him.

      The last time I sat on a jury there was one member who just wanted to nail the defendant because said defendant was obviously a creep. On trial for assault, the DA presented an absolutely terrible case leaving nothing but reasonable doubt and a cloud of contradictory testimony by a bunch of rednecks who were apparently feuding with one another. It took some doing to convince our hold-out that not guilty was our only option. (I would like to have seen someone from the prosecutor's office penalized for pursuing such a loser case and waisting my time and taxpayer dollars.) But yes, that is worrisome.

      --
      Technically, murder-suicide does not violate the golden rule.
    24. Re:wrong question by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      While RightSaidFred99 and I are certainly having a vigorous discussion about this, I'm going to side with him on this one... You do NOT, ever, ever, ever, EVER -- repeat after me, EVER! -- prove innocence in a courtroom. You are found guilty or not guilty; liable or not liable, but you are NEVER found 'innocent'.

      Actually - you're arguing the same point I am. It seems that I wasn't as clear.

    25. Re:wrong question by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I see you misunderstood my mentioning the lack of evidence that he didn't kill her. That's not evidence in itself, but again in conjunction with the mountain of other circumstantial evidence you'd have to believe in fairies and magic to have any reasonable doubt about his guilt.

      The way I read your post, it was more than a mere mention. It seemed that you were making a major point on the apparent lack of proof towards innocence. And that's what I take exception to. And frankly, it seems like you're still pushing the point.

      As dodongo points out, the process is about presenting evidence to prove guilt and never about proving innocence. The prosecution presents evidence of guilt and the defense attempts to either remove it from consideration or cast doubt on it in one way or another. Again - the defense never, ever has to present counter evidence to prove innocence. And it really seems like you're still making a point over the defense not doing this.

      I agree that prosecution can be done without witnesses or smoking guns. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient. But the case is all about proof of guilt and never about proof of innocence. I'm not sure you're understanding that.

    26. Re:wrong question by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      I never said it was about proving innocence. What I said was there wasn't one single exonerating piece of evidence. So the prosecution laid out their theory and provided proof. The odds of all that proof existing and his not having murdered his wife is ridiculously small. So at that point, he's guilty. Had he been able to provide some evidence of an alternate theory, he could have reduced that certainty. So let's say I decide (in an inexact, human way) that I think there's a 1/10000000 chance he didn't commit the murder. Guilty. But then he provides some evidence of one of his crackpot stories and I decide that reduces it to 1/10000. That would be a whole different story, and probably not enough to convict.

      So just saying things about crazy serial killers or trips to russia means nothing whatsoever, he has to provide credible evidence about those theories to create reasonable doubt. He only has to do this because the prosecution has already proved his guilt. Had they not done so, then even his flimsiest story would be fine because prosecution wouldn't have proved their case.

    27. Re:wrong question by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      I do not believe the evidence presented to the jury by the DA adequately accounted for the burden of proof that the murder of Nina Reiser was premeditated.

      By way of reference, my first wife's mother was murdered by an ex-boyfriend.

      1. It is a known fact that he purchased a shotgun from a store 2 days before he killed her
        • despite having a restraining order
        • despite being out on bail for 'menacing with a pistol' (while under the restraining order) - he had handcuffed her to himself & was holding a gun to her head.

      2. It is a known fact that he purchased camoflage gear including faceblack the day before he killed her.
      3. It is estimated from the number of cigarettes & the volume of water bottles & piss that he waited at least 12 hours outside her appartment.
      4. It is known that he cut the phone lines to the building.

      He was tried under 2nd degree murder as a crime of passion. I think he's has been out for about 3 years now. DA's do not like 1st degree murder cases - even when they're easy.

    28. Re:wrong question by skis · · Score: 1

      Didn't he have a book in his car titled something like How to Get Away with Murder?

    29. Re:wrong question by bfields · · Score: 1

      "However, I do find it worrisome that several jurors basically said that they convicted him because they didn't like him." You're a juror just out of a long trial, and a reporter points a microphone at you and asks you what you thought. Are you really going to give a long list of all the evidence you saw, or do you think you might be tempted to just say something pat about the personality of the accused and be done with it?

    30. Re:wrong question by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, that seems to fit the evidence better than premeditation. If he'd killed her with malice aforethought, I'd imagine he'd have been able to dispose of the body without so much mess.

      I think that may be true, and I am thinking that the case for premeditation wasn't made very well. However, I'm not assuming his poor cover-up implies no prior planning. In his own testimony where he claimed he hosed out the car because he was sleeping in it and it was dirty, he said that he had simply assumed that there would be holes in the bottom of the car to let the water drain which is why there was a foot of standing water in it.

      I think we can take that last statement at face value -- murder or harmless car cleaning, hosing off your car interior and expecting the water to drain is pretty silly, and shows a severe lack of practical knowledge. I mean, did he not know why they have vacuums at gas stations? Did he really think people cleaned their car upholstery with a hose?

      What I'm getting at is that it is perfectly possible that he had a plan, it just turns out that -- surprise surprise -- programming knowledge doesn't automatically translate into real-world knowledge, and thus his plan was a shitty one. That may be why he only checked out the book after the murder, once he'd realized that bodies are a lot messier than he thought, and evidence a lot harder to clean up than he thought, and his plan was falling apart. "Ah I'll just do a little research and be caught up" he may have thought.

      I'm not saying that's the case, but I am saying I'm not convinced it isn't. A badly done coverup doesn't mean much to me either way. It only means -- much like Reiser's attempt to testify in his defense -- that he isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thought he was.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:wrong question by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      They can also be your subconscious' way of communicating to you that your brain has analyzed their natural body smell and find it displeasing, and therefore sexually incompatible with you.

      Intuition is useful as a starting point for analysis, not an endpoint.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
  46. Re:Still could be innocent by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe he was angry with her because she was having an affair. He bought a gun out of anger, but didn't want to kill her. He goes home, to find her with her lover. In a struggle with the lover, the lover the lover wrests the gun from Hans. He's got the gun pointed at Hans, who reveals that his wife has in fact ANOTHER lover. In anger, the lover shoots Nina and flees. Hans has no idea who he was, and Nina dies sadly in his arms. The only way he can avoid blame for the murder (having just legally purchased the gun) is to bury Nina himself. In the end, Hans feels responsible for her death, having driven her away from him due to his obsession with work, and of course, the foolish decision to buy the guy. He sees only too late that he should forgiven her for such a minor human flaw, and if he had, then he would still be with her.

  47. Re:Whatever by metamatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope Hans Reiser can get a laptop with an internet connection so that he can continue his development of his great file system!

    Umm, I kinda doubt that's going to happen, can you imagine the response to his participating in discussion threads on kernel.org?

    For similar reasons, I kinda doubt he'll be returning to Slashdot. Or at least, not with his current login.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  48. Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't want to sound like I'm defending murder here, but not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.

    Murder is illegal. That is a good thing. He got caught after killing someone, he pays the price. That is well and good.

    But I don't think we should be saying things like "evil" and "I hope he dies of AIDS in jail" until you know the facts of the situation, and what she did to make him kill her. Sure, maybe it was nothing, and he's just a psychopath - but maybe it was years of abuse, in which case I have quite a lot of difficulty blaming him completely.

    I've seen marriages so sick and dysfunctional I almost wish one of the parties would kill the other. Everyone's life would get better if one of them just did it. Some people lead such sick, disgraceful lives that I have little guilt in thinking the world would be better of without them in it.

    Killing someone because you want their money, or you don't like the colour of their skin, is a crime against humanity itself and anyone who does that's life is forfeit, in my opinion. But killing someone after they inflict years of mental abuse? The matter is far less black and white. Illegal, yes. Wrong, too .. maybe. Certainly not optimal. But evil?

    Some people have it coming. I'm not saying one way or the other here, OK. I don't know Mr Reiser, nor have I any emotional investment one way or the other. I just don't believe murder is always the heinous evil crime some might think. Sometimes, it's the wheel of karma turning. Sometimes, it's a public service.

    Of course, we don't know, and will likely never know, what caused the murder. But have we all decided anyway?

    Maybe Reiser is a sick psychopathic fuck who kills for kicks. Maybe Nina had it coming. Who knows? Not you or I. So let's lay off the fire and brimstone, what do you say?

    1. Re:Some people are better off dead. by doti · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

      grats

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    2. Re:Some people are better off dead. by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.

      Unless she was pointing a gun at him and it was self-defense, there is *no* excuse.

      If a woman makes you angry, are you going to hit her?

      If she cheats on you, are you going to kill her?

      Will you give her the same rights in return? How about if she just cuts your pecker off instead and feeds it to the dog?

      How about if it's your kids? If they don't listen to you, are you going to wack them to "teach them a lesson"?

      It's called murder because it wasn't justified. Blaming the victim is just fucked up.

    3. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, so we've gone from "HANS IS INNOCENT" to "yeah the bitch had it coming". Way to go, slashdot.

      By the way, nice little appeal to ignorance, there.

    4. Re:Some people are better off dead. by blackpaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually women have been using the "he drove me to it" defence for murdering their husbands quite successfully for years.

    5. Re:Some people are better off dead. by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Some people have it coming. I'm not saying one way or the other here, OK. I don't know Mr Reiser, nor have I any emotional investment one way or the other. I just don't believe murder is always the heinous evil crime some might think. Sometimes, it's the wheel of karma turning. Sometimes, it's a public service.

      Let's assume (I don't know one way or the other) that she is evil, performed physical and emotional abuse.. took all his money, cheated on him.. etc.. etc.. that's bad for him.. but sometimes you just got to accept the bad that's happened, and start over from scratch.. maybe it sucks, maybe it's unfair, but that is what you do.. not doing some stupid thing to make your situation worse (if not hopeless now)

      Just as it's pointless and destructive to play the "blame game" in a relationship.. so is it pointless and destructive to try and "get even".

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    6. Re:Some people are better off dead. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      So a piece of shit excuse works for you? WTF.

      People are responsible for their actions, PERIOD. The victim could not have done anything to deserve this outcome unless she killed him first, which is a bit impossible.

      Even in real life self-defense cases, there are often many other choices than killing someone.

      Truly what did she do so horrible? Did she refuse to stop using Windows or told him how great Vista was going to be?

      Geesh...

    7. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are blinded by your conditioning.

      Abuse is abuse. It's case by case. Physical or emotional, it's abuse, and over time it adds up.

      There are plenty of bastards killed every year by their battered wives who finally snapped at their abuse and just killed the sons of bitches. We let them off with manslaughter, suspended sentences, or don't charge them at all.

      Those men had it coming. I don't shed a single fucking tear.

      But you seem to say that just because of their gender, a woman can never, ever have it coming?

      Bullshit. Women can be just as abusive, just as evil, as men. And just because abuse isn't physical doesn't mean it doesn't do long term damage - and gradually built up into an explosive finale.

      Have some imagination, why don't you. If one of your guy friends is a prick to you, again and again and again, eventually you might just punch him - and rightly so. But you're saying there is nothing, literally nothing at all, that could possibly warrant the same for a woman, beyond her threatening him with a gun?

      Women are humans with all the same possibilities for good and bad behaviour. Some guys are such living breathing shits that they deserve to just be shot. And if you can't imagine that there are also women who deserve the same, you're just an easily-swayed fool, brainwashed by political correctness that women are somehow immune for any consequence of their actions.

      You have double standards, and shame on you.

    8. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your name wouldn't happen to be F. Castle, would it?

    9. Re:Some people are better off dead. by zo219 · · Score: 1

      And exactly what does a woman have to do, in your way of thinking, to "have it coming"?

      In what way would you, yourself, "have it coming"?

      Hmm?

    10. Re:Some people are better off dead. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      That defense would normally be when the victim can't just walk away because threats have been made to 'hunt you down and make you suffer', or 'kill you and the kids'.

    11. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she were abusive towards Hans he could have argued battered spouse syndrome. Women have been arguing that for awhile and winning cases with it.

    12. Re:Some people are better off dead. by theblondebrunette · · Score: 1

      It fscking sucks. He should've known better though.. Killing her wouldn't solved the problem.. They have children, he'd feel the guilt all his life.. He's a smart guy, had he planned this, he might have gotten away, but he'd still be paying the price, one way or another..

    13. Re:Some people are better off dead. by GradiusCVK · · Score: 1

      If you're going to act like a retard and take it to the absolute extreme (to paraphrase, "would you kill your kids for acting up"), why don't I play devil's advocate and do the same... if a father is repeatedly sexually abusing his kids, and beats them and his wife to the point where they think it's their fault and are completely unable to defend themselve or seek external help, I guess you'd be just as morally repulsed if he were to be murdered and somebody said "yeah well he deserved it". The thing is, OP is right... sometimes the world is just better off without some people. Murder in general is bad, which is why it's illegal... the hope is that people will find ways to solve their problems and the problems that other people create for them without having to resort to murder. On the other hand, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing that a given person is dead. In the example above, if that father were to die in a car accident, you might still say the same thing... at least he's finally gone. I, like the OP, don't condone murder, and I have no idea whether Nina deserved it (I'd say that the vast majority of people do not... I have a pretty high regard for human life, no matter how depraved). However, the point isn't that murder is good, it's that sometimes somebody being dead is good.
      One last example: several people tried to assassinate Hitler. That would have been murder.
      So in closing, suck a fucking dick you moralist piece of shit. Things are never, ever black and white.

    14. Re:Some people are better off dead. by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      Do you think a man as smart as Reiser would put up with years of abuse? I would suggest they were equally disfunctional, they both had it coming, but one got to the other first.

    15. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Maybe Nina had it coming."

      Maybe he made her make him kill her.

      Maybe she made him make mer make him kill her.

      Maybe he made hr make him make her make him kill her.

      No, fuck you, a line has to be drawn, and it's drawn at the point where you fucking kill someone.

    16. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what else could we expect from the apologist linfux community? fucking sick bitches.

    17. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know exactly what she'd have to do, but I'd know it when I see it. Lengthy history of purely malicious intent would be a good first step.

      I'd have it coming if I treated everyone around me with malicious intent to harm for years on end while laughing knowing I hadn't actually broken any laws. I live by my own standards - in other words, I try to be actually good, not just within the letter of the law. So I'm confident I don't have it coming by my own standards, although naturally someone else might disagree.

      Some people are just evil. Male or female. Maybe you've never met one but I assure you they exist. They're the ones who "have it coming". Maybe when you live a little longer, and mix a little bit outside your tight social circle, you'll encounter that kind of person, and then you'll know what i mean - and probably agree.

    18. Re:Some people are better off dead. by GradiusCVK · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Godwinning the thread and, I expect, blowing some karma is worth it to me... I have no particular investment in the Reiser case and haven't even really formulated a personal stance one way or the other throughout the case (besides saying we must assume innocent until proven guilty... and I considered him pretty much proven guilty once most of the circumstantial evidence started to be reported)... so the opinions I expressed are NOT really about Hans or even Nina... they're about holier-than-thou pieces of garbage like T.H. who think they know how everybody should live and act. FYI buddy, murder != unjustified killing. Murder == illegal killing. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it wasn't perfectly justified. A clear-cut case of self defense isn't the only good reason for murder in the real world.

    19. Re:Some people are better off dead. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Your point would have been more forceful if you didn't repeat yourself so damn much, and sound so equivocal.

    20. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      I've seen marriages so sick and dysfunctional I almost wish one of the parties would kill the other. Everyone's life would get better if one of them just did it.

      You're a fool.

      There's a little concept called divorce. It's actually quite popular here in the States and it's a much better solution to the problem than murder ever will be.

      (Also, the little I've read from the trial indicates that all the abuse flowed from Hans to Nina.)

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    21. Re:Some people are better off dead. by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Marital discord isn't an excuse for murder. There are so many alternatives to murder, surely someone as "intelligent" as Reiser could have thought his way through to one of them. What happened was that Reiser yielded his intellect to anger - and perhaps his intellect was his own worst enemy in convincing him he could get away with it - when the right thing, the humane thing to do would have been to think about his kids, remember that life is long and that in time, nothing his wife threatened to do would have mattered all that much. Too fucking bad, it's a tragedy all around. My sympathy is reserved for his children. It's probably a pretty heavy piece of baggage to know your dad is a killer, and that you don't have a mom because of him. Thousands of men face worse circumstances than Reiser did, with lots less resources, and don't become murderers. Toss Reiser in the bin and forget him.

    22. Re:Some people are better off dead. by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      make him kill her

      Stop right there. There is no such thing as "making X kill Y". Reiser always had other options than murder, and phrasing it as "she made him do it to her" is blaming the victim for the actions of a murderer.

      So let's lay off the fire and brimstone, what do you say?

      No, let's not lay off. Vast numbers of other people extricate themselves from fucked up situations like Reiser's without resorting to murder. Vast numbers of people don't get into fucked up situations like Reiser's because they see problems developing and deal with them rather than hiding behind a geek badge that reads "proud to be aspie". Vast numbers of people suffer through their problems and don't brutally murder someone, hide their body, maintain their innocence in court, and then use their knowledge of their crime to get a reduced sentence for something they're totally, 100% guilty of.

      I don't want to sound like I'm defending murder here

      Well, you do.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    23. Re:Some people are better off dead. by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Nina didn't do that to him?

    24. Re:Some people are better off dead. by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Also years of mental abuse have been used as a defence as well.

    25. Re:Some people are better off dead. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Great. So by your argument, Hans Reiser deserves to get off with manslaughter because he was "abused." Gee, I wish his attorney had advised him of that strategy. Maybe they could have ... y'know... brought it up in court? Even once? No, the GP is correct. Making up crap like this to defend a guy who committed capital murder is sick. Your need to defend him is sick.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    26. Re:Some people are better off dead. by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      "Some people have it coming."

      No. They don't. Ever.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    27. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Alascom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Who knows? Not you or I. So let's lay off the fire and brimstone, what do you say?

      Lay off? He murdered a woman! There is NO excuse for murdering someone... ever.. He didn't kill her, he MURDERED her! Soldiers on the battlefield kill, people who work on death row kill, doctors who administer euthanasia kill... Hans MURDERED her. The evil and selfishness of a person who would murder another, just to make their own life a little bit easier, can never be justified.

      Sometimes, things really are black and white, right and wrong, evil and good.

    28. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming the victim is indeed fucked up.

      I wonder if we would see as much of this type of crime if child custody wasn't so one-sided and things like alimony didn't exist in our society of equal rights? Imagine owing most of your income to someone you can't stand, every month? Seems like if you could walk away, and still see your kids (joint custody), many of these crimes wouldn't even happen.

      Just an idle thought.

      In the case of Reiser, he's an idiot who is going to have a long time to think about where he went wrong.

    29. Re:Some people are better off dead. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Nina didn't do that to him?

      I don't recall expressing an opinion on that...

    30. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Actually women have been using the "he drove me to it" defence for murdering their husbands quite successfully for years."

      Citations needed. And not "reduced sentencing," that's not all that successful; back it up with a "not guilty" verdict.

      Besides, the "He drove me to do it" excuse isn't anywhere near the "She's not really dead, she really fled the country and is trying to make it look like I killed her" excuse.

    31. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Lengthy history of purely malicious intent would be a good first step."

      Anybody that had the balls to plan the murder, carry it out, hide the body, attempt to destroy evidence, and then spend two years swearing up and down that he didn't do anything (only to finally cave when it turned out the bullshit story didn't work) crossed the threshold necessary to say "I want a divorce" and/or start talking to a divorce lawyer a long time ago. Unless, of course, you're hoping to avoid alimony payments.

      I've seen domestic violence. Victims of it that are unable to get out of it do so because their self esteem is so low they can't imagine living without their abuser; they're the ones that pay their abusers' bail. The only ones real victims kill are themselves, either directly or by letting their abusers finish them off.

      "Maybe when you live a little longer, and mix a little bit outside your tight social circle, you'll encounter that kind of person,"

      I had a college roommate that ended up marrying a completely psychotic and manipulative bitch. He divorced her. I had another friend that married a ridiculously jealous man who liked smacking her around a bit. Let's just say she died under questionable circumstances.

      "and then you'll know what i mean"

      Oh, I know exactly what you mean. The only people that think that your reasoning makes sense are the abusers themselves, who are simply too fucking egotistical to believe that, yeah, it really is their fault. So I dearly hope you're single and will stay that way for the rest of your life, lest you have some other victim you can try that "You made me do it baby!" bullshit on.

      "I try to be actually good"

      Trying ain't good enough, Ike.

    32. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's lay off the fire and brimstone, what do you say?

      I say fuck you, that's what I say

    33. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "There are plenty of bastards killed every year by their battered wives who finally snapped at their abuse and just killed the sons of bitches. We let them off with manslaughter, suspended sentences, or don't charge them at all."

      The ones that kill their husbands in the middle of a "domestic disturbance" do indeed get off. The ones who wait a week or a month or a year after the last time he laid hands on her, where there isn't an immediate threat to her life, before she takes the time to plan the murder and execute it... I think you'll find that yes, they really do go to jail. Or executed.

      "Those men had it coming. I don't shed a single fucking tear."

      If she had the time to walk away, she had the time to get a divorce.

      "But you seem to say that just because of their gender, a woman can never, ever have it coming?"

      If Hans had to figure out a way to abduct her to in order to murder her, she obviously wasn't around to threaten him, was she?

      "Have some imagination, why don't you. If one of your guy friends is a prick to you, again and again and again, eventually you might just punch him - and rightly so."

      And he'd have cause to press charges for battery, and rightly so. If you skipped "Stop," "Go away," "Leave me alone," "Get out of my apartment," and "Don't make me call the cops" and jumped right to punching him, you have issues.

      "But you're saying there is nothing, literally nothing at all, that could possibly warrant the same for a woman, beyond her threatening him with a gun?"

      Self-defense is only justified if you can't walk away; the number of states that don't legally require you to try to walk away first I can count on one hand, and they're all in the Deep South. If you can leave, it's not harassment.

    34. Re:Some people are better off dead. by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Had Reiser told the truth to the cops, he certainly might have gotten off with manslaughter.

      However he never once played the abuse card and denied that his wife was dead until today.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    35. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know exactly what you mean. The only people that think that your reasoning makes sense are the abusers themselves, who are simply too fucking egotistical to believe that, yeah, it really is their fault.

      Sorry, but things aren't that black or white. I've been, unfortunately, in several relationships with women who did everything within their power to provoke my anger. Their reactions when I refused to act on that anger were...interesting to say the least. One even went so far as to question my manliness over refusing to kick her face in.

      Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned being angry is never an excuse to resort to physical violence, but for some people being a victim is the only kind of life they know, and they will go to extreme lengths to remain in their unhappy bubbles.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    36. Re:Some people are better off dead. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely. Thank you for being so straightforward about it. Political correctness gets ridiculous when it says we shouldn't call a murderer a murderer. He is what he is, and I personally hope he gets much more than 15 years.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    37. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Soldiers on the battlefield kill, people who work on death row kill, doctors who administer euthanasia kill... Hans MURDERED her."

      I don't see the difference between killing and murdering. Soldier murder. People who work on death row murder. You end someones live because you think it is just. The soldiers justify their actions by claiming the enemy is evil. The people who work on death row justify their actions by claiming the person they will kill is evil.

      What if Hans Reiser has the idea that his wife is evil? Does that make him someone who kills instead of murders?

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    38. Re:Some people are better off dead. by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      You're operating under this strange belief that if someone has some "good" (or at least internally consistent) reason for doing some horrible action, then that exonerates (or at least mitigates) them from guilt. This belief has become popular lately, which I can't understand, because it's fantastically stupid.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    39. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Millennium · · Score: 1

      I don't want to sound like I'm defending murder here, but not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.

      Nothing whatsoever. He chose to kill her. He could have chosen otherwise. The only even remotely possible way she could have "made him kill her" would be if it had been a matter of self-defense: his life or hers. No one -not even Reiser himself- has ever claimed that, so we are left at stone cold free will.

    40. Re:Some people are better off dead. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What would he say?

      "Your Honor, my client didn't kill his wife. But if he did, it was because she abused him."

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    41. Re:Some people are better off dead. by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      The GP had no qualms with the line being drawn right there when you kill someone. A sentence of life imprisonment (not to mention capital punishment depending on where you are) isn't child's play.

      I think the GP was just saying that until we know the intimate details (which probably nobody does except Hans now), we shouldn't make a moral judgment so quickly.

      Disclaimer: I never really understood morality in the normative perspective.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    42. Re:Some people are better off dead. by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      There are abuses which are far worse than death.

      To the point where killing would be relief, relatively speaking.

      Of course, the criminal law needs to be there, so society can work, but sometimes it's not "fair" to paint every murderer in the same moral black ink.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    43. Re:Some people are better off dead. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that than, "Alright, your honor, you got me. I killed her. This is where her body is. So, hey, cut me some slack, huh? I'm workin wit ya here..."

      Seriously, if Hans's sentence gets reduced because of this, absent the full consent of the victim's family, it would be a travesty. I don't think there's any law anywhere that says it's illegal to trick a guy into revealing where he buried the body of your missing daughter while he stands convicted of the murder. He's led them to the body. Now let him rot. (My opinion.)

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    44. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I think the GP was just saying that until we know the intimate details (which probably nobody does except Hans now), we shouldn't make a moral judgment so quickly."

      Pop quiz: which one of the two did something that deliberately resulted in the death of another person?

    45. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't see the difference between killing and murdering."

      That's OK, it's easy to explain. Murder is taking a life under circumstances for which society has judged should carry a penalty. It's what we call a 'crime'.

      Killing is taking a life under circumstances for which society has judged should *not* carry a penalty.

      Now go back to playing with the happy fluffy bunnies, or whatever the hell you were doing.

    46. Re:Some people are better off dead. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      He could have walked away. In fact, Nina HAD walked out, with the kids, so it was OVER. Hans is obviously the type of guy who takes that personally - as in "How day she - I'll kill the bitch" - and he did it.

      Again, no excuse. Just like there are women who can't accept it when the guy walks away - it's not an excuse to go and kill them.

      These are people who can't accept that the other person has moved on.

    47. Re:Some people are better off dead. by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Having been through that particular grinder, the important thing to remember is that, no matter what the other parent says, the kids will eventually figure out who the real asshole is.

      Problem is, usually both parents are too insecure to take the long view. They don't trust their kids to be intelligent enough to figure things out for themselves, so they do stupid things. Then they wonder why the kids believe they might really be assholes ...

    48. Re:Some people are better off dead. by ibmjones · · Score: 1

      I set bait for ants so that they carry poison back to their nests and die. Am I a murderer?

    49. Re:Some people are better off dead. by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      There are worse things that you can do to a person than killing him/her.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    50. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "There are worse things that you can do to a person than killing him/her."

      Yeah, nothing justifies murder like moving out, filing divorce and having a restraining order slapped on you.

    51. Re:Some people are better off dead. by PerpetualStrange · · Score: 1

      > What! No pun intended, but this is the guppiest logic I have ever heard! Damn, wake up man! There's no reason goddam reason rhyme under the sun that would justify violence against a woman or a child or anyone else for that matter unless in self-defense. Hans is a weak, pathetic low life period! Couldnâ(TM)t he have gone out and find someone else. Relationship no matter how close and intimate is not slavery. Ceremony or no ceremony, both parties have every right to check out at anytime. Millions of men and women go in and out of relationships ALL the time - it is a human condition. What the hell is wrong with some males, for they are certainly not men, for no real man would stoop to violence when rejected? What a spineless looser. I donâ(TM)t care how desirable a woman is, the day she says or indicates sheâ(TM)s no longer interested, I am out of there, and I wonâ(TM)t get mad or spiteful, because we all have the right to opt out of a relationship that we no longer find desirable. As with many marriages and relationships, It may even have been just a phase, especially since they have kids together.

    52. Re:Some people are better off dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By lately, do you mean 2000 years? God killed the first-born sons of every Egyptian. Somehow the Bible considers murdering children to be perfectly alright, if it is done for the right reasons.

    53. Re:Some people are better off dead. by ishobo · · Score: 1

      If you do not want to pay alimony, have a prenup or do not get married.

      --
      Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
  49. That is the funniest thing by bhsx · · Score: 1

    OMG, I cringed and chuckled to the point that my wife had to ask what was up... That is so sick and wrong, and SO FUCKING FUNNY. +1 Sick and Twisted

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:That is the funniest thing by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > That is so sick and wrong

      Yeah, he didn't even bother to cite a reference!

  50. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by flajann · · Score: 1

    he was definitely methodical about his FS!!!!!

  51. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by Z34107 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good thing he was journaling. We can just dismount his wife and restore her to a known-working version... questionmark?!

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  52. Re:Still could be innocent by flanksteak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was Fabio on the cover of this book?

  53. Greedo shot first by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Maybe nina did too.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  54. Clarification. by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Informative
    Excerpt from the CBS5 article:

    As part of the deal that was discussed, CBS News learned that Reiser's mandated sentence of 25 years to life sentence could be cut to 15 years to life. Such an agreement would entail a judge allowing Reiser's conviction to be reduced to second-degree murder.

    Emphasis is mine. It's not guaranteed that he'll get a reduced sentence.

    1. Re:Clarification. by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Right, there's no guarantee his sentence will be reduced, but he's hoping for it, and you can be sure his attorney at least thought to negotiate for it.

      To answer the parent, the reason the court might reduce a sentence is because recovering the body provides closure, both to the family of the victim and to society as a whole; so the ideal situation is that we can give the victim a proper burial.

  55. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The M.O. he demonstrated in the crime indicates the disorganized type.

    But what does that say about his code?

  56. still plenty of doubts about conviction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the conviction (first degree murder, i.e. preplanned) is still ridiculous. The evidence for preplanning was very weak. Part of it was that Hans bought a book about murder investigations--but he bought it AFTER Nina's disappearance. You'd think someone planning a murder and wanting to foil an investigation would buy the book BEFORE doing the deed. Another part was that he removed his cell phone battery to avoid being tracked--again AFTER the disappearance. I've been neutral about Hans's possible innocence (60% of Wired Magazine readers in a survey thought he was innocent) but I always thought the premeditation charge was ridiculous. If it was preplanned there are a million less crazy ways he could have done it, such as hiring professionals from Russia or at least making better arrangements to get rid of the body far away. I've felt it more plausible that he lost self-control in the heat of an argument, found himself with a dead wife and a potential giant heap of trouble, and then, after the fact, decided (unsuccessfully) to try to outrun/outsmart the police. That would be second degree murder rather than first, if I remember my Perry Mason reruns.

    1. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Umm no. It was part of the DA's case that Hans moved the body. So he likely bought the book to figure out how best to hide the body.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by burris · · Score: 5, Informative

      The term in California is "premeditated" and all that means is that the defendant thought about killing their victim and had time to reflect on that before actually killing them. There doesn't need to be a plan for the murder itself but that would provide very solid evidence of premeditation. When you add up a nasty divorce, the delinquent child support payments, the dispute over custody that led to Nina dropping off the kids at his Mothers house on the long weekend when his mother was going to be out of town, the constant stream vitriol towards Nina coming from Hans before Nina's murder and during the trial, the phone call where Hans basically said he was glad Nina was gone, etc... He compared Nina to the Nazis in an e-mail to her. The jury reasonably concluded that he must have thought about killing her at some point during the long divorce.

    3. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it seems that at least this is one thing he did pull off reasonably well.

    4. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by MushMouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was covered by an interview with a juror. She said the evidence pointing to premeditation was that Reiser stopped using his visa card, switching to cash only transactions in the weeks before the killing, as well as some pressure on a city councilwoman concerning his custody battle. While he may have given explanations for those, he pretty much lost the jury with the whole of his unbelievable testimony.

    5. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You'd think someone planning a murder and wanting to foil an investigation would buy the book BEFORE doing the deed. Another part was that he removed his cell phone battery to avoid being tracked--again AFTER the disappearance.

      If it was preplanned there are a million less crazy ways he could have done it, such as hiring professionals from Russia or at least making better arrangements to get rid of the body far away.

      Uh, sure, but if there's one thing (other than his guilt) we've learned from this it's that Hans Reiser isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thinks he is.

      He could have had a plan before the murder, it just turned out to suck badly, so he got a book figuring he could just read it and become an expert on covering up crimes in two days, and again failed.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:still plenty of doubts about conviction by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Uh, sure, but if there's one thing (other than his guilt) we've learned from this it's that Hans Reiser isn't nearly as smart and clever as he thinks he is.

      We knew that from the quality of his programming. Look at ReiserFS.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  57. Re:Still could be innocent by The+Iso · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.

    --
    "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
  58. Jokes in bad taste by RudeIota · · Score: 5, Funny
    After his relationship became fragmented Resier rm'oved his wife by forking her to death and packed her tail in a shallow grave he allocated in the dirt near some trees. He was almost unlinked to the case, but he really fsck'd up afterward, because the fool wrote all the details of the murder in his journal!

    After being out-of-order in court, he spilled the encryptic details about where his wife was stored and from there on, the jury knew he was corrupted. Strangely enough, due to his cooperation, officials didn't even have to raid his home...

    You know what though...? inode he was a criminal all along.

    There, I'm glad to have gotten that out of my system.

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    1. Re:Jokes in bad taste by Zorque · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't care what anyone says, I laughed.

    2. Re:Jokes in bad taste by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      Hilarious. Seriously, and also I do not care what anyone says. I've been wanting to write something similar like that for some time. And note the following:

      # zgrep 'REISER' /proc/config.gz
      # CONFIG_REISERFS_FS is not set

      And that is permanent. No MurdererFS on my system. I do not care how good it is. Ext with journalling forever!

  59. Re:I hope he gets to make Ext4 from jail by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, part of his punishment should be being forced to maintain a file system that he feels is inferior.

  60. we all know where it was by doti · · Score: 1
    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  61. 15 to *LIFE*, people... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, come off it ... there was no reasonable doubt. Doubt that isn't reasonable isn't sufficient to let him walk, and the *jury* - not the prosecutor - got it right.

    What's interesting is comparing the comments in this thread with pre-body, both pre and post conviction. The vast majority here felt that the murderer Reiser was being "railroaded" and there was reasonable explanations for everything and that it was perfectly believable that his wife had fled to Russia, and so on... Now it seems the majority have always thought he was guilty as Hell? Good grief!

    Also, I keep hearing he made a deal for 15 years? Not so. It's 15 years to life . What this means is that MAYBE he gets out in 15, but he'll spend AT LEAST 15.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:15 to *LIFE*, people... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Search the previous stories. A lot of posters jumped on me because I said he was going to be found guilty, despite the fact that, unlike them, I *have* served as a juror in a murder trial.

    2. Re:15 to *LIFE*, people... by Iftekhar25 · · Score: 1

      Now it seems the majority have always thought he was guilty as Hell? Good grief!

      Aww, yeah. Well, I guess the naysayers were vocal back then. Now that this is out in the open, they're understandably embarrassed.

      Comments are just a biased sample set of the ones willing to talk!

      Like me. I always thought he did it. If I didn't think he did it, I wouldn't be posting right now. Heh.

    3. Re:15 to *LIFE*, people... by Kattspya · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never get complaints like yours. The reason "everyone" now thinks he was guilty is because most of those who thought he was innocent will refrain from posting.

      Create a thread in a forum with a large population and ask about penis size. You'll find that the mean length in the forums _greatly_ exceeds the known mean and I don't even think there is much exaggeration but mostly selection bias and of course some out right lies.

    4. Re:15 to *LIFE*, people... by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Now it seems the majority have always thought he was guilty as Hell? Good grief!"

      The majority can think different things and there be no conflict. The reason is that we have a different group of people. The set of people expressing opinion has likely changed. This is common problem with web-based surveys people are not selected at random but "self select" based on their level of interest so you end up with a very biased sample that does not refect the general population. This effect is very big here on slashdot.

  62. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two archetypes of nerds, which oddly parallel serial killer archetypes: disorganized and spontaneously creative vs organized and methodically calculating.

    The urge to divide everything into two -- black or white, friend or enemy, capitalism or communism, christian or heathen, disorganized or organized -- is a recognized mental oddity.

    In most cases, there is not only a sliding scale (or shades of grey, if you like), but multiple axes.

    That we so easily try place things in a two-bin system might be because it makes it easier for us to make decisions.

    Hans Reiser is an odd man out in many ways, but can't be explained this easily. He's not just a disorganized person. He's a complex person. And if you'd ever talked to him, you'd know that in some things he is meticulously organized, while in others, not. Binning him like you did seems silly, but if it makes it easier for you to deal with, hey, whatever sinks your bathyscaphe.

  63. why didn't he wait and try to come out early? by theblondebrunette · · Score: 1

    Why didn't he wait, maintain his innocence and try to come out of jail early? What does it mean 15-to life? Can he come out early for good behavior?

  64. GangstaLinux by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Some one needs to create the Thugz distro. A linux that won't disrepect you.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:GangstaLinux by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Why does that remind me of the Bratz barbie-like doll they're marketing to kids?

      Oh, it's the z.

    2. Re:GangstaLinux by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      It would a shame if something happened to your file system...

      --
      Here be signatures
  65. Re:Okay there you go ... well if he DIDN'T do it by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    He better rise her from the dead so he can defrag or get out of the cluster fscked filing system that's going to spin his platter for 15 years at 7200+ RPM....

    Too bad. To bad he didn't get a snapshot of immutable evidence and use it as grounds for divorce, if there was infidelity. (Assuming he had no skels to hide by which she would negate his attempt or a divorce...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  66. Re:Still could be innocent by crasher35 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was angry with her because she was having an affair. He bought a gun out of anger, but didn't want to kill her. He goes home, to find her with her lover. In a struggle with the lover, the lover the lover wrests the gun from Hans. He's got the gun pointed at Hans, who reveals that his wife has in fact ANOTHER lover. In anger, the lover shoots Nina and flees. Hans has no idea who he was, and Nina dies sadly in his arms. The only way he can avoid blame for the murder (having just legally purchased the gun) is to bury Nina himself. In the end, Hans feels responsible for her death, having driven her away from him due to his obsession with work, and of course, the foolish decision to buy the guy. He sees only too late that he should forgiven her for such a minor human flaw, and if he had, then he would still be with her.

    That's quite the soap opera there! While not entirely impossible, it is quite a stretch. To me it's more likely that he probably killed her. Although, it is true that it makes absolutely no sense that he claims to be innocent while also claiming to know where her body is...

    --

    I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.

  67. well, I'm floored by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    I honestly thought he was innocent until now.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:well, I'm floored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're serious? Did you read the interviews, or any of the evidence presented? The defense was incredibly flimsy, and he was incredibly shady, in both the way he acted and the alibi he gave. I respect the guy's work, but I've been pretty convinced of his guilt all along.

    2. Re:well, I'm floored by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      agreed, the defense was flimsy, but the prosecution was equally flimsy presenting nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  68. Sociopath? Idiot? A bit of both? by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    Goddamnit, Hans. Why would you do such a thing (this whole murder thing, not the bargaining)? Killing a person is a monumentally stupid way of resolving a problem. We knew you had personal problems, but damn... couldn't you have just gotten a divorce like most people?

    1. Re:Sociopath? Idiot? A bit of both? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Outside of ReiserFS and his programming abilities, how much do you know about the guy?

      I read quite a bit of detailed information on the case--probably more than most people. Hans was a messed up individual, from the time he was a teenager. Possibly brilliant, but mostly an accident waiting to happen.

      I feel sorry for the kids. I hope they'll be OK.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  69. Re:Whatever by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    None of that justifies killing her. Only someone with an over-inflated ego would think otherwise.

    Also, she had gone out and gotten herself a decent job to support herself and their children. Sounds like a responsible mother to most of us.

    Plus in the end, his filesystem ends up a dead end because it's now unsupported.

  70. Have to repent for the sin... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Why didn't he wait, maintain his innocence and try to come out of jail early? What does it mean 15-to life? Can he come out early for good behavior?

    The penal system expects remorse for one's crime as the first step towards rehabilitation. Holding to one's innocence, thus, doesn't get you anything, because you haven't taken any steps towards your rehabilitation....

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Have to repent for the sin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which really sucks if you ARE wrongly imprisoned. I've been wrongly accused of stuff (though not imprisoned) in the past, and until the woman in question was unmasked as a complete psycho, I got a lot of "how can you sit there so emotionlessly? Have you no remorse?" - well, gee, because I didn't fucking do anything, no.

    2. Re:Have to repent for the sin... by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      That's so fucked up, isnt' it? Hold the innocent with standards longer than the guilty with nothing other than wanting to save their own ass. Jail doesn't rehabilitate shit, so this makes no sense to me.

      s//\%\@\#\$/gi;

    3. Re:Have to repent for the sin... by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hold the innocent with standards longer than the guilty with nothing other than wanting to save their own ass.

      No, the idea is that the innocent are acquitted at trial, and are not held at all. The moment the judge reads the guilty verdict, the system switches from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. The penal system is concerned only with your punishment and correction. It has to be this way: if we treated every prisoner as a possible innocent, we'd have to let 'em all go free, or give them an endless series of new trials on demand. Unlike the *court* system, the *penal* system must proceed from a presumption of guilt, or it's useless. Useless as a deterrent, useless as rehabilitation, useless as incarceration.

      Of course, there *are* innocent people in jail. But your problem is not with the penal system, it's with a trial system that occasionally imprisons innocents. No doubt that's a problem, but you're shooting at the wrong target.

  71. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

    ...and stored extra copies of bits of his wife in multiple locations so a full recovery of her corpse is possible in case of wild animals.

    ...so the actual time of death can be recovered from the assault logs.

    ...she can be definitively identified by DNA without CRC errors in a genome.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  72. most appropraite tag EVAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    storage

  73. It's the new way by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    All you do is convict everyone and eventually they'll admit their guilt.

    Oh wait, I think they used to do that in the 16th century, never mind.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:It's the new way by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      If I'm innocent I can show people where a body is? Wow. There must be a god to have that sort of magic exist.

    2. Re:It's the new way by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      huh?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:It's the new way by Entropius · · Score: 1

      They do it today too...

    4. Re:It's the new way by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      All you do is convict everyone and eventually they'll admit their guilt.

      This suggests that Reiser is innocent and has only now confessed because he was convicted, not because he really is guilty.

      Except he somehow knew where the body was. If he's innocent AND now only knows where the body is because he was convicted, that's magic. And thus if there is magic, there must also be a god.

    5. Re:It's the new way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:It's the new way by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      No.. it suggests that you don't need evidence to convict someone.. just convict everyone and you'll find out if they're guilty because they'll soon confess if you make it game-theoretically advantageous to do so. Back in the 16th century they'd torture you until you did and they'd be happy with that. Now-a-days they cut you a "deal" if you do. The problem with both theories, as valid as they are, is that the innocent have no way out. We can never let them go because they can never show they are innocent, they can only show they are guilty.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  74. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember to enable soft updates before executing this plan.

  75. Oh Great... by MacOSXHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Murder your wife and get a reduced sentence for showing authorities where the body of the dead mother of your children are?

    15 years for murder?

    This is insane. He should get life. Period.

    I hope his children are kept safely away from him.

    1. Re:Oh Great... by Dmala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that it's 15-to-life. He's eligible for parole in 15 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll let him go. Given the vicious and cold blooded nature of his crime, I'd be surprised if they don't keep him a lot longer than 15. Also, I've got to think that a skinny, white, computer geek with poor social skills is going to do some *very* hard time. I suspect even 15 years is going to seem like a very long time for him.

    2. Re:Oh Great... by MacOSXHead · · Score: 1

      Do not know the guidelines in CA these days, but the killer and sex fiend in VT is a good reason to be concerned about minimum sentences. He got out early, and now a girl is dead.

    3. Re:Oh Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 years for murder?

      This is insane. He should get life. Period.

      For a long time it wasn't very clear what Reisers involvement was and a lot of doubt about his guilt. The prosecution has to prove guilty beyond all reasonable doubts.

      Without the body, or even solid evidence, there's always the chance that the jury might find him not guilty. So your options are

      • Go for life, with a certain possibility of the jury finding him not guilty, at which point he can't be tried again
      • Make a deal, get him for 15 years for sure.

      It's not ideal, but I for one am glad that the last shadows of doubt about the guilt have been removed.

    4. Re:Oh Great... by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what? Extremely few murderers are repeat offenders. Drunk drivers, on the other hand, or drug users, thieves, etc., should, if your point was valid at all, be locked up for life. No, your point is just a strawman so that you don't have to argue your actual point of view, which is pure, common vindictiveness.

      Law, however, isn't about revenge.

  76. Re:Still could be innocent by jmahler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While there ARE certainly plausible ways that he could have been not guilty AND known where the body is, I would imagine that if he was innocent and knew where the body was that he would, oh, I don't know.... maybe.... CALL THE POLICE AS SOON AS HE KNEW WHERE THE BODY OF HIS DEAD WIFE WAS.

    I mean, if it was me, I'd be trying to find all of the evidence to clear my name that I could - and if I hadn't done the killing, you better believe I'd be demanding the police go all CSI on her body and the crime scene before we even get to the point of me being arrested. The fact that he knew where the body was and kept quiet is an indicator to me of intent.

    And while indicative of intent, it is not further proof of his guilt. At least it DOES bring closure to the family of the deceased.

  77. Who the hell modded parent down? by greenguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This AC is spot-on. I wouldn't go so far as say we need to raise money, but I do think Slashdotters should be aware that if they ever stumble across Hans and Nina's kids, they deserve a little extra consideration.

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:Who the hell modded parent down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kids are off in Siberia or somewhere. Nice thought, but you know you aint going to run into them at the supermarket.

    2. Re:Who the hell modded parent down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The kids are in Russia.

      In Soviet Russia, Hans' kids stumble across you!

    3. Re:Who the hell modded parent down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This AC is spot-on. I wouldn't go so far as say we need to raise money, but I do think Slashdotters should be aware that if they ever stumble across Hans and Nina's kids, they deserve a little extra consideration.

      And the children of Jerusalem and Israel don't? How many of them are murdered every year in the name of Islam?

      The truth is, lots of people's parents are murdered. Lots of people are victims of other wrongdoings. People grow, and get over it. I feel sorry for those kids, but they are no worse off than a whole lot of other people who have been through some tough shit.

    4. Re:Who the hell modded parent down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the children of Jerusalem and Israel don't? How many of them are murdered every year in the name of Islam?

      Not nearly as many as are murdered every year in the name of Zionism.

  78. Google Maps anyone? by nukeade · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article, the location where he dumped Nina must be approximately here:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.833531,-122.182109

    ~Ben

    1. Re:Google Maps anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, great, this has now become a rather grotesque version of Geocaching.

    2. Re:Google Maps anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that he is a leading file system scientist, I wonder if his choice of sites can be seen as more clever than, say, that of executives or dentists who have attempted similar.

    3. Re:Google Maps anyone? by pbrown280 · · Score: 1

      And just think, when the Google street view dude was snapping the shots along that road, her body was down in the ravine...

      *shudder*

    4. Re:Google Maps anyone? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      That's right in the area where I expected they'd find it, thanks.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    5. Re:Google Maps anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creepy to think I rode my bike up Pinehurst Rd. and along Skyline countless times in the past couple of years...

  79. Re:Shows a problem in the low-end FOSS model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The argument has no merit, mainly for the fact that any software company has to contend with this everyday. I bet Microsoft has tons of stories to tell on this subject alone. The only difference between closed source and open source is that the software can continue either through a fork or through furthering efforts within the organization supporting the project. Inside a closed source environment, more than likely no one will hear about that software ever again. Either that or their competitor absorbs their market share. Abandonware is a pain but to think that public demand will not be met is absurd.

    What's sad about this situation is the Hans Reiser was a Berkeley grad so he wasn't some whimsical volunteer. There's a lot of support from a lot of well respected and highly educated individuals. Some profit from FOSS and some are trying their best to improve quality of life for everyone else. So I think you don't know what you are talking about and have no clue to the entire business model that the FOSS community supports.

  80. Re:Still could be innocent by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.

    And if you admitted as much to the cops, and testified to such in court, the district attorney would likely seek no more than manslaughter.

    Crimes committed in the heat of passion, when the murderer is truthful with the police and penitent, aren't always prosecuted as a capital crime. To do so costs the state much more.

    Hans Reiser insisted on lying about every aspect of the disappearance of Nina Reiser from the moment he was questioned by police. The DA had no choice but to prosecute it as a murder case - and given the facts in evidence, he was convicted because he made a lot of stupid mistakes - typical for someone who commits a crime of passion and then thinks they can cover it up because they're so much smarter than the 'average bear'.

    If Reiser had even pled guilty and recanted his story after lying to the police and being arraigned for murder, he might have gotten off with a much lighter sentence for murder. But he waited until the sentencing phase, after he'd lied to the court.

    No, Hans was so much smarter than everyone else. Now he's going to go to prison for 15-to-life - and lying to the court as Reiser did means his parole hearings aren't going to go well for him, if he even survives 15 years in prison.

  81. Re:Still could be innocent by fractalVisionz · · Score: 1

    This isn't the movies.

  82. Re:Shows a problem in the low-end FOSS model by corsec67 · · Score: 1

    Whereas a commercial software (FOSS or not) will make things easier by ensuring support for the stuff they give out.

    Why?

    What if ReiserFS had been closed source, costing $$$? Then when this happened, not only would support from Reiser cease, nobody else could continue development or support due to the closed source.

    Companies are not immune from going out of business.

    As it is now, Canonical, Red Hat, Novell, or any of the other commercial open source companies could pick up ReiserFS and keep going with it. That would be much harder to do with a closed source program.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  83. Oblig. Simpsons ref. by mfnickster · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Reiser was less of an asshole during his trial he would have literally gotten away with murder

    Yes, I remember it well... particularly when he jumped up and shouted:

    "It's chowdah! CHOWDAH!! Say it RIGHT!!!"

    "I'll kill you-- I'll kill all of you, especially those of you in the jury!!!"

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  84. No one has asked it? by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1

    Won't somebody think of the children?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  85. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only on fucking slashdot does the one guy who offers a rational opinion NOT get modded up. So far the first page of comments is mostly jokes and inane - "I'd murder the bitch too" remarks - all getting modded up.

    Assholes, this is a real person with a real family, not some fucking Manga or Anime or video game.

  86. Re:Still could be innocent by sgbett · · Score: 1

    If they would only just replay the journal...

    --
    Invaders must die
  87. Body -- big deal. I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where he hid the passenger seat of his car.

  88. Re:Still could be innocent by Nar+Matteru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't prove he's guilty. He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence. I still have faith that the real story will come out.

    He is the O .J. Simpson of nerds. We can't believe he's guilty because he's one of us.

  89. Re:Still could be innocent by chinakow · · Score: 1

    Will he meet Morgan Freeman in jail and then con the warden out of a bunch of money and get locked in solitary for playing a record of some Italian women singing?

  90. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's UNPOSSIBLE!

  91. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    There are two archetypes of nerds, which oddly parallel serial killer archetypes: disorganized and spontaneously creative vs organized and methodically calculating.

    The M.O. he demonstrated in the crime indicates the disorganized type.

    If he were the methodical type, his crime might not have even been noticed.

    There's nothing serial about killing your wife because she cheated on you with your best friend.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  92. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The M.O. he demonstrated in the crime indicates the disorganized type.

    You want to delve into psychopath vs. sociopath types here. Psychopaths are the calculating, detail oriented types (who usually get away with crimes), and their goal is to end up in a position of authority (aim to become Judges/Surgeons or Militarymen etc. where they can decide fate of others). Sociopaths on the other hand plan less meticulously, more prone to jumping from one crime to another, like say a psychopath with ADD.

  93. Re:Still could be innocent by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have no idea why you were marked Troll. In Italy, this is called "a crime of passion", and permitted in certain circumstances (not that I condone it).

  94. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It didn't always compile.

  95. "Repay his debt" by trawg · · Score: 1

    I know one of the tenets of the legal system putting people in jail is so they can repay their debt to society. There's obviously a lot of debate about whether this happens, but maybe in this case a good option would be to give him a PC and let him spend the next 15 years writing open source software.

    Arguably if he enjoys doing it it might not be the punishment everyone would hope he could get, but at least the rest of society might benefit from his work while he's in there - something that's quite a bit different from the normal number-plate-stamping idea of prison productivity.

  96. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by xbytor · · Score: 1

    Disorganized serial killers don't usually have long careers. They usually get caught because they've made a mistake. The true psychopaths are tend to be organized.

  97. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by springbox · · Score: 1

    Yay! An intelligent human!

  98. Sentenced by noric · · Score: 1

    to work on ReiserFS 24/7 for the rest of his natural life.

  99. Anyone think by mrcparker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that Hans didn't do it still? I bet there are still a few.

    Well, he still wrote a damn good filesystem

  100. Reduced sentence inappropriate by uncqual · · Score: 1

    The prosecutor represents "the people" collectively - not specifically the individual victims of crime (and, even less the victim's families). It is inappropriate for the prosecutor to plea bargain punishment down in exchange for information to help provide "closure" for the victim's family after the conviction. As a result of such plea bargaining, criminals can manipulate the system to get lighter sentences which in turn reduces the deterrent effect of the law enforcement and criminal justice system for which we all pay.

    If limited evidence reduces the chance of a conviction and the suspect confesses (and can prove they did it) in exchange for a plea bargain, that may be appropriate.

    (Now, if Hans had requested a cell mate other than Bubba who's pursuing a mail order degree in proctology, it might be alright with me if Hans was informed that revealing the location of his body might get his request more serious consideration -- or at least a few coupons good for Vaseline at the prison commissary).

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    1. Re:Reduced sentence inappropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firstly, even though the prosecutor represents the people and the case is "The People vs. Hans Reiser" and not "Estate of Mrs. Reiser vs. Hans Reiser", the people can certainly choose to give a lighter sentence in exchange for some consideration for the victim. It is common in criminal cases of theft or embezzelment to consider whether the convicted has made an attempt at repaying the victim when sentencing.

      It's probably also true that some prosecutors zeal for "victim's rights" is essentially an institutionalization of revenge.

      Secondly, the prosecutor may have felt that without the body, Hans was likely to be free in 5 or 10 years anyway, when his case made it upwards through appeals.

      Finally, your remarks about using protection from rape to extract concessions from prisoners lowers you to the level of those who run Guantanamo and Abu Grahib. You should aspire to a higher standard of behaviour than that.

  101. Did you mean mad? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Good luck? The man is a fucking murderer. I don't care if he's fucking Linux God and able to write programs just by looking at them, he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

    It makes me sad too, it makes me sad that he did it, it makes me sad that he thought he could get away with it, it makes me sad that he actually used the "I'm too smart to know what I did" defense

    You don't sound sad.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  102. Open Source from prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if he will be allowed to contribute to open source from prison? Repay his debt to society with code. Or maybe his code would kill us all.

  103. reduced sentence? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I really don't understand is he gets to hold her location out like a trophy and then his reward is a better sentence? He did the time, he was convicted, who gives a rats ass if he lead them to the body (sentence wise). Were they afraid of an appeal? Or is just giving the closure to the family somehow outweighing him being in jail longer?

    1. Re:reduced sentence? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      i meant, he did the crime...

    2. Re:reduced sentence? by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Or is just giving the closure to the family somehow outweighing him being in jail longer?

      Basically, yes. Sucks that they had to reduce his sentence to give the family closure, but in the end I think it was worth it to do so. The absence of a body and the lingering doubt about her death would only compound the pain he caused them in the first place.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:reduced sentence? by Dmala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also keep in mind that his sentence is not necessarily any shorter. He gets to go before the parole board ten years sooner, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll just let him go. A gangbanger who's in for killing a rival gang member can get rid of his tats, get his GED, take job skills courses, and prove that he's ready to be a productive member of society. I think Hans will have a much harder time proving to the parole board that he's not a danger to society.

    4. Re:reduced sentence? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      It's also a way for the Court to quelch critics who would still be saying 'where's the body! She could be in Russia!'

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    5. Re:reduced sentence? by Hugonz · · Score: 1

      Well, it's the only kind of reparation the injust court system allows: closure.

  104. The same thing happened to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > these kids' mother is dead, their father is going away for a long time and they are going to be the ones bearing one of the heaviest burdens in this particular case.

    Funny thing, that. I had pretty much the same thing happen to me (dad kills mom for essentially no reason, insanity defense very much on the table). IMHO, my brother & I turned out okay. I just wish that Hans had gotten life in prison. I doubt the kids will be too eager to see Hans when he's released. I haven't seen dad since the trial.

    In the incredibly off chance that someone here knows those kids, I can offer just one piece of advice: don't avoid them. If they're anything like me, they'll keep to themselves even more than usual. So don't leave them alone all the time.

    Being that alone sucks and you can't help but feel empty after something like this.

  105. Re:Still could be innocent by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nina got in the way of Hans' incredibly HUGE ego. It's that simple, very little "pop" psychology needed.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  106. reduced sentence, to 15 years by smchris · · Score: 1

    Well, not so clueless an otaku after all that he can't negotiate.

    Figured. He'd have stolen the gold from OJ and Robert Blake if the jury did not commit because leading the police back to the badly-cleaned bloody car certainly "implied" the glove fit.

  107. Excellent journalling by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Funny

    So after all this time, with all the shenanigans that went on, he can recover her body? Talk about a robust journalling algorithm !

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  108. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He is the O .J. Simpson of nerds. We can't believe he's guilty because he's one of us.

    "IF I did not do it", a replay

  109. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by uncqual · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I guess we will have to wait for the autopsy and DNA analysis to see if there's any evidence that Hans had mounted her shortly before or after her murder.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  110. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apostrophes have their place, too.

  111. Re:Still could be innocent by markov_chain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ohyes oh yes oh yes oh yes

    They both reached for the gun!

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  112. Re:Whatever by PNutts · · Score: 0

    For similar reasons, I kinda doubt he'll be returning to Slashdot. Or at least, not with his current login.

    You mean there's a lower number available???

  113. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  114. Better put him in the closet by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that an R. Kelly video?

  115. Walking the fine line next to Godwin by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    There is something very morbid about using the work of a murderer.

    Just because Nazis killed innocent Jews to discover the best way to save someone from hypothermia (put them in a naked pile with warm living bodies under a good blanket) doesn't mean you don't use the technique (or its' less homoerotic technological equivalent).
    You just hope it saves more lives than it cost to figure it out (in needlessly cruel experiments).

    This guy murdered his wife, and told his kids their mommy had abandoned them. He deserves all the hard times they throw at him, but his work is not a moral being, it's just a tool. Use it for good, that makes it good. Use for wrongs, it'll be bad.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Walking the fine line next to Godwin by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I think the current best way to save someone from hypothermia is to have them hold one of those gloves mentioned here:

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr.html

      And have it set on "heat" rather than "cool". See the last bit.

      Lastly without ex Nazis the USA's aerospace and nuclear tech would not have advanced as fast.

      Those scientists were humans (with good and bad) as well as good tools (good scientists and engineers) used for both good and evil.

      --
  116. 15 to life != 15 years (kdawson == moron) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    nowhere does the artcle sqy a 15 year deal was made.

  117. Re:Still could be innocent by jmahler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or worse, we don't care if he's guilty because he's one of us.

    I'm all for innocent-until-proven, believe me - but he's been PROVEN guilty at this point. Clinging to an idea of his innocence is a weird sort of cognitive dissonance I can't get behind.

  118. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The urge to divide everything into two -- black or white, friend or enemy, capitalism or communism, christian or heathen, disorganized or organized -- is a recognized mental oddity.

    In most cases, there is not only a sliding scale (or shades of grey, if you like), but multiple axes.

    So there are people who divide everything into two, and those who do not?

  119. New meaning to filing system by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    That sure brings new meaning to a filing system. No one would have found it but it was just off the road. I wonder if the ReiserFS is like that or is it really any good? What will come of it no that it's more notorious than Linux?

  120. Possibility still exists by weston · · Score: 1

    It still seems possible that someone else (say, Sturgeon) killed Nina and for whatever reason Reiser was privy to that detail.

    However, I can't say at this point that I'd be willing to bet on it. Or vote not guilty on a jury.

  121. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I like viewing things as one or the other. That way, everything in life is as entertaining as a football (American football) game.

    USA! USA! USA!

  122. circumstantial going too far by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    that's enough circumstantial evidence to arrest and probably convict somebody in any state in this country.

    If you want to see a great example of circumstantial evidence used to do just that in a horrible way, look no further than The Innocent Man. Half the evidence was based on jailhouse snitches, and it was corroborated by laughably unscientific "hair analysis".

    Or, if you prefer, look at the huge number of supposed murderers and rapists that have sat in jail for decades, whom we're freeing left and right when someone like The Innocence Project finally gets around to paying for DNA analysis.

    Not very surprisingly, the vast majority of these falsely imprisoned people are a)black and b)male.

    1. Re:circumstantial going too far by atraintocry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that for the cases where the Innocence Project gets involved, the problem is not the existence of circumstantial evidence, but that even then the evidence turns out to be highly lacking, highly suspicious, or both.

      That said, the one time I had to show up for jury duty, I wasn't chosen, for saying something like that. After being asked if I felt comfortable handing out a guilty verdict in this particular criminal case, I said "I guess it depends on the evidence". This was my honest response and not a wisecrack. The judge was sort of annoyed and told me that in our state, jurors are instructed to weigh testimony equally with physical evidence. I said something about not being sure I could do that. I was not invited to sit on that jury.

    2. Re:circumstantial going too far by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "jurors are instructed to weigh testimony equally with physical evidence"

      Equally? Wow. I don't trust most people to remember things right - there are so many people out there where when they don't know stuff their brain makes things up AND they don't know they are making things up. They actually believe what they are saying is true. I know so many people who are unreliable that way (they may be reliable and competent in other ways).

      To me testimony has very very low weight unless backed by physical evidence. Or backed by evidence that the person testifying is likely to be telling truth - the sort of person with good memory, pays attention to detail, has integrity and an obsession for telling the truth (e.g. if they murdered somebody and were asked if they did, they'd rather admit to it than tell a lie).

      I've had enough evidence over the years that most people's brains and consciences don't work well enough for me to risk some accused person's life on their "testimony".

      Physical evidence in itself often isn't good enough to know what happened - it depends on what the evidence is.

      Basically if a video recording shows A shooting B, and witnesses who aren't aware of what the video camera said (and thus aren't biased) are also sure that A shot B. Then I'll believe A shot B. But whether A shot B _first_ (which would be interesting for a "self defense" excuse), that could be hard to tell just from witnesses (forensics could help - if the B's gun was not fired recently, then A shot B first).

      --
    3. Re:circumstantial going too far by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      There's circumstantial and there's circumstantial. From all appearances Hans Reiser's case was one where while there was no smoking gun, there was pretty much everything but a smoking gun(a missing person, a motive, evidence of attempting to conceal something, obvious inconsistent behavior from the suspect.

      We weren't talking about some case where someone gets killed and a bloke with the wrong kind of skin color happened to be within the same city as the victim. We're talking about a guy with means, motive, and opportunity, plus just about every piece of circumstantial evidence of wrong doing you can possibly have.

      There are cases where folks get railroaded because someone's got to be guilty, and there are cases where the evidence, while circumstantial is so overwhelming that there's really no other reasonable alternative.

      When he leads you to the body it's not even circumstantial anymore. Hans Reiser killed his wife, why exactly he killed her, we may never know, he may have had any number of reasons to do so, possibly even some that people on slashdot would find reasonable, possibly even reasons a jury would find reasonable.

      None of that really matters because it seems pretty evident he killed her, attempted to conceal the crime, and then lied under oath about what he did, you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore under those circumstances.

    4. Re:circumstantial going too far by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      The judge was sort of annoyed and told me that in our state, jurors are instructed to weigh testimony equally with physical evidence. I said something about not being sure I could do that. I was not invited to sit on that jury.

      That's exactly what people in this thread are arguing. The jurors had to weigh the physical evidence of the blood found in Reiser's car versus his (ineffective) testimony on how it got there. The judge is saying you can't send someone up just because there's a blood spot or a dead body.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    5. Re:circumstantial going too far by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. I think the problem is that the court can't instruct the jury to give extra consideration to a particular piece of evidence, even if it seems to deserve it. As a juror, you're expected to make up your own mind, but you have to begin by considering each piece of evidence as it is presented. Check this out:

      Instructing jury...held improper by appeals court

      Man rapes woman, confesses to it in jail, at which point DNA evidence collected at the scene is found to match up with his. The defense successfully appeals his conviction because the court instructed the jury that DNA evidence was "reliable" and thus seemed to favor it over other evidence.

      In my mind, as long as the proper lab procedures are followed (no one dropped a pizza slice onto the sample, etc), DNA evidence is beyond reliable. Applying Bayes' theorem, even starting from the idea that the person was probably innocent, you still get odds in the area of 10^5 or 10^6 to 1. In geek terms: six nines. Where else in life can you be *that* sure of something?

      In any case, if you want to sit on a jury, keep your responses limited to yes and no. Jurors are the most important and powerful people in the courtroom, but everything goes more smoothly for the lawyers if they pack the jury with people who aren't the question-asking type. People who will convict someone on an eyewitness testimony and the fact that he didn't shave before the trial, or let someone off because he seemed nice. This makes the lawyers' job easier.

  123. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  124. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
    "The urge to divide everything into two -- black or white, friend or enemy, capitalism or communism, christian or heathen, disorganized or organized -- is a recognized mental oddity."

    Strange - you've just described conservatism (at least the American strain of it...)

    --
    This space available.
  125. Sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel pretty sick.

  126. Re:Still could be innocent by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

    Shawshank Redemption?

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  127. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's his current login?

  128. Re:Still could be innocent by DustyShadow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't the manslaughter vs. murder decision usually given to the jury?

  129. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "..it is not further proof of his guilt.."

    So..how's that hole your head is stuck in?

  130. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    Yes, things are *never* black and white, they are *always* complex. Brilliant.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  131. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The urge to divide everything into two...is a recognized mental oddity.

    If you are saying the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is bogus...well, I agree. Not that you'll change my mom's mind with reasoned, cogent explanations.

  132. Soap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know if they wanted Hans to come clean they could have just used Lava soap a long time ago.

  133. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by JanneM · · Score: 1

    "There's nothing serial about killing your wife because she cheated on you with your best friend."

    He might remarry when he gets out.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  134. I'm sure he will 'die' in prison. by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    Soon he'll get the special visitor that says, "You work us now"

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  135. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because there are two types of problem dividers:
    1) Those that divide everything into two
    2) Those that use multiple (>2) divisions

    You are on the latter...

    5..4..3..2..1 For a reply devoided from sense of humor.

  136. and you think you are better than him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What gives you the right to think you are better than him? Would you have done the same had you been through what he went through?

  137. Re:Still could be innocent by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Funny

    Instead of that, try making ReiserFS NOT a total piece of crap. It sucked, and it always has. Reiser was a huge abusive turd, and so are his fans.

    Now THAT's how to start a flamewar. Amateur.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  138. Re:Still could be innocent by Cecil · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only if that's how the prosecutor decides to handle it, usually because they aren't confident that they have convinced the jury of premeditation, for example. Then they get the judge to instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of the lesser charge if they think it is applicable, but the stronger charge is not.

    The prosecutor can also decide to only attempt to prove manslaughter, whether as part of a plea bargain or for any other reason.

  139. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention, after the trial of OJ, CA WILL NOT let others walk because of a "technicality"; not for a long time I'd say.

    Just ask Scott Peterson about how the evidence was processed and worked ever so carefully. Or maybe, Reiser will get a chance to refurbish computers while he's made someone's bitch, and attempt to relay his side-of-the-story.

    Course, someone may get a chance to interview him soon.

  140. Re:Still could be innocent by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  141. Intruiging, Captain. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    The truly fascinating thing about this case was to see how it polarized geeks everywhere. People had strong opinions, although I suspect that everyone outside the courtroom was relying on indirect information from news reports and opinionated bloggers/forum members to jump to conclusions.

  142. If they have retina scans, ID should be a cinch by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    ...because even decomposed, we know her eye nodes will be recoverable.

    (too soon?)

  143. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Excelsior · · Score: 1

    The M.O. he demonstrated in the crime indicates the disorganized type.

    Are you sure about that? I'm the disorganized type myself, and I can never remember where I've placed the body.

  144. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by Z34107 · · Score: 1

    Absolutely right. You only have to unmount a live filesystem. Can't believe I'd forget something that elementary.

    Wait, what? You were thinking of something else...?

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  145. Look in lost+found. by Binary+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Inode Reiser did it.

  146. reminder: we are all mammals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    best put by a quote from star trek:

    "I exist as pure energy, but you depend on food and water to survive. Frankly, I find it disgusting. Look at you. Look at you! Grinding up bits of plants and animals with your teeth. Secreting saliva to force it down your esophagus into a pit of digestive acids. You can't even stand to think about it yourself. What a repulsive creature you are, constantly shedding your skin and hair, leaving your oily sweat on everything you touch! You think that you are the height of intellect in the universe but you are no better than any filthy animal! And I am ashamed to be made in your image!"

  147. just another murderer by wardk · · Score: 1

    a cold blooded murderer

  148. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by mickeyhill · · Score: 2, Funny

    In most cases, there is not only a sliding scale (or shades of grey, if you like), but multiple axes.

    He used axes? I thought he shot her.

  149. Body was hidden too well for a crime of passion by MikePlacid · · Score: 1

    Article: It was highly unlikely anyone else would have found the body, Du Bois said. "They never would have found it, ever," he said. "It was so obscure, but I admit it was also clever because it was not that far off the road."
    Reiser after conviction: After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he stood, he said, "I've been the best father that I know how." (http://www.sfgate.com/ZBLS)

    It was most likely a first degree (premeditated) murder. Now he will get a second-degree conviction. Well...

  150. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by ari_j · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are only two types of people in the world: Those who see gray areas and those who only see black and white.

  151. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Assholes, this is a real person with a real family, not some fucking Manga or Anime or video game.

    Well when I play "video games" (as you so quaintly put it) I always make sure to imagine that it is a real person with a real family before pulling the trigger!

  152. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two archetypes of nerds, which oddly parallel serial killer archetypes

    Killing you wife does not make you into a serial killer, just a regular killer.

  153. Northy or Southy? by skeptictank · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I hear that Cal prisons are pretty nasty right now. The north calimexs are having a war with the south calimexs. Mrs Reiser could sell his services as an algorithm designer to determine the optimal kill order for G's on the other side; or they may just ass rape him to death.

    1. Re:Northy or Southy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hans has a black belt in judo, he'll survive better than another nerd might.

    2. Re:Northy or Southy? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hans has a black belt in judo, he'll survive better than another nerd might.

      I'm sure a black belt in judo is the surest way to a gang raping in prison. Come on, it's judo. We're talking about prison.

    3. Re:Northy or Southy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he has a friend that knows death yoga!

    4. Re:Northy or Southy? by Machine9 · · Score: 1

      hmmm Chakravanti...? oh wait those aren't real. =(

    5. Re:Northy or Southy? by The+Spoonman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not necessarily. If he's never used it in an actual fight, he'll be overconfident and at a disadvantage. Having studied the arts myself, I've met a lot of people over the years with black belts and other high "degrees" who've had their asses kicked in street fights. The stuff you learn in a dojo is well-controlled and don't necessarily apply in a real fight. That's why I chose a kung fu sufi who insisted on his students competing in local matches with other dojos before advancing them.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    6. Re:Northy or Southy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Judo is probably one of the more useful arts he could have learned. [It's clear that] I'm no expert, but Judo is eminently practical and it emphasizes grappling, which will come in handy in the showers. If you know what I mean.

      Obviously I don't have a whole lot of pity for the guy. I mean, we're all damaged goods. She can be a bitch, and it's still not okay to kill her. Just put her back in the carton they shipped her to you in and pay the restocking fee, don't bury her in the fucking hills.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Northy or Southy? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Umm, when four guys grab you in a real fight, you loose.

      Now, if it was Hollywood and they were attacking one at a time, then he would be awesome.

      In American, martial arts are highly overrated.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Northy or Southy? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Thank you, someone understands the gang part of gang rape. If he's lucky, he'll get raped with a penis. If he is unlucky, a broomstick, or something a little sharper or pointier.

      I don't care what martial arts you know, if several people want to get you, they will. I'm not trying to make fun of prison rape, I'm just saying that judo will most likely be of little use in that environment.

    9. Re:Northy or Southy? by corbettw · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...he'll be overconfident and at a disadvantage.

      Hans Reiser, overconfident? Nooooo.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:Northy or Southy? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to make fun of prison rape, I'm just saying that judo will most likely be of little use in that environment.

      Yeah, and acting like a tough guy cus you know judo will be a huge detriment*, so let's hope that he will finally learn to keep his mouth shut.

      * To put the guaranteed violent gang bang such behavior would bring lightly... I mean holy shit how can we tolerate this in our prisons and act like it's not an 8th Amendment violation if we just let the prisoners do it to each other...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Northy or Southy? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      That's why I chose a kung fu sufi [...]

      I wasn't aware that Islamic mystics taught ancient Chinese martial arts. Good for them.

  154. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by spir0 · · Score: 1

    holy crud. I'm never cleaning my apartment again. no, wait. I'll have to start cleaning my apartment from now on.

    ok, I'm confused.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  155. He would have succeeded in his evil efforts by Scr3wFace · · Score: 1

    "if it weren't for those pesky kids and their dog!" Thanks scoob!

  156. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're correct.

    GP is wrong.

  157. Eat Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think a lot of you slashdot commentors should eat your words on the last Reiser article that made its way up here. You know, the one where you maybe commented that him being convicted w/o a body was awful, and that he was probably innocent, and that it was probably George Bush's fault because we are all living in 1984, and anyone who disagrees with the government can be thrown into jail and locked away forever...even though the fact that you said that, and lived on to post another lame comment about how Microsoft sucks, proves your own point wrong...

    anyways, you guys all suck and i hate slashdot comments!

  158. Re:Whatever by Punto · · Score: 1

    can you imagine the response to his participating in discussion threads on kernel.org?

    you think that the argument "you're wrong and I'm right because you're in jail and I'm not" would fly on the kernel mailing list? I'd like to think not (I'd be curious to find out tho).

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  159. Re:Whatever by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

    ...

    For similar reasons, I kinda doubt he'll be returning to Slashdot. Or at least, not with his current login.

    ....

    damn straight! . . . . . . whoops.

  160. Re:Still could be innocent by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Funny

    IOW: Occam, meet razor.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  161. Body? What Body..??? by bratwiz · · Score: 1

    Body?

    What Body...???

    (blinks)

    Oh, wait a minute-- now I remember, THAT body! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

  162. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you consider the totality of the evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that he did it.

    You're reaching.

  163. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In most cases, there is not only a sliding scale (or shades of grey, if you like), but multiple axes.

    Actually, it sounds like there was a single gun.

  164. Re:Still could be innocent by kjots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't prove he's guilty. He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence. I still have faith that the real story will come out.

    Yeah, because the "I didn't do it but I know where the body is buried" argument will look so good on appeal.

    I will refrain from calling you "Jackass" on the basis that you are taking the piss.

  165. Re:Reiser is a fucking jew fag by renegadesx · · Score: 1

    Twitter?

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  166. Prison Sex by XO · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It took so long to remember just what happened.
    I was so young, vestal then, you know it hurt me.
    But Im breathing so I guess Im still alive
    Even the signs seemed to tell me otherwise.
    Got my hands down, and my head down,
    And my eyes closed, my throats wide open.
    I do unto others what has been done to me.
    Do unto others what has been done to you.
    Im treading water. I need to sleep a while.
    My lamb and martyr, you look so precious.
    Wont you, wont you come a bit closer.
    Close enough so I can smell you.
    I need you to feel this. I cant stand to burn too long.
    Release in sodomy. the one sweet moment Im whole.

    I do unto you now what has been to me.
    I do unto you now, what has been done.
    Youre breathing so I guess youre still alive.
    Even the signs seem to tell me otherwise.
    Wont you, wont you come on up closer.
    Close enough so I can smell you.
    I need you to feel this. I need this to make me whole.
    Relief in sodomy. have you witnessed that blood and flesh can be trusted. i.
    Have you witnessed the blood and, this cant be trusted. i.
    Only this one holy medium brings me piece of mind.
    Got your hands bound, and your head down,
    And your eyes closed, you look so precious now.

    I have found some kind of temporary sanity in this.
    Shit, blood, and come on my hands. Ive come round full circle.
    My lamb and martyr, this will be over soon. you look so precious.
    You look so precious now...

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  167. Re:Reiser is a fucking jew fag by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    Wow. A name troll of a Twitter sockpuppet account (which are themselves mostly name trols). Is this the new way to get back at Twitter?

  168. Re:Justified murder by XO · · Score: 1

    beastiality? Video clips or it didn't happen.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  169. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    That depends upon how many wives you've had.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  170. Re:Still could be innocent by Tekoneiric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why kill her? Why not just join them. :)

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  171. Circumstantial evidence. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Jesus, for a bunch of supposedly smart people a lot of you are fucking retarded. Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? It's not "bad" evidence. Please won't you all stop saying (and I paraphrase) "all they had him with is that bad kind of evidence, that useless circumstantial kind!". It makes you sound horribly stupid.

  172. A deterrant to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you planning on marrying the guy? If not, chances are you really have little to fear from this guy when he gets out in 15 years.

    If you're talking Hannibal Lecter, sure, no deals. In this case, closure for the family is far, far, far more important.

  173. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by jaminJay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are two kinds of people:

    1. Those who like to pidgeon-hole; and
    2. ???
    3. Profit.

    All those that make generalisations ought to be shot.

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
  174. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In a US Criminal court the answer would be: Rarely. Like maybe if the judge and defense attorney were both asleep kind of Rarely.

    A jury given the choice between a greater charge and a lesser charge will almost always convict on the lesser charge. Both when conviction on the greater charge may be more appropriate AND when returning a not guilty verdict may be more appropriate. To the point where a DA with a weak case would LOVE to be able to give the jury a 'middle ground' to compromise on. This is clearly prejudicial to the cause of justice.

    Not to say it doesn't happen but usually a lesser charge will be dismissed in pretrial motions.

  175. misc. thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it sucks that people... sick or otherwise... can end someone else's life and affect so many people, only to get caught up in our bizarre legal system.

    on the other hand, it was a relief to find out that the two helicopters hovering over our house were not watching a fire. they were right on top of us (just north of skyline and ascot, in the hills above montclair).

    we all have our subjective perspectives, and hope crap like this doesn't happen to us.

  176. Prison term is a torture too by MikePlacid · · Score: 1

    I understand your points. I almost agree with them. Problem is - prison is not a resort. Prison is a torture chamber. Torture is (relatively) mild there, but very prolonged. Everything you've written against tortures applies to putting convicts in prisons.

    Well, we can probably outsource torturing. But not to other countries - to murderers themselves. Lock a dozen of them in one chamber - and do not open it again, ever...

    1. Re:Prison term is a torture too by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      It's truly unfortunate our prison system is so bad. A prison could be a neutral place to end your days separated from society, or if you are going to be released possibly reform in a peaceful environment, but unfortunately it is dangerous and usually disturbs the mind more than it rectifies it.

      This is probably bad because the pro-torture/punishment fight reform every inch of the way...and there are plenty of other problems in the world of course.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  177. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, Hans was so much smarter than everyone else. Now he's going to go to prison for 15-to-life - and lying to the court as Reiser did means his parole hearings aren't going to go well for him, if he even survives 15 years in prison.

    So sad. I wonder if they'll make him serve his time in the superblock?

  178. It'll probably still be life by seventhc · · Score: 0

    25 to life
    15 to life
    I don't really see any reduction here, not while the to life is still tacked on there.
    I would have asked for 15 even.

    --
    'sig' deleted due to the stupidity of it's 'nature'
  179. Re:Still could be innocent by linzeal · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because, there is very few things about Italy that could be considered civilized nowadays; we should not try to emulate it.

  180. Prototype of a misanthrope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps in his atheistic world view, morality is subjective. Who decides what is right and wrong?

    Since he decides what it is even though it contrasts with the law of the land - why should he believe in it?

  181. You do not like living with a girl? Divorce her. by MikePlacid · · Score: 1

    Hello? You do not like living with someone? There is such thing as divorce, you know. D-I-V-O-R-C-E. In this century - you can get one pretty easily. Look it up at wikipedia, divorce the poor thing, forget about her forever - and live happily ever after.

    What, you want something else from somebody who is no longer your husband/wife? She is not giving it to you? Why should she - she is a stranger to you after the divorce. What, you can't live without this (unimaginable to me) thing? Kill yourself. Where does killing *her* comes into the picture?

  182. Re:Still could be innocent by The+Bender · · Score: 5, Funny

    You might be wanting the "Post Anonymously" button there, dude...

  183. Re:Still could be innocent by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>I'm all for innocent-until-proven, believe me - but he's been PROVEN guilty at this point. Clinging to an idea of his innocence is a weird sort of cognitive dissonance I can't get behind.

    Yeah, in the previous Slashdot articles on this case, it was bizarre watching people defend him simply because he wrote a filesystem that some of us use. You're right, it is cognitive dissonance, as the human brain has trouble putting a person in two different boxes for Good and Bad.

    Of course, now that he's admittedly guilty, a different mental mechanism will come into play, and half his defenders will post on here that they thought he was guilty all along, and what's weirder, they will actually believe it. Dunno what that phenomena is called - maybe it could be called a false memory.

  184. That's actually twitter himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's a "clever" way to get back at the people who exposed his bullshit.

  185. out in 7 by polyex · · Score: 0, Troll

    At least this will stand as a message to any other adulterous, scheming bitch.

  186. Blood ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said.

    So the blood in the car and in the house were ...red herring ? He was convicted on something which actually did not happen ? (it might also be that the "source" is blowing hot air).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  187. Will the FLOSS community handle this? by Pathway · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Note: I have not been keeping up on the Hans Reiser case, nor have I read the attached articles nor comments.

    So, this kind of brings up a question on how the FLOSS community will handle things in a different situation.

    Let's say Hans gets out in 7 years (Good behavior and all that), and returns to write code, and begins working on Reiser FS version 5. His code is tight, the file system performs fantastically, self heals, does not fragment files, washes the dishes, cleans the clothes, makes coffee... but it's code from a known felon.

    The question is, can the FLOSS community recognize good code from a person who has done bad things? Or will his previous actions dictate what we think of him and any product he creates?

    I hope we can accept the good with the bad. Some people probably will hate Hans forever, and will never accept anything which has his code (let alone anything with his name on it). Others will not care, and will use the code if it fits their needs.

    We shall see.

    1. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I can't speak for the FOSS community, but for myself: I can.

      I don't really care what he did to his wife. It's first of all none of my business and it doesn't affect me. I don't care what someone does in his spare time if his code is good. Yes, it's a pragmatic approach.

      Actually, if he started putting backdoors into the filesystem or created an elaborate scheme to rip the users of his software off, the crime would much rather turn me away from his software than the murder of his wife. Mostly because it does affect me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by ZeroNullVoid · · Score: 1

      as long as I can review the code and ensure it did not get FLOODED with KILL switches where my files would DIE or mostly be REMOVED. I would be perfectly fine using an super system by a felon.
      He could even change is nickname to something morbid and I still would use his system if it could be proven to be more superior for my needs than the current file systems out at the time.
      If we judged mediums by what the creator does, we would not have much of the entertainment or products we have today.
      However to contradict myself a little....
      I am less likely to use his filesystem in the future based off of his actions in court, rather than his actions against anyone. I just cannot trust that after hearing about his performance in court that his code would be any better.
      I believe the FLOSS Community would tend to lean towards a similar conclusion as a whole.
      Something changed in him when the murder was performed and the whole trial which makes me believe he is now damaged.

      I am not trying to state anything saying killing is alright.
      I am just stating that just because mistakes are made does not mean they will be repeated.

    3. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by ledow · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the people whose OS code you use every day isn't that of a convicted felon? Or proprietry code for that matter? How do you know that MS aren't employing convicted felons? Employees may well have to DECLARE that they are of that type, but it doesn't automatically stop employment.

      Personally, I wouldn't shake hands with the man (actually I wouldn't want to be near him for my own personal safety and that of my family) but I don't need to do that to use his code. This is the point of Open Source, nobody cares where the contributions come from (novice, hobbyist, professional, paid-for, etc.) so long as the code is good. It's all about the code.

      Myself, I always found his mailing list postings slightly more than obnoxious and couldn't stand him before all this started, but that doesn't affect the technical work of his code. I'm less likely to choose to pick up his code and run with it if the only person I can ask help from is a person I can't get on with, but that's universal in coding. It's nothing to do with the existence or not of a criminal record.

      That said, I've never used ReiserFS anyway, because it wasn't the default (basically) and the person trying to make it default was brash, rude and plainly horrible.

    4. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe such a vile post was modded 'insightful'.

      You're obviously a completely amoral cretin.

    5. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I know that many people can, I can't. Personally I would prefer it if he had died in prison. But for me it is more personal, my wife and her sister knew Nina.

    6. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      Let's say Hans gets out in 7 years (Good behavior and all that),

      In exchange for the deal, he got 15 years to life (instead of 25 years to life). So he cannot get out after less than 15 years under any circumstances. And after those 15 years, if I understand it right, he'll have to convince a parole board that it would be a good idea to release him. Can you imagine Hans Reiser convincing a parole board of anything? I think he may very well stay locked up for life.

    7. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      he could just commit the code with an alias. sure he would lose his "cred" but on the other hand people wouldn't pester him about his murder.

    8. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There are two ways to look at a situation. With or without emotion.

      I prefer the latter. It gives you the freedom to concentrate on things that matter for you.

      So was it a crime? Yes. Should he be punished for it? Yes. Do I care? Not any more than about the thousand other murder trials that happened so far this year. Why? It does not affect me in any way whether he is found guilty or not, unless it has some sort of impact on his work on reiserfs. Why is that more important to me than whether or not he killed his wife? Because I don't know his wife but I know reiserfs. She is not a viable option as a mate for me, but reiserfs is a viable option as a filesystem.

      If I started to care about every murder victim on this planet that I don't know, I'd go nuts within minutes. It's actually healthy not to do something like that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Will the FLOSS community handle this? by PerpetualStrange · · Score: 1

      > You can take that to the bank. I never want to have nothing to do with Hans ever again. I detest cold blooded murderers with every ounce of my being. You cross that line, you and I are done. So fry his ass!

  188. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anpheus · · Score: 1

    There are even axes to the graph, crazily enough. Plural.

    I divide everything into 3 + 2i bins myself.

  189. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What people seem to forget is that while any one of these things doesn't mean anything by itself, they add up to a bigger picture. People keep trying to deconstruct individual facts. That's not how it works at trial. It isn't a case of "every fact must prove, on it's own, that this happened." They are all considered together. So while there is reasonable doubt for a given fact, there's not when they are all presented together. For example, suppose that someone claims I stole their laptop. They didn't actually see me take it and I don't currently have it, however the following is known:

    --I was the last person seen in the area of the laptop before it was discovered missing.
    --I had no reason to be in that area, and can offer no plausible reason as to why I was.
    --There were security cameras in the area, however I moved in such a way to always avoid their lines of sight.
    --My fingerprints were found around the area where the laptop was prior to going missing.
    --I was was observed carrying a small box, that would hold a laptop from my car back to my house, after leaving the area.
    --I suddenly have an amount of cash consistent with the sale of such a laptop that I can provide no plausible way for getting.
    --I am discovered to have books on the topic of security systems, and removing tracking software from a laptop.
    --Several pawn shop owners said I inquired about the discretion they exercise in relation to goods they buy.

    At some point in there, it becomes pretty clear that I am the guy who stole the laptop. Any given fact on it's own isn't a big deal. Like getting extra money without a good explanation isn't indicative of theft, maybe I just got it in a way I'm not proud of. However taken all together and with no plausible alternative explanation, it really isn't reasonable to doubt that I stole the laptop. Just because I don't have the laptop itself, doesn't mean a jury can't find beyond a reasonable doubt that I did steal it.

    Same deal in the Reiser case. You take all the evidence together and there is very little doubt. Any that remained he did a good job of erasing with his testimony. One of the things juries can certainly weigh is how ceredable the alternative explanations the defense and defendant offer are. If they offer a very credible, plausible explanation, well then that can make reasonable doubt, even in the light of strong evidence. However if they offer extremely unbelievable stories, well then the jury can infer they are lying.

    Part of the problem is people here do the geek extremist thing and start taking ANY amount of doubt to be reasonable. No, that's not how it works. You don't have to prove a case beyond any doubt, because there's always some doubt. I mean there is some doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow. Very, very little, but still some. Just because it has always happened in the past, doesn't mean it will for sure, beyond any doubt, happen in the future.

    So the proof in court isn't about absolutes, it is about reasonable doubt. That means is it REASONABLE to doubt that someone did it. The jury said no, it isn't, and it looks as though they are correct, it wasn't.

    1. Re:Also by ElMiguel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That means is it REASONABLE to doubt that someone did it. The jury said no, it isn't, and it looks as though they are correct, it wasn't.

      How does it "look as though they were correct"? The fact that a conclusion is found to be true doesn't do anything at all to prove that the conclusion was arrived at correctly. The jury could have flipped a coin and still have got the same result, but that doesn't mean that flipping a coin would then be vindicated as a good way of choosing a verdict.

    2. Re:Also by MythMoth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Great explanation. Some words by Dorothy L. Sayers on the subject of reasonable doubt:

      You may perhaps wish to hear from me exactly what is meant by the words "reasonable doubt". They mean, just so much doubt as you might have in everyday life about an ordinary matter of business. This is a case of murder, and it might be natural for you to think that, in such a case, the words mean more than this. But that is not so. They do not mean that you must cast about for fantastical solutions of what seems to you plain and simple. They do not mean those nightmare doubts which sometimes torment us at four o'clock in the morning when we have not slept very well. They mean that the proof must be such as you would accept about a plain matter of buying and selling, or some such commonplace transaction. You must not strain your belief in favour of the prisoner any more, of course, than you must accept proof of her guilt without the most careful scrutiny.

      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    3. Re:Also by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Of course, the context in the story is that your quote portrays a judge who is deliberately biasing the jury in favor of conviction... so maybe that isn't the best explanation to use...

      I agree with GP, however.

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    4. Re:Also by MythMoth · · Score: 1

      your quote portrays a judge who is deliberately biasing the jury in favor of conviction

      I think not:

      "A beast, but a just beast"

      In the story the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The various dissenters base their opinions on intuition (Wimsey) or the character of the accused(the jury members who force the retrial).

      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    5. Re:Also by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Not great.

      On close reading this seems to be painfully close to the standard of proof "on balance of probabilities" usually applied in civil cases. Heck, "plain matter of buying and selling, or some such commonplace transaction" confuses even more.

      In the end, what constitutes "reasonable" doubt can't be precisely defined. That's why there's a jury system, so that the standards of "normal" people could be applied. We all know that jury selection could be a contentious matter though.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  190. Also some misogyny by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There were some posts that contained it outright, others that you could see it in the subtext. It is something not surprising since there are an above normal amount of people here who have trouble dealing with women. It leads some of those people to dislike and distrust women. They believe Hans simply because they find it more likely that a woman would screw over a man than vice versa. Now combine that with the OSS hero status and you really have a situation that blinds them to the facts.

    I think you'd find that had the situation been reversed (Nina killing Hans) that there would have been no doubt in their minds she was guilty, in no small part because of her gender.

    1. Re:Also some misogyny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because prejudging someone (such as, oh I don't know, assuming most geeks can't handle interacting with women) is wrong.

    2. Re:Also some misogyny by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      They believe Hans simply because they find it more likely that a woman would screw over a man than vice versa.

      Strictly speaking, I find it more likely that a Russian woman would screw over an American software engineer than vice versa.

      I dunno, there's just something about Russian culture that instills a mercenary attitude, particularly when they emigrate, particularly women. In Russia it's probably a survival instinct. In America, it simply translates to someone I would never, ever count on having my best interests at heart, ever.

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    3. Re:Also some misogyny by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand the difference between a generalization grounded in experience and outright bias leading to judgement against an individual - well, you should learn the difference.

      If he had said that Reiser must have been guilty because geeks can't deal with women, you'd have a point. He didn't and you don't.

    4. Re:Also some misogyny by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, the sort of people who would advertise their marital availability to men who don't speak their language, from another culture, whom they haven't met who just happen to be living in the wealthiest country of the world are probably the most mercenary subset of people you could imagine.

      In other words, anyone who gets a mail-order bride shouldn't be surprised when they don't exactly get a soul-mate.

    5. Re:Also some misogyny by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Various studies on US Divorce rate show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage, divorce rate in America.

      * Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
      * US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
      * After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%

      According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US.[12] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper.

      Evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.

      In their study titled "Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US," Kuhn and Guidubaldi find it reasonable to conclude that women anticipate advantages to being single, rather than remaining married.

      REFERENCES:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce http://www.aboutdivorce.org/us_divorce_rates.html

      It is something not surprising since there are an above normal amount of people here who have trouble dealing with women. It leads some of those people to dislike and distrust women.

    6. Re:Also some misogyny by macsox · · Score: 1

      Mod parent 'disgusting'.

  191. Re:what about Nina? Was she of good character? by Tatsh · · Score: 1

    Must get these out of my system. ./configure --without-nina
    KILLNINA=1 make

    man nina
    Formatting page, please wait...

    Nina is this bitch that must DIE! -- Hans Reiser

  192. the answer was "yes" or "no". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The jury had as good odds of getting the right verdict as a coin flip.

  193. Re:Still could be innocent by menace3society · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of people probably wanted Hans to be innocent because he's part of the "tribe", but if you look back, the evidence against him was a bit shakyâ"mostly circumstantial, plus the testimony of a nutcase who said he murdered eight other people. And let's not forget the procession of other men Nina had been in contact with, any one of whom could have been an internet stalker.

    He was found guilty anyway, and now he's come clean, so I guess it was the right verdict. But that doesn't mean everyone who thought he was innocent in the past was experiencing cognitive dissonance, only that they weren't on the jury.

  194. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because they're so much smarter than the 'average bear'.

    You do know that this 'technical expression' is from Yogi...?

  195. Re:Still could be innocent by hbuttle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "In Italy, this is permitted in certain circumstances"

    IANAL, but as an italian this is what i know:

    up to the seventies there was a law (number 587) on "honour killing", where you could kill your wife if they were having an affair and you would get a much reduced sentence because you were defending the honour of your family.

    for the same reason you could somewhat get away with killing your wife if she just was behaving in an unappropriate way, or your sister if she was dating an undesirable man or if she lost her virginity before the wedding.

    but it was even worse than that: when divorce was socially unacceptable (and legally forbidden) this law was used by some also to just get rid of their wife (as depicted in the movie "divorzio all'italiana").

    this law was more popular in southern italy and in rural areas, but it was not the only one:

    you could also beat your wife to "educate" her (ius corrigendi).

    a raped woman could be forced to marry their raper (as depicted in the movie "sedotta e abbandonata)"

    contraception was strictly forbidden.

    and so on.


    but NOW the italian law, while still lacking, is not as bad as some decades ago. if you commit a crime of passion you get a sentence for manslaughter or something like that.

  196. good recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank god I was running ReiserFS. I accidentally deleted nina.wife but thanks to the fs' recycle bin I was able to recover the file (renamed nina.corpse).

    1. Re:good recovery by malevolentjelly · · Score: 1

      I wish I could high five you over the internet.

  197. Re:Still could be innocent by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I'm not so sure if the police was the first place I'd call when I find the body of my wife with me being one of the hottest suspects. You exhibit knowledge that you have a hard time explaining, unless it was actually really you.

    Just because they always find out everything in CSI doesn't mean it's even remotely like that in real life. In my experience the police is first of all interested in closing a case, and only then to find out what really happened. So expect them to find a lot of evidence pointing at you.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  198. Re:Still could be innocent by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's pretty much it. I don't care if he killed her. What matters is, will the development of reiserfs continue?

    Call me egoistic, but whether his wife is alive or dead, murdered by him or someone else, has no influence on my life. Whether reiserfs is an option as a filesystem, does.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  199. Before He Goes to Jail... by Greyfox · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Could he also please lead police to the files of mine he killed back in the 90s? The murder weapon, let it be read into the public record, was ReiserFS.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  200. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by menace3society · · Score: 1

    No, there are people who divide some things but not others into two groups, and people who divide things into two groups sporadically.

    It's like the Epimenides paradox ("All Cretans are liars", says Epimenides, who is a Cretan). A liar doesn't lie all the time, only when it suits him. If a liar had to lie all the time, his deception wouldn't be very effective because everyone would know he was lying.

    One telling of the story of Hercules has him match wits with Nereus, the Old Man of the Sea, who has a reputation for lying but cleverly tells two true statements to Hercules, who then falls for the third one when it turns out to be a lie.

  201. Re:Still could be innocent by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Part of it is the feeling that someone with asperger's may not be treated fairly by the court system. Something that seems rational to an aspergers sufferer, such as buying a book on police investigations when you're under police investigation, makes you look guilty.

    In this case Hans is guilty - but up until now, I wasn't *certain* he hadn't been railroaded by a justice system ill suited to dealing with those who think differently to the majority.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  202. He's not one of us by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Funny

    We can't believe he's guilty because he's one of us.

    No he's not one of us, he had a wife. Hand in your geek card on the way out.

    1. Re:He's not one of us by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Ian Murdok has a wife, dipwad!

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  203. or sooner by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    maybe they'll let him code in prison

    no access to the web, but he may be able to successfully request an offline computer for coding purposes

    coding is such a monklike existence anyway, he may actually get a lot of work done in prison

    he could wind up like this guy in terms of being a murdering asshole but still contributing to the world in the realm of scholarly pursuits

    I purchased this book while in London recently under its British title THE SURGEON OF CROWTHORNE. Apparently for American readers, the publishers felt it necessary to "tart up" the title to THE PROFESSOR AND THE MADMAN. Regardless, Simon Winchester's story between the covers is splendidly told, without sensationalising even the most horrific details, revealed matter of factly well into the book. The story is that of Dr. Minor - an American Civil War surgeon - who went mad amid the horrors of "The Wilderness." Pursued by his nightly demons, he later wound up in grim South London where he shot dead a totally innocent man. Sent to Broadmoor - a sprawling lunatic asylum near London - he became one of the most valuable contributors to the compilation of the magisterial Oxford English Dictionary. Winchester recounts - correcting but not spoiling a wonderful story - the meeting between the OED's legendary James Murray and his reclusive contributor. While ultimately Dr Minor's story is a tragic one - not the least for his hapless victim - it is also a tribute to the persistence of the human mind. Cleverly presented with appropriate OED citings, this book is not to be missed for anyone interested in words. If you'll excuse the expression, this is the "definitive" work.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  204. Re:Still could be innocent by westlake · · Score: 1
    He is the O .J. Simpson of nerds. We can't believe he's guilty because he's one of us.
    Br>

    the other side of the coin - and no more attractive - is that when a geek is found guilty of an economic crime - a white collar crime - it always comes as a surprise that he is facing hard time.

  205. Re:Whatever by menace3society · · Score: 1

    Some guy on kernel.org: Will this bug in reiserfs ever get fixed, Hans?
    Reiser: I'm incarerated, Lloyd!

  206. Re:Goddamnit, here they come by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    (sigh) When will people learn? You should NEVER mount something you don't trust anymore. It can really mess up your whole system.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  207. Eeew... by GoddessOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Also, no bleeding episodes in my car were followed up by the removal of half the seats in the car or the washing of the inside of my car.

    ... you didn't clean the blood off? Sounds sticky.

  208. J'accuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure no one will read this or those who do will mod this down to flamebait.

    I don't care.

    I must speak.

    J'accuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J'accuse_(letter)

    J'accuse the majority of people posting on this issue of being ethically and morally challenged. J'accuse the majority of people posting on this issue of making jokes about, making light of, making justifications for, or simply failing to appreciate the true gravity of the cold-blooded murder of Nina Reiser.

    J'accuse the majority of people in this community of blatant, nihilistic elitism on par with Leopold and Loeb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_loeb

    You all will attack me, you will ignore me. I don't care.

    I must speak. I must speak for the dead.

    Even your beloved repository of information shows your bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Reiser.

    All she is is a footnote to her killer's article. As far as you all are concerned she has no life except as a part of his life.

    She had parents and family and people who loved her: people who will cry every day for her.

    And all you collectively care about is your gods damned file system, your clever little jokes and who gets modded up most.

    I abjure http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abjure you. You all are lost. You have no soul. You have no heart.

    In your shallow thoughts about ethics and morals, I'm sure you at least know what karma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma is: it's been referenced in some posts. So remember: some day, you who treat this so lightly will meet a similar horrible fate and others will ignore who you were; make little seemingly clever jokes; maybe even strive to get modded up in their little jokes made about who they thought you were.

    J'accuse the majority of people in this community of inhumanity and being no better (and maybe even worse) than those people you so often claim victimize you and prey on you.

    Shame on all of you.

    In memory of Nina Reiser. Birthdate unknown because I can't fscking find it on the Internet...how's that, eh?

    1. Re:J'accuse by cunina · · Score: 1

      Did you have breakfast this morning?

    2. Re:J'accuse by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      It's a real pity you did that as AC. Thanks.

      A couple of threads up there is a small bit by someone whose dad murdered his mom, for all of those that still don't get it go and read that. It doesn't matter if Hans Reiser wrote code on par with the gods, the disconnect between him being an OSS contributor and a murderer at the same time may be very hard to swallow for some here but people are complex that way.

      Just like some people can not do good in the eyes of the open source community some apparently can't do bad.

      Whatever Nina's shortcomings (and I'm sure there are plenty) she did not deserve to die for them, and her and Hans' children did not deserve to be deprived of both parents.

      From the various bits and pieces out there it seems that these people had serious issues but murder (and then all these attempts to cover it up) was not a solution, only more trouble.

      somebody mod the parent up please...

  209. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don't.

  210. Re:Still could be innocent by Fastball · · Score: 4, Funny

    If the glove isn't 64-bit, you must acquit.

  211. Re:Still could be innocent by mattbee · · Score: 1
    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
  212. Re:Whatever by m50d · · Score: 2, Informative
    http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser

    I can beleive he would still use it.

    --
    I am trolling
  213. It doesn't even stand as deterrent by archeopterix · · Score: 1

    You don't need to throw in the threat of prison rape or violence; the thought of being locked up for a few decades is enough to deter any rational person, and an irrational one won't be deterred by anything.

    I think that prison rape doesn't even stand as deterrent. For big, tough and homosexual folks and for masochistic and homosexual folks it might even be the opposite.

    1. Re:It doesn't even stand as deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because why bother heading down to the gay bar when you could be serving hard time!

  214. nice troll. you got a lot of bites by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    crudely expressing anger at a confessed murderer on an online forum: wrong

    murdering someone: "Maybe Nina had it coming."

    zzz

    don't feed the troll folks. and if this guy isn't actually trolling and actually believes what he wrote, he'll be in jail himself at some point, with those priorities

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  215. Re:Still could be innocent by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    LOL! I'm surprised no one else GOT IT. That's the "defense" used in Chicago (the musical) and they made a song out of it when they tought up the defense's excuse.

  216. Re:Still could be innocent by 1karmik1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you kidding right? There's no such thing as "permitted" homicide. A passional crime here in italy is prosecuted as any other crime and the law provides with some means to take the circumstances into consideration but that's it. Please don't spread misinformed idiocy.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
  217. Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too light by George_Ou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean he killed a human being. I mean the guy could be out of jail in less than 15 years if he gets paroled. His wife's never coming back. The irony of this whole thing is that by proving without a shadow of a doubt that he murdered her, he will get his punishment reduced.

  218. Re:Still could be innocent by Maxmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If he had first-hand knowledge of the murder, and didn't report it, he's subject to accomplice charges. In some jurisdictions, being accomplice to a murder, or even near the scene, can get you charged with murder.

    Case-in-point, Texas has one of the strictest accomplice laws on the books, known as the "law of parties." Kenneth Foster was charged with murder one and given the death sentence for unknowingly (according to his testimony) driving a man to a soon-to-become murder scene. The governor of Texas intervened and commutted his sentence to life in prison. Ridiculous case, if you ask me.

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  219. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

    The theory is neat, but, for instance I'm both. I just vary: sometimes I am one or the other; for some things I am one, and the opposite for others. Sometimes very creative, spur-of-the-moment, unfortunately disorganised; other times very methodical, cautios, calculative, planned, uncreative. To be fair, I would have trouble believing it myself if someone else told me they were like that. And to tell the truth, for most projects I feel that a combination of the two "poles" is most helpful.

  220. The US system is a bit weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone can spend a long time denying a crime, causing lots of money to be spent on a trial, anguish for the family, children etc. and then, once convicted can say 'oh yes, well actually I did do it. I was lying all along' and get a reduced sentence.
    It's such a cynical ploy that he should get a longer stretch rather than less.
    Tsk.

  221. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If his ego was worth a damn, it wouldn't have bought a wife from a russian agency.

  222. Re:Still could be innocent by spir0 · · Score: 1

    ah, faith. civilisations rise and fall on it.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  223. Re:Still could be innocent by spintriae · · Score: 1

    While there ARE certainly plausible ways that he could have been not guilty AND known where the body is

    Of course. It's a simple as
    foremost -t wife -i /dev/hda -o /recovery/foremost
    Surely, Reiser would know this, guilty or not. As to why he didn't try this in the first place, maybe he assumed the real killers shread'd the body instead of simply rm'ing it. Either way, it's been so long that some of the data has surely been overwritten and is therefore unrecoverable.

  224. Best psychic ever? by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    Why would they lock up the guy who found the body by just using his mind? He should win the lottery and use the cash to fight the case.

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
  225. Re:Still could be innocent by stuckinarut · · Score: 1

    Isn't that doublethink? Double plus ungood for missing the chan

  226. Re:Still could be innocent by stuckinarut · · Score: 1

    Sorry looks like you can keep typing whilst the preview loads, it show you what you had when you clicked preview but then submit the lot!

  227. Re:Still could be innocent by fbjon · · Score: 1

    The justice system is designed to deal with criminals, and I would think nearly all criminals think differently to the majority. So he happens to be a little more different than most criminals? Insignificant, IMHO.

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  228. Re:Still could be innocent by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I just caught myself doing exactly that. Strange how the brain works.

  229. Re:Still could be innocent by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While there ARE certainly plausible ways that he could have been not guilty AND known where the body is, I would imagine that if he was innocent and knew where the body was that he would, oh, I don't know.... maybe.... CALL THE POLICE AS SOON AS HE KNEW WHERE THE BODY OF HIS DEAD WIFE WAS.

    Because of course the police wouldn't think it's you, they're all very nice and rational people. They haven't the slightest desire of pinning murder cases on someone who might be innocent, I mean it's not like their job isn't about locking people away and making examples out of them.

  230. Re:Still could be innocent by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is pretty much a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

    Reiser's attorney flat out denied that he had Aspberger's, and Reiser never once raised any sort of mental illness defense.

    Furthermore, his speech skills were fine, he is actually very articulate. I find it hard to believe that he had any sort of autism-related mental illness.

    The myth that every nerd who programs computers has some sort of "cool" mental defect really needs to die. A lot of you are just poorly socialized and stupid, that is all. Like Hans Reiser.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  231. Re:Still could be innocent by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    Ok, you owe me a new keyboard. This one has very sweet tea all over it.

  232. Re:Still could be innocent by houghi · · Score: 1

    I call it a change of mind. I could easily have said he was guilty and now say he is not or the other way around without any problem.

    It is people who never change their minds are the ones who are or should be the odd one out.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  233. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by houghi · · Score: 1

    There are 11 people in the world. Those who know binary and those who don't.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  234. He should have killed her in the UK.. by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

    He'd have got 15years for manslaughter - 50% remission - time spent on remand = about 5years actual time.

    He have got his own cell, 3 square meals, a playstation 3 and a TV.

  235. Re:Northy or Southy? Judo may or may NOT help hans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hans has a black belt in judo, he'll survive better than another nerd might.
    Well let's hope for his sake he knows the martial art rather than JUDO - the Java IDE for Children and Beginning Programmers!!

    I'm sure a black belt in judo is the surest way to a gang raping in prison. Come on, it's judo. We're talking about prison.
    Well going on the wikipedia description of Judo, it's possible that Hans might be the one using it to his advantage:
    "...Its most prominent feature is its competitive element, where the object is to either throw one's opponent to the ground, immobilize or otherwise subdue one's opponent with a grappling maneuver, or force an opponent to submit by joint locking the elbow or by applying a choke. Strikes and thrusts..."

    Still from a defensive pount of view Judo is good at throwing people off your back.... unfortunately though as he will soon discover you can't watch your back all the time particularly not when you've been asked to pickup the soap.... So maybe we will all be refering to "ReiserFS" as "ReiserForcedSex" where Hans is having his own file system journaled rigorously with lots of tail packing to reduce his own internal fragmentation. One thing for sure he will gain a new understanding of terms such as "open sourced", "shareware" and "public domain". I just hope for his sake that he's resolve his fsck issues otherwise he's seriously fsck'd!

  236. Re:Still could be innocent by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is pretty much a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

    Maybe so, but your rebutall is completely illogical.

    Reiser's attorney flat out denied that he had Aspberger's, Reiser never once raised any sort of mental illness defense.

    Then why did he bring multiple witnesses to suggest otherwise?

    Furthermore, his speech skills were fine, he is actually very articulate. I find it hard to believe that he had any sort of autism-related mental illness.

    Shows what you know about Asperger's Syndrome. Being articulate does not rule you out. Those with Asperger's are often highly articulate when talking about their particular areas of focus.

    The myth that every nerd who programs computers has some sort of "cool" mental defect really needs to die. A lot of you are just poorly socialized and stupid, that is all.

    Way to exaggerate there pal.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  237. Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by swordsaintzero · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was one of those who believed him guilty but felt the court case had presented no real evidence.
    I think it's funny that O.j Simpson. A man who without a doubt murdered not just one but TWO people.
    Walked.
    Because he was an athlete. Possibly also because of race issues. Because he was "charming" and did what his team of scum bag lawyers told him to do.
    But a programmer, well we aren't athletes are we?

    Hans murdered her, because he loved his kids and she was taking them away from him. She burned him in every way possible and he finally snapped. It wasn't right but it was something I can understand.
    Welcome to the modern dilemma where all the raw male emotions required to fight for survival and hunt for food have to be caged and ignored in order to be processed by the system like a slab of beef. Guess what sometimes when you hound someone through the courts, fuck his best friend, and try to deny him access to his kids by moving them to russia you might find out that he can only take so much.

    Having been made into weekend daddy/ATM myself I know where the guy was coming from. He just let it off the leash for a few minutes and then scrambled to try to avoid having the rest of his life ruined...
    Some people are only alive because it would be illegal to kill them, and from what I saw of her actions Nina fit that bill.

    All you do nothing hounds who never wrote a line of code, or did anything worth remembering in your entire life clamoring for him to be brutalized in prison, I spit on you. I have had family and friends in prison the shit that will be done to him, it would be kinder to kill him. Last time I checked the sentence was for a number of years not a number of brutal rapes and or infection with aids, hep C, or herpes. Try to familiarize yourself with what you so gleefully wish on another human being. http://www.spr.org/ the survivor stories would probably be a good place to start.

    The man worked his ass off and gave away the fruits of his genius to the world, and because he gave it away he was broke when it came time for him to buy someone like Johnny Cochran ( I neither know nor care how that fucks name is spelled).

    I for one will be sending him 10 or 20 bucks a month to his prison commissary, small things like that can really make a huge difference when you are behind bars. If you enjoyed using his file system, or if you ever found yourself in a bad situation you regret maybe you should too.

    Or at least stop rushing in to point out black and white cats, they are all grey in the dark after all. If you have a problem with what I have to say, please reply.
    ss0

    --
    Panel F, Relay #70
    1. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. Likely the most sensible response in the thread. The line: "Some people are only alive because it would be illegal to kill them," rings true.

      Amazing how the same folks who call for the hanging/castration/arm-breaking of spammers and scammers are now crying "OMFG this is the murder of an innocent person".

      No, this was the murder of a meatspace scam artist. That fact does not make the murder legal. It does not make it pleasant. It does however, make the act more understandable.

    2. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Way to paint the victim as the villain.
      Sorry, but there are enough broken marriages that dont end in a psychopatic idiot murdering somebody.

      If you donate something, than help his children and not the scumbag.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by phorest · · Score: 1

      Johnny's dead like Nina.

      Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.[1] (October 2, 1937 - March 29, 2005) was an American lawyer perhaps best known for his leadership in the legal defense of O. J. Simpson

      --
      God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
    4. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hans murdered her, because he loved his kids and she was taking them away from him."

      Does someone who loves their children murder their mother? Isn't that worse than killing their dog or cat or hamster? (which would generally be considered as pretty severe psychological child abuse).

    5. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Murder is a relatively standard social taboo that applies to both programmers and "nothing hounds who never wrote a line of code." It is a strongly disfavored response even when the victim "hound[s] someone through the courts, [****]'s his best friend, and tr[ies] to deny him access to his kids by moving them to [R]ussia."

      The woman whom you state was "only alive because it would be illegal to kill" her, left behind devastated kids and family. That alone is a good reason for the taboo. However, another reason for the taboo against murder is to discourage people (like Nina's family) from seeking vengeance against those who kill people close to them. Society can unravel very quickly should things like that happen.

      As a programmer, you should realize that you (and Hans) represent a VERY high level abstraction supported by a whole lot of people working cooperatively together to provide you with all the necessaries that enable you to sit at your monitor and type. We all need the social norms and taboos that foster that cooperative effort. Can't you see the irony in your "raw male" argument? Hans did the crime. Hans should do the time. The important taboo against murder should be enforced.

      As an aside, I do not think that you are being rigorously honest with yourself when you say that Hans "just let it off the leash for a few minutes." Do your really believe that he didn't think, obsess, and dwell on about killing his wife before he actually did it? Come on. He stoked his rage, stoked it some more, then acted on it. This is Murder 1, not Murder 2.

      Your intent to support Hans is noble. A healthy support network around him would be a good thing. Just abandon the justification/explanation nonsense. It won't help Hans reintegrate into society and it won't help Society.

    6. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      The proper attitude, I think, would be not to paint anybody as anything.

      Hate to sound like trying to blurt out Zen gibberish, but things that came to be came to be, and there's not much a point (beyond chatter among geeks who are bored) in discussing who's the "good" and "bad" guy/gal.

      Unless brought up in a violent neighborhood, people generally don't kill another unless they are really messed up (psychologically, emotionally, whatever) themselves. And that, deserves some pity, though of course I do not in any sense condone his actions.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    7. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Way to paint the victim as the villain.

      The problem is, if there was anything actually proven in that mockery of a court, it was that Hans was a moderate asshole and Nina was a massive bitch, scammer, embezzler and adulteress who caused nothing but harm to the rest of society -- Hans and her kids included. Too bad, neither of those two facts was relevant to determining the facts of the crime.

      Congratulations, Americans -- your justice system relies on lucky guesses and the hope that less charming people are more likely to be criminals.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    8. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I do not think that you are being rigorously honest with yourself when you say that Hans "just let it off the leash for a few minutes." Do your really believe that he didn't think, obsess, and dwell on about killing his wife before he actually did it? Come on. He stoked his rage, stoked it some more, then acted on it. This is Murder 1, not Murder 2.

      If he actually planned it, he would do something to actively divert the blame from himself before killing her. There was nothing that suggests that he performed any kind of preparation, only things that can be interpreted as Hans clumsily covering his tracks after the fact (or as Hans being afraid for unrelated reasons), so unless police and prosecutor are even dumber than they shown themselves to be, he did not plan it.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by swordsaintzero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They were both villains. What you seem to be missing is Reiser wasn't a psycho killing someone for pleasure or profit. He had nothing to gain from killing her except the ability to see his children. If you put a man in that position why does it surprise anyone when you reap the reward of your efforts. Acting like a shit bag gets you killed if you go to far. quote "Sorry, but there are enough broken marriages that dont end in a psychopatic idiot murdering somebody." One, he may be weird, he may have killed someone, he may not have "horse wisdom" but the man is smarter than you. Or me for that matter, so let's keep the idiot moniker to ourselves ok. You don't know how you would react because you have never been pushed as far as he was. Two, most marriages aren't to russian gold diggers who are taking your children to another country so you can never see them again now that she cleaned you out with the help of your best friend. If you honestly think you could be put in that situation and not have a few red thoughts flit across your mind then I am not sure whether to commend you on your self restraint or pity you for your lack of spine.

      --
      Panel F, Relay #70
    10. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by swordsaintzero · · Score: 1

      way to miss the point. he didn't murder there mother to torture his kids he did it so he could be a part of there lives. Because he is a programmer and not a hit man, he made a complete and utter cluster fuck out of it and now the kids have no one. the SMART thing would have been to not ejaculate in that jackal of a woman to begin with. Unfortunately with some women (and men as well for that matter) it's impossible to tell they are bat shit crazy until the dirty deed has been done.

      --
      Panel F, Relay #70
    11. Re:Bitterly admitting the cynics were right. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      About Hans being smarter, please speak for yourself.
      His choice of female companionship speaks for itself.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  238. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and rhino flies on flowers raining skyes

  239. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you think, another human being is your personal property who has to bow to your will even after friendship or partnership has come to an end, I wouldn't want to be your friend or partner.

    And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.

    "Follow my will or I'll kill you" is not something I would expect from civilized people under the rule of law.

    I admit there may be some moral leeway concerning the constitutional rights of child molesters, dicators and mass murderers, but that's not the case here.

    You are not talking about killing people with heavy guilt and a huge bodycount, but about killing humans for lawfully and consensually having sex. That is morally depraved, shameful and if carried out highly against the law. And no, that wouldn't be manslaughter but pre-meditated first degree murder. And they'll fry you for that.

  240. Re:Still could be innocent by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then why did he bring multiple witnesses to suggest otherwise?

    Thanks for the correction. Yes, only after Reiser's testimony had totally backfired, they brought in some shrinks to suggest he "may have" aspergers, based on tangential evidence. If he clearly had a mental illness, why wasn't he directly evaluated, and why wasn't this brought up before hand? Hmmm.

    Shows what you know about Asperger's Syndrome. Being articulate does not rule you out. Those with Asperger's are often highly articulate when talking about their particular areas of focus.

    Did Reiser have a particular focus on wife murdering? Because he seems pretty bad at it to me.

    He wasn't talking about his filesystem on the stand for weeks you know.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  241. Re:Whatever by caluml · · Score: 1

    I wonder what his karma is like?

  242. Free? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2, Funny

    Free as in beer or free as in speech?

  243. Re:Still could be innocent by AlanS2002 · · Score: 1

    So why didn't his lawyer use the Chewbacca defense?

    --
    Not all conservatives are stupid,
    but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
    - Hume
  244. Re:Still could be innocent by Project2501a · · Score: 1

    Alright, OJ, calm down...

    --
    ----
  245. How horrible by Moe1975 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a shame, the whole thing. Just awful, depressing, and demoralizing.

    Innocent woman murdered, a bright (and fellow tribe member to boot - yes, I still consider him a fellow tribe member in spite of what he did) man's life down the drain, two kids with no parents . . .

    I hope she rests in peace, I hope he gets help for his problems (and to anyone who wishes him worse still, YOU go and live in a fucking California State Penitentiary, specially as a white man . . . he will pay for his crime for sure - I hope he has it in him to fight like an animal) and I hope the kids are and remain in good hands.

    How awful. It might happen everyday, but this one gets to me. At least, at least, he WAS guilty, thus he was not wrongly convicted owing to his being an arrogant, abrasive geek. No logic to my relief of course, but part of me feels relieved. The thought of him being innocent and spending the better part of the remainder of his life in the pen straight fucking haunted me.

    Sigh.

    --
    SARAVA!
  246. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think you're oversimplifying, really.

    Many - or at least some -, me included, while believing that Reise *was* guilty, also believed that not enough proof had been offered to actually convict him. Things may have changed now, of course (while it's possible to explain how he'd know where the body's located without having killed her, the whole case does look more clear-cut now, at least to an outside observer such as me), but back then, I at least thought a) he was guilty and b) he needed to be let go because his guilt hadn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The whole 'It's better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to put one innocent man into jail for something he didn't do' spiel.

  247. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    multiple axes

    Cue the axe-murderer gags...

  248. Re:strangling Nina by Moe1975 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, you sound as though you are for real so I will reply. I can sympathize with nearly losing control when having to endure some sick cunt, but, let me tell you, some cunt's misbehavior does not justify strangling the fucking bitch.

    Have you ever watched someone being murdered? Seeing someone alive one minute and dead the next, just laying there, just having pissed and shit on his/her self, all that, it's nothing nice man . . .

    Trust me, a proper assbeating is much better for you and the mouthy bitch/asshole in question.

    --
    SARAVA!
  249. I kinda agee with your grandparent by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Reiser's attorney flat out denied that he had Aspberger's, and Reiser never once raised any sort of mental illness defense.

    True. Yet, he did make errors due to what I perceived as vanity.

    Furthermore, his speech skills were fine, he is actually very articulate. I find it hard to believe that he had any sort of autism-related mental illness.

    If you read his emails to LKML and others, you can see a clear lack of social skills. This is not proof that he has asperger's, of course. Yet, I have been convinced for year's that he does, in fact, suffer from at least a mild form of it. I am not a doctor and I never met him (probably true for you, as well), of course.
    All in all, I had the same gut feeling your grandparent had. Knowing a lot of geeks and nerds, the murder book theory makes sense. So does driving without a front passenger seat, provided you drive alone most of the time. So does evading a tailing police car.
    Other things like the _disapperance_ of said seat, the blood stains and, above all, his showing up to pick up his kids when it was not his turn (which also makes sense in a world of cold logic) told a different story, though. And, much as I hated to see one of the tribe (even though ReiserFS hates me and I hate it) being prosecuted, I was more and more convinced he was guilty.

    1. Re:I kinda agee with your grandparent by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      One could also read his LKML posts and come to the conclusion that he has narcissism, bipolor/borderline, paranoid schizophrenia, clinical depression, or just plain constipation. Technical flamewars are hardly the best way to shrink someone's head.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    2. Re:I kinda agee with your grandparent by RichiH · · Score: 1

      True. Yet, knowing several people affected by asperger's, that is what my personal opinion is. Yours is valid just as well, though :)

  250. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    I know where you are coming from, but trust me, 15 MONTHS in a prison feels like a long time . . . he won't be out in any less than 15 years as far as I understand. That's a long time. Why, that is so long that - from what I have heard - he probably won't want to leave when his day comes (isn't the thought of that scary?) if he lives that long being white in a California penitentiary that is.

    He probably won't.

    --
    SARAVA!
  251. Re:Still could be innocent by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    He wasn't talking about his filesystem on the stand for weeks you know.

    And he wasn't particularly articulate on the stand either, which, if you read the interviews with some jury members you'll see was a major factor in their decision.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  252. So he must have thought... by Nathrael · · Score: 1

    fsck, they got me.

    --
    A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
  253. or maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he was angry with her because she didnt like his filesystem.

  254. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far the first page of comments is mostly jokes and inane - "I'd murder the bitch too" remarks [...] Assholes, this is a real person with a real family, not some fucking Manga or Anime or video game.

    There is no excuse for murder. Initially my take on this case was that maybe he did it, or maybe he didn't - we just don't know. And now I'm pissed I even gave Hans that much.

    What dissapoints me about Hans Reiser is that he didn't do the right thing. He didn't confess and in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility he tried to get away with it. A remorseful, intelligent man would've realized that a life with a murder on your conscience i just as bad as prison, maybe even worse. It suggests to me that he didn't feel guilt for what he had done, and I think it's a testament of poor charachter. He only confessed when he had nothing more to loose.

    To further your point - I appreciate humor, but when the reality of what happened to Nina sinks in jokes seems to be of very poor taste. Nina was strangled by the father of her children and then buried to rot in a 4x4 foot grave, nearly upside down. Conjure up an image of what she looked like when they dug her up after all those months and then crack a joke. What - not funny anymore? Assholes indeed.

  255. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to admit, it is a nice filesystem... But I'm all for renaming it murderfs.

  256. Re:Still could be innocent by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

    Oh, the ironing is delicious.

    --
    Carpe Daemon
  257. Re:Still could be innocent by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you misunderstand something about the Right to Remain Silent. The warning from the police when you are arrested is "anything that you say can and will be used against you" not "anything you say may help exonerate you". It is NEVER helpful to talk to the police when you are a suspect, even if you are innocent. You can say things that are truthful when you are innocent and still make you look like a murderer. Always talk to a lawyer first. Always. No matter what your circumstances are.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  258. Re:Still could be innocent by Beale · · Score: 1

    Come home, find dead body, panic, bury dead body.

  259. Re:Still could be innocent by rainer_d · · Score: 0

    Actually, his wife worked as a translator and he met her while meeting with prospective Russian brides...

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  260. Re:Still could be innocent by hoodrat1140 · · Score: 1

    i'm from hollywood...you're hired!

  261. Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would being incarcerated prevent him from fixing bugs but still let him post to LKML?

  262. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. Yours was the single most insightful comment I've read in this entire discussion, and, in fact, one of the single most insightful I've ever read on Slashdot, period.

    Chapeau!

  263. ReiserFS updates anyone? by tacocat · · Score: 1

    I guess I'll be using the same version of my ReiserFS drivers for a while now... 15 years!

    Maybe someone can send him a notebook in a sheet cake?

  264. Re:Still could be innocent by eiapoce · · Score: 1

    but NOW the italian law, while still lacking, is not as bad as some decades ago.

    We evolved. There is no more the honour killing and we are getting new anty-stalking laws.

    BTW the general public opinion here is that laws are still to easy on criminals and that jail time is never served apropriately.

  265. Ditto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ditto here. I would like to add that from my Slashdot-tainted perspective the whole story has centered way too much on whether he actually did it or not (I guessed he did), and whether technically speaking he should be convicted or not (I should think the body removes the reasonable doubt we had, no?), but leaves the lead up to the drama underreported. When I see a situation like this, I see a problem in society that may need fixing. But for that the motives of all parties considered need to be as well understood as possible. It appears that a justice system which is not primarily aimed at arriving at the truth of the matter, but rather at trying to convince some simple folk who will happily rely on their preconceptions (as documented in this case) doesn't help. What good is a 'right' conviction in helping to establish what went wrong if it was arrived at for the wrong reasons? Furthermore, I feel kind of sad for everyone involved.

  266. Re:Still could be innocent by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I would be interested in your theories of how he could have had knowledge of the murder and not be guilty.

    You're 100% right. I mean there's obviously no such thing as a witness, and people never tell other people things.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  267. misunderstanding of jury by v1 · · Score: 1

    from the article, "It just doesn't seem right to me that that can happen in America," Dunn said. "I thought the jury had the last say."

    Juries are for deciding guilt, not sentencing. So for the decision of guilt, the jury did have the last say. He just bargained for a reduced sentence. And he may not even get that. He reduced "25 to life" to "15 to life". At the high end of both scales is "life". But before the deal, the minimum the judge could give him was 25 yrs. Now it's 15. Maybe he's hoping for a minimum sentence?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:misunderstanding of jury by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      A first-offense crime-of-passion, with no ties to substance abuse or computer crime.. this is a good candidate for a minimum sentence. Those maximal sentences are for the real shitbags.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:misunderstanding of jury by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. Against the crime-of-passion angle is that Reiser was a successful programmer and businessman who was already divorced from Nina. He had a lot going for him, and when you look at someone like Reiser it's easy to think "of all the people I'd expect to be smarter and better adjusted and more able to deal with their problems without resorting to murder, this guy is at the top of the list."

      In other words, for someone as capable as Reiser to murder his ex-wife seems especially cold-blooded, moreso when you look at his efforts to cover up the crime and then lie on the stand about it.

      I dunno. Depends on what kind of day the judge is having, I suppose.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:misunderstanding of jury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A first-offense crime-of-passion, with no ties to substance abuse or computer crime.. this is a good candidate for a minimum sentence. Those maximal sentences are for the real shitbags.

      If he admits the crime, demonstrates true remorse, then yes. I think that this is pretty clearly a crime of passion, and he is extremely unlikely to re-offend. He should (of course) be punished, but it seems that he is a good candidate for leniency (relative to, say someone who murders someone during an armed robbery).

  268. Re:Still could be innocent by zazzel · · Score: 1

    You'll need a hell of a lot of "other men" to make up for the usual 50%-or-so probability that murderers are usually close friends or relatives of the victim.

    Come on, "internet stalkers" - been reading too many tabloids lately?

  269. What a lousy justice system by jocknerd · · Score: 0

    He gets 15 years for killing his wife? Yet, there are people who have been convicted for having dope that spend more than 20 years in prison.

    1. Re:What a lousy justice system by sjf · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they're not white and middle class.

    2. Re:What a lousy justice system by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      To be clear, he got 15-to-life. All he negotiated was the right to apply for parole ten years earlier than he otherwise would have. There's good odds he'll be in prison until he dies. Getting parole requires going before a parole board and convincing them that 1) you're sorry, and 2) you'll be no danger upon your release.

      Since I doubt prison will improve Reiser's social skills, don't expect him to be paroled anytime soon after that minimum passes.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  270. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The side of this that you don't tell, is that those who thinks they are smarter than the 'average bear' and actually do get away with covering things up we never hear about, for obvious reasons. In other words - can't blame a guy for trying, you can blame him for failing.

  271. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when divorce was socially unacceptable (and legally forbidden) this law was used by some also to just get rid of their wife (as depicted in the movie "divorzio all'italiana").

    [...]

    a raped woman could be forced to marry their raper (as depicted in the movie "sedotta e abbandonata)"

    Yes, and the United States used to be frequently visited by extraterrestials (as depicted in the movies "E.T.", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", and "Plan 9 from Outer Space").

  272. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by laejoh · · Score: 0

    I thought there were eleven people! One who divides everything into two, one who doesn't and one who confuses the binary people with Spinal Tap. It's one more!

  273. I for one.. by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 1
    ... am truly saddened by this latest turn of events.

    I really wanted to believe that Hans was the 'misunderstood but innocent' computer nerd who was being screwed over by a conniving gold-digging Russian bride.

    This latest news pretty well confirms that...
    Nina is actually dead and not just living in secret in Russia
    The two children are now pretty much orphans (mummy actually dead, daddy in prison for ages)
    Reiser, the computer nerd who many of us can identify with, is actually a murderer.
    ... all of which are really bad things.

    This has kind of "shaken my world" a little bit. I always used to associate 'computer nerd' with 'slightly socially inept but harmless and basically nice' and didn't mind being labeled so. Now this all seems to have changed?

  274. Re:Still could be innocent by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What disappoints me about Hans Reiser is that he didn't do the right thing.

    Surely the time to decide to do the right thing would have been just before he murdered his wife, not during the aftermath, when clearly no amount of "right things" would rectify anything but the most comparatively trivial aspects of this situation.

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  275. Disturbing moderation by Sapphon · · Score: 1

    Note to self - don't kill ppl with plans based on set theory or discrete branching algorithms.

    +2, Interesting – wtf?!

    --
    Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
  276. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG!

    What soap opera writer's guild do you belong to?

  277. Fate of his file system? by pterandon · · Score: 1

    In the age of FOSS and GNU, how can one man's misbehavior doom a file format system?

    1. Re:Fate of his file system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said man was practically a mathematical wizard, and nobody else (who works outside of a scholarly position) can understand what it does?

  278. Poor Hans ... by hackus · · Score: 1

    This is the most depressing news I have heard so far today.

    I think I might use a sick day.

    How depressing.

    Hans, you fool.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  279. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

    ...and no.

  280. Re:Whatever by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

    Not to mention, nobody thinks about it the other way around. If it was the other way around... suppose he got bored with her, he wanted to move on, he found a new lover and was sleeping with her. His wife still loved him, went mad with jealousy and tried to kill him. He would say she was a crazy bitch, still hung up on him, psycho and needed to let go--all that.

    It's early for me, I guess I'm not being as coherent as usual, but the bottom line--he's a cold blooded killer, and nothing could possibly justify what he did.

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  281. Re:Still could be innocent by aurispector · · Score: 1

    Ya gotta wonder about the people who thought he was innocent. Of course, OJ got off and Mumia is a celebrity cause, so there ya go.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  282. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very well said

  283. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, the wife buys you!

  284. Re:Still could be innocent by nlitement · · Score: 1

    Watch "the Shawshank Redemption." Chances are you haven't seen it, because all the suckers watched Forrest Gump back then instead of this gem that's #1 or #2 on IMDB top 250.

  285. And just you wait.... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Now that he is locked up for a long, long time with nothing better to do... Just imagine the stuff he will code in the future.

    And it will be MADE IN PRISON.
    Now if that ain't hardcore - I don't know what is.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  286. uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new here.

  287. Re:Still could be innocent by Reader+X · · Score: 1

    Your troll-fu is weak, my son. 891 comments so far and only two replies to your post (including this one).

  288. Re:Still could be innocent by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe he was angry with her because she was having an affair. He bought a gun out of anger, but didn't want to kill her. He goes home, to find her with her lover. In a struggle with the lover, the lover the lover wrests the gun from Hans. He's got the gun pointed at Hans, who reveals that his wife has in fact ANOTHER lover. In anger, the lover shoots Nina and flees. Hans has no idea who he was, and Nina dies sadly in his arms. The only way he can avoid blame for the murder (having just legally purchased the gun) is to bury Nina himself. In the end, Hans feels responsible for her death, having driven her away from him due to his obsession with work, and of course, the foolish decision to buy the guy. He sees only too late that he should forgiven her for such a minor human flaw, and if he had, then he would still be with her.

    You left out the part where he's tutoring a small-time crook in prison and that crook says he shared a cell with another con who claimed he murdered some computer geek's wife and now the geek is doing time for the murder. Hans would have started helping out the guards with their computer problems, then the warden gets him involved in a lucrative spamming operation that rakes in millions under the table. And after the warden has the tutored con killed, Hans plots his escape through a storm sewer, withdrawing all the profits from the bank and mailing a package to the papers implicating the warden in spam and murder.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  289. Depends on a hero... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Well, heros are usually only good at the one thing they are touted for... im not asking kobe to fix my car for sure.

    Michael Jordan might be able to fix it though...
    He IS a robot from another galaxy after all... Or was it from the future?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  290. I was actually reading through his posts... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    ...and ran across this:

    Really, most of us have a lot more flaws than being secretive.... I do (but I keep them secret;-) ).

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186827&cid=15414804

    Yeah I realise I'm pulling a Faux News on him :P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  291. Re:Still could be innocent by Rysc · · Score: 1

    I'll reprint here what I said the last time (except then it was on OSNews) because it's still true and I can't say it better.

    Who's defending Reiser? I am one of the ones who objected to this case in the past and I will do so again today. You will accuse me of blind devotion, but this is not the case. My only devotion is to things I know to be true. I don't know whether he did or did not kill his wife, nor do I care. His guilt or innocence is not important to me. What I do care about is the legal system in the USA, where I have lived all my life. This conviction is against the principles of the American justice system and should not have been handed down.

    This is a case where the evidence was slim and circumstantial. Did he kill his wife? Let's say for the sake of argument that he did. Does this mean he should be convicted for it? The answer to that is *only if it can be proven* that he killed here. There was no proof, there was very little evidence, and so there is an objection to this by me. He should not have been convicted, guilty or not, with so little evidence.

    For the record, I use ext3 and have never been particularly enamored of reiserfs3 and never tried v4.

    For me this is not a matter of fanboyism as I am not a fan of reiserfs or reiser himself.

    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  292. so if your wife killed you, we shouldnt care?11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as shes a kernel hacker

    1. Re:so if your wife killed you, we shouldnt care?11 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's ignore for a moment that there is no "she" in my life, but for the sake of the argument...

      Essentially, yes. How does my death affect the quality of her code? Do you know me? No. Do you care if I live? No. Do you know her? Well, not personally, but you know her code. Do you care whether she continues her work? Most likely if you use her code.

      Like I said, a pragmatic approach. That it's a crime is a given. And that it should be punished accordingly, too. But one (the crime) has nothing to do with the other (the code). The crime is not in any way related to the work. So I cannot really see a good, logic and not "moral" or "human", reason not to use his code anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:so if your wife killed you, we shouldnt care?11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, yes.

      Even if I get killed it's none of your f**king business. (well, since you're an AC I can't put off the 0.0001% chance that you actually know me, otherwise you really shouldn't care whether I'm alive or not)

  293. Re:Still could be innocent by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A perfect example of this is Martha Stewart. They decided that she never did anything wrong with regard to why she was being investigated, but that she wasn't truthful when she spoke to investigators. So she went to prison for lying to them. To me, that is insane. And the most important lesson was exactly what you say - don't ever talk to the cops without representation present, even if you didn't do a single thing wrong.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  294. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We didn't get it because we don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Most likely because we aren't the kind of guys that go to musicals. You might have better luck in the Apple section.

  295. btw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's gonna have PLENTY of time to develop reiser4, 5 and maybe also 6th.

  296. Re:Still could be innocent by megaditto · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So she's dead, he's in jail for life. The kids aren't likely to read up on the slashdot story about their dad killing their mom.

    So where's the harm in joking about the murder?

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  297. news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I get that the guy is, or well he was a programmer, but how exactly, does this qualify as news for nerds, or stuff that matters? Ok, it happened in california, where a good deal of nerds live, are you going to start covering other murders in cali? Or other crimes committed by software engineers? Was there some free-speech or free-software element of the case that i'm not seeing in the linked-to story? Or did he meet his wife in second life or WoW or something? Really, inform me, I don't get why this is on /.

    But really, what a fool, if you're going to proclaim your innocence the whole time only to roll over the corpse once convicted to get 10 years off the (minimum) length of your sentence is just foolish, if he had continued to proclaim his innocence perhaps he could have gotten a new trial or an appeal to overturn the conviction, if he gets 15 years to /life/ does he really expect to be out in 15 years?

  298. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the same reason you could somewhat get away with killing your wife if she just was behaving in an unappropriate way

    But, she was cheating him! She was secretively using NTFS!!

  299. So, the jury got it right? by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Basically? Not perfect, perhaps, but essentially correct? And most of the people here, who weren't in the courtroom to see and hear it all, and weren't part of the deliberations got it wrong? I'm shocked.

    1. Re:So, the jury got it right? by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I know, second guessing juries is a common pastime in the US. I was happy to speculate before the verdict. After the verdict I was much less comfortable doing so. I feel that juries usually know what they're doing no matter how much people might slam them.

      And now, of course, the only question was whether or not he actually planned to do it or whether it just happened because he got angry and lost control. Neither is excusable though.

    2. Re:So, the jury got it right? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      This still doesn't change the fact that he was convicted without evidence. It can only get more embarrassing for the court if it will turn out that most of supposedly incriminating evidence (blood, etc.) is actually unrelated.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:So, the jury got it right? by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He wasn't convicted without evidence. He was convicted without a body. The evidence may have been largely circumstantial, but there was a great deal of it, and it was strong. The fact that she was missing. The car with a seat removed and the appearance of having been washed out, the ditched on the street. Her vehicle, also ditched on the street. The blood, which you mention (that's more forensic than circumstantial). Heck, that crazy defense theory that she was hiding in Russia probably even led to his conviction, in part, as did his own testimony. The fact is, Reiser comes across like a nutcase, and taking the stand himself did nothing to improve his chances of getting away with it.

      It's entirely possible to convict based solely on circumstantial evidence. It takes a lot of it, and it has to be very convincing - pretty much to the point where any reasonable person would conclude that the prosecution was right - but it can be done. The fact that they had almost as much evidence on Reiser (accept a body) as they did on OJ and as they did on Robert Blake, doesn't mean Reiser's jury got it wrong or that he was convicted without evidence. It means OJ's jury and Blake's jury almost certainly reached an incorrect verdict. OJ has essentially confessed in "If I Did It." While Blake still maintains his innocence, I think he's probably guilty. At least he had a more plausible defense than Reiser had, so I can understand the jury's result, even if I disagree with it.

      I live in the Bay area, where the trial was very well covered by local media (sfgate.com was excellent), and while it sounded unlikely to me at first, as the trial unfolded I became certain that he was guilty. And now he gives up the body, showing that his *evidence-based* conviction was spot-on.

      You sound like you're just another of the many people who *wanted* Reiser to be innocent and were therefore willing to ignore the body of evidence against him. I wish he had been innocent, too, but he wasn't, and I was sure of that before the trial was over. I don't wish it for the reasons a lot of people here probably wish it - that ReiserFS may be history and that a lot of people who had not heard of Linux or open source before now have heard of it because a well-known open source developer killed his wife while his kids were upstairs in their rooms - but because a family has lost their daughter, two children have lost their mother, and those children have to go through life knowing that their dad killed her, then lied to them and the whole world about it.

      Reiser may think he got something by negotiating a 15-to-life deal, but he's not getting out in 15 years. No parole board would go for it. I doubt he'll get out in 25, either. He's going to find that what may look to him like some kind of victory is no victory at all. If he ever leaves prison, it will be as a very old man.

    4. Re:So, the jury got it right? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      He wasn't convicted without evidence. He was convicted without a body. The evidence may have been largely circumstantial, but there was a great deal of it, and it was strong.

      No. There was a lot of evidence, the problem was, all that evidence was total crap. You can find about the same amount of evidence linking me (or yourself) to any random crime that happened in close proximity -- and the more time you spend the more you can find. Obviously the problem is, it does not prove anything because if you change the direction of your search you can find just as much supposedly incriminating any other person that was in the same area when the crime happened. It was clear that police came to conclusion that Hans killed Nina, and then focused all investigation on digging things they can use against Hans -- throwing crap against the wall in the hope that some will stick. Regardless of their guess being lucky or unlucky, this is a total abandonment of their duty -- to investigate everything relevant to the crime and seek the truth in honest and competent manner.

      No wonder, Oakland has horrendous amount of crime.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:So, the jury got it right? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      No, Oakland has a horrendous amount of crime because it has a horrendous amount of criminals. You don't live around here, do you?

      I'm going to put the ball in your court here. Please explain what you think was total crap about:

      -The car with the passenger's seat removed and the floor wet as if it had been washed, found on an Oakland street yet not reported stolen

      -Nina's vehicle, also found on an Oakland street but not reported stolen

      -The blood

      -The fact that he was the last person known to have seen her alive

      -His testimony, which was probably more damning than much of the other evidence. OK, I think his testimony was crap too, and from a getting away with it perspective he was an idiot to take the stand, but I don't think it was crap the way you think it was crap. You seem to have believed him. Maybe you still believe him, even though he has now confessed and her body has been found.

      The thing about a body of circumstantial evidence is, when you have a lot of it, it tends to be highly accurate in aggregate. For example, let's say there's a historical record that when you have a vehicle found like that, in 60% of those cases (just to pull a number from my ass) the suspect provably did it. To make it simple, also 60% for finding blood, for finding the victim's vehicle abandoned in the area, for the suspect being the last known person to see the victim alive, 60% for someone with a personality like Reiser's, and 60% for ridiculous testimony including a theory that the victim is really just hiding somewhere and trying to frame the suspect for murder.

      Singly, each of those 60% points is pretty weak, and no juror in her/his right mind would convict, but taken together, they paint a very different picture. That's five data points, each with a 60% likelihood of indicating guilt. Suddenly, things look very different. I work in the email security industry, and I can tell you that when you can identify 5 60% spammy characteristics in a message, that message almost always turns out to be spam.

      Or put another way, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

      Sure, the police focused the investigation on Reiser. Not because they failed to do their jobs, but because they did do their jobs and after looking at all available evidence, were sure he did it. Heh. Turns out they were right. The fact is, people being wrongfully charged with crimes is pretty rare, and being wrongfully convicted is rarer still. It happens, and sometimes it is even willfully done by corrupt police, but it's not common.

      Of course, your leftist brain probably has trouble wrapping itself around that fact.

    6. Re:So, the jury got it right? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      No, Oakland has a horrendous amount of crime because it has a horrendous amount of criminals. You don't live around here, do you?

      Actually I do live around there. Last time I checked, criminals are not a part of indigenous flora or fauna -- they flourish wherever there are conditions conducive to crime. A combination of poverty, shitty city planning, and as we see by this example incompetent law enforcement definitely counts as "conducive to crime".

      The car with the passenger's seat removed and the floor wet as if it had been washed, found on an Oakland street yet not reported stolen

      I guess, It was not reported stolen because it wasn't stolen. Thousands of people leave their cars on the streets in conditions far worse and weirder than that -- should we round them up and prosecute for the nearest recent unsolved crime?

      Nina's vehicle, also found on an Oakland street but not reported stolen

      That would be consistent with any kind of sudden disappearance except one (if she left Oakland in her van). Nothing links it to Hans.

      The blood

      I happen to own a laptop bag drenched in blood. What actually is related to an unsolved crime and unusual behavior of some people. Nevertheless I am most definitely alive, and did not kill anyone.

      The fact that he was the last person known to have seen her alive

      If that qualified as a proof, we would be able to just convict the last person who had seen each and every victim of unsolved murder.

      His testimony, which was probably more damning than much of the other evidence. OK, I think his testimony was crap too, and from a getting away with it perspective he was an idiot to take the stand, but I don't think it was crap the way you think it was crap. You seem to have believed him. Maybe you still believe him, even though he has now confessed and her body has been found.

      Actually the only thing his testimony is good for is to confirm that he is not a social person, and that he was scared when police was obviously hounding him. What was known from the very beginning. I know plenty of people who behave in a similar manner, none of them committed an offense worse than speeding. If people were imprisoned based on those things alone, there would be, among other things, a lot of software without maintainers.

      Or put another way, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

      This is precisely what the presumption of innocence, burden of proof and various other fundamental concepts in law enforcement and justice supposed to prevent. Despite the fact that often such a guess is actually correct. Police and prosecution have to provide a proof, something that excludes the possibility that there was a peculiar combination of circumstances and misdirection that merely suggests someone's guilt. And in case of this murder they had ample opportunity to do so by collecting evidence, excluding various other "colorful characters" involved, not messing up collection of blood from the house, interviewing kids in a manner appropriate for the situation, making more of an effort to find the body and, of course, not spending weeks trying to prove that Hans was not a nice person (they would get essentially the same information from LKML archive).

      Instead police and prosecution relied entirely on lucky guesses and random smear campaign in front of jury composed of people unfamiliar with antisocial nerds such as Hans. That sloppy police work, strategy of investigation and prosecution that chases after low-hanging fruit and does not doubt superficial impressions, goes a long way explaining why you have to be a mathematician to be prosecuted for a serious crime in Oakland. What is also not an actual proof but merely a plausible explanation of the fact that non-nerdy criminals terrorize Oakland with impunity.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:So, the jury got it right? by burris · · Score: 1

      Actually the only thing his testimony is good for is to confirm that he is not a social person, and that he was scared when police was obviously hounding him. What was known from the very beginning. I know plenty of people who behave in a similar manner, none of them committed an offense worse than speeding. If people were imprisoned based on those things alone, there would be, among other things, a lot of software without maintainers.

      d00d, do you know anything at all about the Reiser trial? The guy lied to the jury on the stand about the battery in his phone and admitted as much under cross examination. He admitted on the stand that he knew there was a search warrant for his car and computer when he was working furiously to hide them from the police. All of these are offenses worse than speeding, BTW. His entire story about sleeping in the car fell apart under cross. His seething hatred for Nina was obvious to everyone in the room. His testimony was quite damning.

      I'm all for fair trials for everyone too. Hans Reiser got a fair trial. There is no one to blame but himself.

  300. Re:Still could be innocent by damburger · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have Aspergers. However, since I am according to you not articulate, and have poor speech skills, I can't write a witty rebuttal so I shall just say "Fuck You"

    Fuck You.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  301. It's over by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    You know, when I first got whiff of this tale, I thought to myself... "Hans is teh ubergeek, he's a dick, not a murderer."

    Then I heard some of his insane testimony and thought.. "Oh, man, this dude is messed up! I think it's possible he did do the deed."

    Now, the body, led to by Hans with no messing about: he knew where it was.

    That's guilt. Right there. Bummer. I always try to hold out some hope for the accused...but that's impossible when they point at the body and more or less are saying "here's where I buried her."

    15-to-life versus 25-to-life. Doesn't matter, he'll still get the "life" part. And in the end, it's the kids (as always) that get hurt. Always.

    1. Re:It's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the end, it's the kids (as always) that get hurt. Always.

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that nobody else has been hurt? Not Nina or her family, or Hans' family, or Hans himself? Everybody but the kids is just walking away from this without a scratch?

    2. Re:It's over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a pedantic retard.

  302. Re:Still could be innocent by wezeldog · · Score: 1

    Nah...still not doing it for me.
    Let's have the first guy have a fake arm. The second guy, he's got an eye-patch and armored polar bears for guards.
    And fit a giant spider in the end. Nature's fiercest killers.
    - Jon Peters

  303. re: proven by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    Legally proven, Big Difference from us IT crowds, who like "mathematically proven", and think legal systems work with math. Ha!

  304. Re:Still could be innocent by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available."

    Do you want to examine this statement for a circular hipocrisy?

    Capital punishment is the acme of "being morally justified in killing someone when they don't comply".

    Note: I am NOT saying I oppose capital punishment. Merely that this nose-in-the-air pseudo-moralization is WAAAY out of place.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  305. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A perfect example of this is Martha Stewart. They decided that she never did anything wrong with regard to why she was being investigated, but that she wasn't truthful when she spoke to investigators. So she went to prison for lying to them. To me, that is insane.

    Then your perspective is garbage. You don't lie to investigators idiot, and your opinion on the subject just makes it clear you're not worth listening to.

  306. Re:Still could be innocent by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    You go on and on about moral depravity but you're glad capital punishment is still available for use?

    "Follow my will or I'll kill you" is not something I would expect from civilized people under the rule of law.

    "Follow society's will or we'll kill you" doesn't sound like something I'd expect from from civilized people either.

  307. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Ten Commandments aren't law, they're a list of things some make-believe super-being doesn't want you to do.
    They have no basis in reality.

  308. Re:Still could be innocent by JNighthawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mod parent down - wrong.

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reiser-defense.html

    "Hans and Nina met in 1998, in Russia, when he was overseas hiring programmers. He picked her out of a mail-order bride catalog, where she was advertised as "5279 Nina.""

    --
    Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
  309. Re:Still could be innocent by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    It's an important point of law, if nothing else. It's these sorts of details that separate "preponderance of evidence" from "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is how you end up with OJ being found not guilty at the criminal trial (where "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the threshold), but still being found guilty at a civil liability trial where the threshold's lower ("preponderance of evidence").

    You may think it's silly, but that's how the American law system works.

  310. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    Maybe in the Theocratic Federation of North American Homesteads but not in the US of A I used to know. Last time I checked the Holy Bible was an important book there but no valid grounds for a lawful execution. And you purposely left out *THAT OTHER COMMANDMENT* that specifically prohibits killing.

    I was tempted to include a side note to the Bible and other Holy Books when I wrote the first reply, but I thought someone else will play the Bible Thumper. And someone did...

    Anyway, you just repeated the old "do what I say or be killed" meme (or "do what MY God says or be killed") that is incompatible with the rule of law, democracy, freedom and pursuit of happiness in general. In other words, against the core values of the USA. I know that Christianity and faith in God is an important value, too, but I always thought personal freedom and the rule of law was much much more important. After all, that's what the Founding Fathers sought when they came there, didn't they?

    We are not in Teheran, so let Man be concerned with the law on earth and God govern law in Heaven, how about it? If anyone violates the rules of Heaven, let God decide and act upon the punishment.

    If you violate important rules here on Earth, such as killing people for nonsense like doing things in private with their private things, you may visit God pretty soon.

    Have a good excuse ready, just in case. You may have prayed to the wrong God or followed the wrong Holy Book for your whole life, who knows?

  311. Re:Still could be innocent by Psmylie · · Score: 1
    "BTW the general public opinion here is that laws are still to easy on criminals and that jail time is never served apropriately"

    We feel the same way in the US. Well, all of us except the criminals.

    --

    psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

  312. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get the feeling you still think he didn't do it. That, coupled with your moronic attempts to portray the case as something is wasn't make me wonder what stake you have and why you'd be willing to make an idiot of yourself by discussing it.

  313. Re:Still could be innocent by rainer_d · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hm. I thought I had read that differently.

    Actually, it seems to that both may be true:

    > "No, that's not true," answered Sharanova, who had
    > testified earlier Reiser and her daughter met when
    > Nina went with a friend who was to meet Reiser at
    > a cafe to act as a translator.

    From: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080214/ai_n21416688

    Unfortunately, I can't post and moderate ;-)

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  314. and here's the kicker by sinator · · Score: 1

    Did you see how short the search times were? Amazing! /ObJoke

    --
    Three Step Plan:
    1. Take over the world.
    2. Get a lot of cookies.
    3. Eat the cookies.
  315. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been a bit since I read it, but the complication here is that Hans and his buddy (I forget his name) were into a LOT of REALLY freaky stuff. I mean not just your basic S&M and groupsex (Hans' buddy was fucking her), but Hans' buddy confessed to having murdered numerous people in the past (he didn't give details).

    So even if Hans did kill his wife (most likely the case) there's a lot more that's not being said about what happened.

  316. Re:Still could be innocent by budcub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget that investigators will most likely lie to you, in an attempt to "trick" you into saying something to incriminate yourself. Its all ok for them them to lie to you, but you can't lie to them. Strange isn't that?

  317. can we say "i told you so" now? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    ...to all the people whining about how Reiser was "wronged" during the trial and was innocent all along?

  318. Re:Still could be innocent by Noexit · · Score: 1

    The whole problem with that scenario, like the cop shows, is that you can clear the whole thing up for yourself quite nicely by calling the police yourself. Yeah, it'll be a little tense, but nearly as tense as later leading them to where you buried her and then telling them about the lover/gun fiasco.

    --

    Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo

  319. Re:Still could be innocent by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, this gets +5 insightful? Jesus you people have some weird ideas about autism. There are plenty of people with Aspergers who can speak more eloquently than you or I.

    --
    "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  320. Re:Still could be innocent by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm going to assume you are a troll - but for anyone else who reads this thread, it is easy to make a mistake, especially when recounting events over a long period of time. It is easy to say things that can be taken in more than one way, and if one of those ways happens to imply violation of a law, it could cause real problems. My perspective is not garbage. An innocent person, through innocent conversation can end up going to prison when they have done nothing wrong. Our penal code is so complicated I would never speak to law enforcement about anything without someone handy who is well versed in law and on my side.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  321. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, a successfull Reiser data recovery story.

  322. Re:Still could be innocent by cybaz · · Score: 0

    I don't know, there have been times when NTFS made me want to kill somebody

  323. Proof that lawyers have no soul by gosand · · Score: 1

    Proof that lawyers aren't interested in "the truth" at all. They are just soul-less scumbags.

    FTA:
    John Fuery, who first represented Reiser in his divorce case which with Nina which began in 2004, said he thought that Reiser made "a mistake" by taking police to the spot where he apparently buried her.

    Fuery said leading authorities to the location of a murder victim's body "proves your guilt and is hard to undo" in the future when a convicted murderer goes before a parole board to ask to be released from state prison.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Proof that lawyers have no soul by mweather · · Score: 1

      The lawyer was telling the truth.

    2. Re:Proof that lawyers have no soul by jjohnson · · Score: 2

      Parole boards virtually never grant parole to criminals who don't admit their guilt and show remorse. Trying to convince them that you were falsely convicted never works, so the absence of a body is no asset at all.

      What it does do is eliminate the possibility of appeals (which was probably written into the plea agreement). But I've heard no reporting indicating that appeals were likely, either. Outside the tech community, this was a fairly standard murder, trial and conviction.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:Proof that lawyers have no soul by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Proof that lawyers aren't interested in "the truth" at all.

      Well, no. They're interested in putting forth the best possible argument for their side. That's their job. Truth is for the judge and jury to decide.

      They are just soul-less scumbags.

      I don't know about that, but more than once I've wondered what that kind of job must do to a person in the long term.

    4. Re:Proof that lawyers have no soul by gosand · · Score: 1

      Proof that lawyers aren't interested in "the truth" at all.

      Well, no. They're interested in putting forth the best possible argument for their side. That's their job. Truth is for the judge and jury to decide.

      1. This wasn't his attorney for this case, it was his previous divorce attorney who was recently re-hired.
      2. The judge and jury did decide - guilty. Nothing more to discuss, nothing more to defend.

      The statement "is hard to undo" means that they would try to "undo" the fact that he led them to the body. So it isn't about him maybe clearing his conscience and maybe giving some kind of peace to her family.. it's about winning, and manipulating the system. Let's not see if he can be rehabilitated, just deny everything and the legal system can be "worked". HE CAN'T UNDO HIS GUILT, but you can be sure that lawyers like this guy will try to do just that. Manipulation and deceit - this is what our legal system has become.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  324. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    As a Christian I agree. Immoral != illegal.

    Just as a point of fact though, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits killing.

    The phrase "Thou shalt not kill" isn't found in the Bible. That is a inaccurate translation. The actual verse is "Do not murder." Talmudic scholars include in that to mean gross and/or intentional negligence as well.

  325. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike as shown in porn, sex isn't always something anyone can walk up to and join.

  326. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Sir_Lewk(967686) wrote:

    Yes, things are *never* black and white, they are *always* complex. Brilliant.

    No, your post was. Indicating that a person with severe polarization addiction would read "in most cases" as "always" was clever, but I fear that few people will get the joke.

  327. Re:Still could be innocent by endeavour31 · · Score: 1

    Hmmm - now you are requiring some sort of conspiracy with multiple perps. How could he have knowledge of the murder and the body burial and NOT be involved in some manner; even assuming another person actually committed the murder. That knowledge alone makes him an accessory at least either before or after the crime.

    Your fanboi-ism has blinded you to common sense. I don't care what code he put together - right not he is facing life in prison and deservedly so.

  328. Is anyone else bothered... by razzmataz · · Score: 1

    ...by the fact one of the tags is 'storage' and the ambiguity of that tag with this story?

    --
    Ungh
  329. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have Aspergers. "

    No one cares.

    Just so I'm clear, the major diagnostic criteria is "significant impairment in day to day function" (I am a diagnostic professional, look it up, you'll see I 'm right), so what is your "significant impairment"?

    Oh right, you don't have one and I don't care anyway. You don't have "Asperger's" you're just a nerdy loser. Try a new Psychiatrist until you find one who knows the difference.

  330. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not have assburgers. You are not special.

  331. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that Hans' buddy admitted to murdering several other people, AND was having an affair with Nina, AND Nina was having affairs with who-knows how many other strangers, kinda complicates things. The evidence still points to Hans being the murderer, but it wasn't exactly a cut-and-dry case.

  332. No one is debating that point by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    "What I wanted to illustrate is that there can be a very good reason for a lot of blood in your car"

    We know, that point isn't being debated.

    The point that was made, that you clearly missed, is that it is unusual and somewhat rare and generally has an explanation.

    You only served to prove his point.

  333. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in that situation, there should be plenty of dna evidence in the victim

  334. Re:Still could be innocent by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    You forgot to mention vi and emacs, junior professional. ;)

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  335. And that's the main problem in this trial by DrYak · · Score: 1

    And he wasn't particularly articulate on the stand either, which, if you read the interviews with some jury members you'll see was a major factor in their decision.

    And that's the main problem I find in this trial.
    Ignoring the fact that now Hans has pointed the body and is very probably the killer for a rather strong value of "probably"... ...during the trial the prosecution mainly showed that Hans was acting weird (whoa ! that comes as a shock for a file-system nerd...)
    and the jury most probably declared him guilty because he was looking strange and exasperated them with his lack of social skills.

    In short :
    he was (probably) a murderer, but got convicted for being a nerd.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:And that's the main problem in this trial by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      In short :
      he was (probably) a murderer, but got convicted for being a nerd.

      That's not really the way I read the trial coverage; more that, his own testimony convicted him -- the jury was completely sure that the story he was feeding them was a lie, and if you're lying about what happened while on trial for your life, you're guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Although I guess you could say he was convicted because he was a nerd, in the sense that he thought he was smarter than the jury and they would fall for the story he came up with.

  336. Re:Still could be innocent by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

    I sure hope that was sardonic fiction. If not, lemme guess...you believe in intelligent design, too. Anyone who can come up with such giant leaps surely believes the Earth is hotter now because the sphere of water surrounding it was depleted during "the flood".

    That being said, you do spin an interesting tale. Too bad Hans didn't think of it and try to use it as a defense. Of course, it's not much of a defense since you specify he bought the gun out of anger of his wife having an affair. In your tale, he never got to use it for premeditated murder, but that IS why he bought it. And, since he knew enough about the murder to know the whereabouts of the body, and never told anyone, he's an accomplice and that carries the same sentence.

    --
    Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
    http://www.workorspoon.com
  337. I can see it now.... by vassilios10 · · Score: 1

    All I know is this is going to make a great movie. With numerous eighties montages of him coding while his wife is getting drilled by some football playing asshole.

  338. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aspergers isn't a "defect", it's a collection of personality traits that are common in nerds, which can run the full analog spectrum from "sort kinda" to "full blown nearly autistic".

    Knowing that your behavior closely matches a specific condition is extremely useful for self-analysis, and improving abnormal behavior. There's nothing "cool" about it.

    Check out the wikipedia article on Aspergers Syndrome:

    "Characterized by difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities. AS is distinguished from the other ASDs in having no general delay in language or cognitive development. Although not mentioned in standard diagnostic criteria, motor clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported."

    I mean hell, it's practically a fucking synonym for "slashdot nerd".

  339. This is why OSS is dan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many more Hans Reiser's are there out there writing code by day, and murdering by night?

  340. inapropriate by GIS.thrills · · Score: 0

    news for nerds? stuff that matters? this shouldn't be on slashdot. or any other news source for that matter. please stop contributing to the celebrity murder culture.

  341. Re:Still could be innocent by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Do you write scripts for the Lifetime channel?

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  342. Re:Still could be innocent by ODiV · · Score: 1

    It is NEVER helpful to talk to the police when you are a suspect, even if you are innocent.

    How do you know when you're a suspect? Do they have to tell you right off? If everyone acted this way, then how would the police ever get anywhere?

    If, for example, there have been break-ins in your apartment building, but all the external entrances were not damaged. When the police come knocking at your door to ask if you've heard/seen anything are you going to call a lawyer or are you going to help them out? Is everyone in the building going to call a lawyer? That could get really expensive and really time consuming.

    Not that I don't think you shouldn't have the right to clam up if you don't think you can talk without saying something that might incriminate you. And I also don't think we should waive rights just to make the job of the police easier. Any insights that you or anyone else might have on this would be nice.

  343. Re:Still could be innocent by autophile · · Score: 1

    To further your point - I appreciate humor, but when the reality of what happened to Nina sinks in jokes seems to be of very poor taste. Nina was strangled by the father of her children and then buried to rot in a 4x4 foot grave, nearly upside down. Conjure up an image of what she looked like when they dug her up after all those months and then crack a joke. What - not funny anymore? Assholes indeed.

    We also joke when it hurts. See gallows humor, and, this article as an example.

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  344. Re:Still could be innocent by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

    Was Fabio on the cover of this book?

    Well, as romance-novelesque as it sounds, it is actually the first couple of minutes of "The Shawkshank Redemption" (as the parent poster clearly pointed out.) Hardly a piece of fluff fiction, but a great movie (#2 on IMDB all time, #1 in my books) about the triumph of perseverance and the human spirit. (Based on a short story by Stephen King, like many a good movie...)

    (The fight with the wife/lover bit was quite secondary to the main story, about being wrongfully imprisoned and slowly but surely overcoming it.)

    It's one of the very few movies I watch a few times a year. Hans Reiser is hardly a noble character as in Shawshank. I'm not terribly thrilled about him getting out in 15 for simply revealing where he left her corpse...

    If I were the family, I think I'd prefer him serving the extra ten years, rather than the arbitrary "closure" of knowing where her decaying remains are. I hope/wonder if the prosecutors and the courts consulted them before agreeing to this. (Some people would indeed value burying their loved ones' remains over having the culprit serve his full sentence, and I guess one should respect that. Not me, though, Hans should serve his full time...)

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  345. "Thank" the ASSHOLES at Wired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for their continuing focus on anti-Linux-FUD to the extent that they completely obscured the facts of this story.

    Show them how it's done, SFGate! This is the first time I've seen the Hans Reiser murder reported where it wasn't buried in speculation, hype, and hearsay, and the first time I've seen his name in print without "Linux developer" attached to the front of it, as if Linux itself was responsible.

  346. Re:Still could be innocent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    "Follow my will or I'll kill you" is not something I would expect from civilized people under the rule of law.

    I take it then that you do not support the death penalty. Good for you! It's a barbaric practice.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  347. Wow by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    Can I mod you +1, Flamebait?

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  348. Re:Still could be innocent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I would imagine that if he was innocent and knew where the body was that he would, oh, I don't know.... maybe.... CALL THE POLICE AS SOON AS HE KNEW WHERE THE BODY OF HIS DEAD WIFE WAS.

    I want to open by saying that I believe he killed her, but there are two factors you are missing. One is that people often do not behave rationally when a loved one dies. Two is that when you are the only one who knows where the body is, it's going to be pretty hard to convince anyone that you're not guilty when you're already the prime suspect.

    Again, I think he's guilty (but my psychic powers are not working today, unfortunately) but I'm pretty sure that if you found your wife's body it would fuck up your head a bit. Er, if you have one. Or maybe you're polishing your weapons right now, elefino.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  349. How do I filter out "Funny" comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been a recurring question of mine, because a lot of your jokes are not funny, especially when I'm trying to read content relative to the article instead of some douchebag's attempt at humour. Today's jokes are exceptionally pathetic.

  350. Reasonable Doubt by Millennium · · Score: 1

    I'd like to say that Reiser wasn't fooling anyone with his transparent drivel. Unfortunately, that's just not the case: he fooled a lot of people. There are probably some who will still claim that he's innocent.

  351. Re:15 to life != 15 years (kdawson == moron) by 7+digits · · Score: 1

    Warning: at Subject, line 1: condition always evaluates to true

  352. Re:Still could be innocent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Reiser's attorney flat out denied that he had Aspberger's, and Reiser never once raised any sort of mental illness defense.

    Lots of people who suffer from (insert ailment here) will deny it because (insert reason here).

    ailment = anything potentially embarrassing.

    reason varies, but basically it's some kind of cultural stigma. Take your pick.

    Hans Reiser was poorly socialized and intelligent, and at some point became unhinged which caused him to do ridiculous things. Frankly I've seen intelligent people do very stupid things. Perspective has a lot to do with it. It can be difficult to make a rational decision when you're in the middle of a problem.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  353. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What dissapoints me about Hans Reiser is that he didn't do the right thing. He didn't confess and in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility he tried to get away with it.

    "and I would have gotten away with it too, if Johnnie Cochran were still alive"

  354. Re:Still could be innocent by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    It's better to try to join them than try to kill someone.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  355. Re:Still could be innocent by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1


    As a Christian I agree. Immoral != illegal.

    Just as a point of fact though, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits killing.

    The phrase "Thou shalt not kill" isn't found in the Bible. That is a inaccurate translation. The actual verse is "Do not murder." Talmudic scholars include in that to mean gross and/or intentional negligence as well.

    I'd think though (for Christians) that everything Jesus had to say about turning the other cheek and letting him without sin cast the first stone would pretty much eliminate any of the circumstances in which you could claim a killing justified and therefore not murder.

  356. Re:Still could be innocent by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

    Not really.

    I guess SOMEONE hasn't watched Law and Order:CI

    --
    "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  357. he was one of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he was human. that is all. most of us, we just need a reason and opportunity.

  358. Re:Still could be innocent by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    OK then, random internet fuckwit, let me take you through this.

    I was diagnosed, by an actual diagnostic professional, in 1994 when few people knew what the condition was. My mother did not push anybody to diagnose me, and neither her not I knew what it was when they told me.

    Unlike you, random internet fuckwit, I am not actually a loser. Despite my condition I am now able to study, work and have friends. None of these has ever been a trivial task.

    You, on the other hand, are just a wanker. A pathetic insecure creature projecting your ignorance and self-loathing onto others over the internet in a way you dare not to their face.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  359. Re:Still could be innocent by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You do not have a user account, you manage to be a coward even on an internet forum - the ultimate tool for letting lippy cocksuckers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag say what they like to people without getting a richly deserved kicking.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  360. There's something funny about all this... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    You know, I can't claim to know everything about this case, but I think there's a fair chance that Hans really was the killer all along!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  361. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely the time to decide to do the right thing would have been just before he murdered his wife

    You are absolutely correct, unless he wasn't of sound mind at the time. As I posted I was thinking in terms of second degree murder (manslaughter, accident, a crime of passion etc). If this had been the case then there might have been some redemdemption in doing the "right thing" as I detailed earlier, hence my disappointment and loss of respect for the man and his charachter.

    While reading your post, however, it ocurred to me that he was convicted of first degree murder, which casts Hans in an new light for me - because, if true, it means he planned the whole thing. Does anyone know if he confessed to planning the murder?

  362. Re:Still could be innocent by alexborges · · Score: 1

    "They Both Went For The Gun"?

    --
    NO SIG
  363. Re:Still could be innocent by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    You'd be funny if your denial wasn't so pathetic.

    I do like how you're obviously trying to pretend he's not guilty without explicitly saying so. It doesn't make you less pathetic or less wrong, but it is pretty savvy.

    But just so we're clear, the idea is that he was told the location of the body by the actual murderer and it was only after his conviction that it came up? Or that he witnessed something involving his wife's murder and only after he got convicted it came up?

    And that makes sense to you? I ask because it's pretty ridiculous, yet you don't seem to understand that.

  364. Re:Still could be innocent by jmahler · · Score: 1

    Right, I get that - believe me, I'm very distrustful of the police and prosecution when it comes to evidence etc.... but hiding evidence is a very, very bad idea when your freedom is at stake.

    Here, let me make it easy for you.

    1: Wife is missing (and I didn't kill her)
    2: I SOMEHOW find out where the body is without finding out who killer her. Because, you know, suddenly psychic powers are real - or some anonymous murderer thinks it's a nice thing to do.
    3: Uhhhhh.... yeah, I can't get any farther than this.

    Alternately:

    1: I kill my wife and dispose of her body creatively.
    2: Police start looking at me because, you know, motive and whatnot.
    3: I get convicted in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Hmm... that didn't work either. Crud.

    OK... to be honest, the problem I'm having is that I really can't conceive of a way he can be innocent at this point. I really can't.

    If you really want to protect yourself from police misconduct, it's usually best to be very open with a LAWYER first... and getting media / blogs involved is a huge help, too.

  365. Not exactly by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    No, the reason why we wanted to believe was that we thought he was being found guilty by weak circumstantial evidence, but that was our overwhelming bias and ignorance regarding what circumstantial evidence is, and what it showed in this case.

    You thinking it was "weak" has no bearing on it's "strength", only on your ignorance. You were wrong, no matter how many times you try to imply otherwise.

  366. Re:Still could be innocent by russotto · · Score: 1

    You'll need a hell of a lot of "other men" to make up for the usual 50%-or-so probability that murderers are usually close friends or relatives of the victim.

    Score, -1, misinformative.

    According to the 2006 uniform crime reports, of 14990 homicide victims:
    6750 relationships were unknown
    3465 the victim and killer were acquaintances but not friends or relatives
    1905 the victim and killer were strangers
    1483 the victim was a parent, child, spouse, or sibling of the killer
      450 the victim was the killer's girlfriend
      339 the victim was friends with the killer (the UCR does not distinguish close friends)
      298 the victim was other family of the killer
      150 the victim was the killer's boyfriend
      127 the victim and the killer were neighbors
        13 the victim was the killer's employee
        10 the victim was the killer's employer

  367. Re:Still could be innocent by norminator · · Score: 1

    Isn't that saying that Nina's friend was the translator?

  368. Re:Still could be innocent by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You'd be funny if your denial wasn't so pathetic.

    Actually I was just refuting the stupid assertion that knowing about a crime = guilty of it, by giving two counterexamples.

    I do like how you're obviously trying to pretend he's not guilty without explicitly saying so

    That internet mindreading course - I'd demand a refund if I were you. That goes for the ones on logic, English comprehension and debate too.

    But just so we're clear, the idea is that he was told the location of the body by the actual murderer and it was only after his conviction that it came up?

    Perhaps he thought nobody would believe him? Now before you make a fool of yourself again for responding to what somebody didn't say, read that in the context of the whole message, particularly the first part.

    Now unless you want shoving face-down in a hole too, I suggest you shut up and fuck off in whichever order suits you best. Mmmkay?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  369. Re:Still could be innocent by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    I admit there may be some moral leeway concerning the constitutional rights of child molesters, dicators and mass murderers, but that's not the case here.

    That makes you worse than any of those groups. Fairweather Freedom is worse than no freedom at all.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  370. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Consider the reasons a woman takes another lover in the first place.

    Hint: It's not because everything is hunky-dory in the bedroom in the first place.

  371. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh really, you're a "diagnostic professional"? You mean they pay you to read questions out loud out of wikiped--i mean, a medical text book, and then count how many "yes" answers people gave? That's REALLY impressive there.

    And no, conditions are not binary on/off alive/dead - the whole point of aspergers is that it's a low-order part of the autism spectrum, most likely caused by having only a handful of the genes necessary for full-blown autism.

    Nerdy loser IS a synonym for Asperger's.

  372. Re:Still could be innocent by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We have laws like that in Britain, but they only apply to Pakistanis.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  373. ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His mistake was making it an obvious murder. If he had drugged her, killed her out in the national forest (or desert depending on your locale). Preferably across state lines, as added insurance since states don't usually work together well.

    First off, pistols are for chumps, too traceable and loud. Use a cheap bowie knife or even better, just up the GHB dose so it kills her. If you do slit her throat, do it outdoors: don't want blood in your house or apartment now do you?

    You bury her very deep, as in deeper than the standard six feet.

    Then you clean out your trunk with bleach or ammonia (not both), eliminating DNA evidence, and drive home. Alibi? You were asleep.

    Simply having a motive and no alibi is not enough to convict you of jack shit. Besides, how many people have an alibi when they were asleep?

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

      Then you find out at your trial they have a video of your car driving that night down some highway. Not to mention, when they find bleach sprayed all over your car ... something is wrong and they will not stop until you are in jail.

      Everyone always thinks they can get away with it. Guess what chump, you won't get away with it.

  374. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I'd put money on him remarrying before he gets out, if he lives long enough in there. If anything he's more interesting now :P

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  375. Re:Hans' black belt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that he murdered his wife, it is difficult to believe that Hans actually did all the physical and mental training required to really deserve a black belt. More likely it came from one of the schools or clubs that grants them based solely on physical techniques without the spiritual discipline behind it.

    A black belt in a martial art has no real bearing on whether or not a person is able to use that art to really defend themselves. It only says that they have learned all the basic movements of that art, not whether they have any speed or power to utilize them in a combat situation. Many martial arts include board breaking as part of rank requirements, but that still really only means they performed the particular kick/strike properly in a controlled situation, not that they had sufficient power or capability to do it in an uncontrolled situation.

  376. Ninja body sweet! by Kuvter · · Score: 1

    I misread the title as saying "Ninja" instead of "Nina's" I was sadly disappointed when I realized my error.

    --
    "To be is to do." --Socrates
    "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
    "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
  377. Re:Still could be innocent by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    Ahh, yes, child molesters, dictators and mass murderers are of an equivalent level of moral depravity. Hmmm.... interesting.

  378. Re:Still could be innocent by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    I don't think so.
    After all, it wouldn't make sense. AFAIK, he can stilly barely speak Russian.
    There was a longer story online somewhere talking about the relationship to Nina and how it developed.
    Maybe also on the Wired threat-level blog.
    There are enough Europeans, too, traveling to Ukraine+Russia each year, literally "shopping" for a women. He's not unique. Only a uniquely bad ending.
    I really pity both parties.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  379. Re:Still could be innocent by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
    While you may disagree with me with regards to "crimes of passion", there have been several cases in Italy where people haven't been convicted because of "extenuating circumstances" with regards to infidelity, like walking in on their lover with someone else. (hence, the crime of passion). If you'd like, I'd be glad to pull up the history for you (as I researched the various types of murders that occurred in the EU for a class).

    On another note, yes, there is something as "permitted" homicide. It's called justifiable homicide. Please get your shit straight before trying to call someone out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

    The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse and an exculpation. In other words, it takes a case that would otherwise have been a murder or another crime representing intentional killing, and either excuses the individual accused from all criminal liability or treats the accused differently from other intentional killers.

  380. Re:Still could be innocent by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

    As the poster you replied to, I'm extremely pleased to hear this (that things are changing for the better).

  381. idiocy by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Reiser was convicted because he was (a) an asshole (b) not famous (c) not rich (d) white.

    Yes, that justice system, always trying to keep the white man down.

  382. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Okay, so that creates a doubt. The legal standard is called "reasonable doubt". Is the doubt created by your specific daydream reasonable?

    I doubted Reiser was guilty at first, too. All along I wanted to believe he was innocent, but the evidence just keeps stacking against him.

    In your scenario, even if he knew about a shooting and didn't report it, he's guilty of something. He tampered with evidence, failed to report the crime, and may be complicit in the murder. Not to mention that there's very little way to prove your story even if it was how it really happened.

    I'm sorry, and I really can sympathize with not enjoying the thought, but the man's a murderer.

  383. Re:Still could be innocent by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0, Troll
    I was just in Italy (and France and Spain) for my honeymoon about a month ago (I live in the states). Honestly, Italy was the worst out of every place. The people were rude, the police rarely enforced laws from what I could see (mind you, I was only there two days, but most police I saw simply sat around), and a lot of the cities were dirty.

    On the other hand, France was beautiful and clean and everyone was very nice. I would live in France for a couple of months if I could.

  384. Re:Still could be innocent by Improv · · Score: 1

    Look on the slightly broader scale - if murder were to become routine (prosecuted or not), it would in fact have an influence on your life.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  385. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by cplusplus · · Score: 1

    10.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  386. Re:Still could be innocent by servognome · · Score: 2, Funny

    He picked her out of a mail-order bride catalog, where she was advertised as "5279 Nina."

    I've always prefered 867-5309 Jenny Myself

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  387. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Well, let me qualify that by saying that some of us believe certain laws are bullshit and those who break them are hardly criminals. Handgun bans in DC and Chicago, non-violent and responsible use of drugs no more harmful than legal ones by adults, and shooting off bottle rockets with due care in the state of Illinois without a special permit come to mind.

    While people are being fined and locked up for things they should have the right to do and that aren't hurting anyone except maybe themselves, thieves, robbers, rapists, and murderers are getting out early because prisons are crowded. It'd be much better if the laws that really matter to people were enforced more strictly and more uniformly and the rest were just stricken.

  388. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Maybe he did and his rage was over being turned away. ;-)

  389. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.

    "Follow my will or I'll kill you" is not something I would expect from civilized people under the rule of law.

    There's a certain irony in this pair of statements.

  390. sigh by toby · · Score: 1

    He wasn't a murderer when it was written and named dumbass, it was named *before* he became a murderer by *years*.

    Quite so. But the weaker minds around here can't seem to distinguish the code from the man...

    --
    you had me at #!
  391. Re:Still could be innocent by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is and should be a big difference between what the peanut
    gallery assumes and what actually goes down in a court of law.

    "Everyone knows he did it" doesn't constitute proof.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  392. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Well, Jesus said one should turn the other cheek, and that one's charity should go beyond a thief's greed, too. He said you'd be blessed for being martyred in the name of God, but he also said that there was no greater love than giving one's life for a friend. I think that could be taken to mean that you shouldn't defend yourself, but that it's okay to defend others from attack at your own peril.

    Therefore, I think killing a person attacking your friend or neighbor, if that person cannot be safely subdued, would be considered acceptable under certain understandings of those passages.

  393. Re:Still could be innocent by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Yeah... the career minded prosecutor is going to go easy on you for cooperating.

    What color is the sky on your world?

    HELL, "crimes of passion" are what a lot of people have been indoctrinated (by popular media) into believing what Murder-1 is.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  394. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    I feel that your argument comes from a very 'eye of an eye' sort of moral position, and I don't feel that position is overall helpful for the human race.

    Yes, Nina is dead now, and Hans is not. That is tragic, and Hans is directly responsible for that tragedy. But I feel the punishment should be based on a combination of rehabilitation and deterrence, not on trying to exact some kind of state mandated reciprocal vengeance on Hans.

  395. Re:Whatever by menace3society · · Score: 1

    For the same reason that being too dumb to get the joke doesn't prevent you from posting to slashdot.

  396. Re:Still could be innocent by flanksteak · · Score: 1

    Thanks to the miracle of cable TV, I actually have seen portions of it many times, except for the beginning. I always wondered how he wound up in prison.

  397. Re:Still could be innocent by v1k · · Score: 1

    >How do you know when you're a suspect?

    Usually when they put the handcuffs on.

  398. storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the double meaning of the tag "storage" strike anyone else as macabre?

  399. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Asperger's and autism are spectrum disorders. People with very high intelligence and Asperger's tend to blend into everyday society quite well in most ways, but they still think very differently. Think Spock as opposed to Kirk or McCoy. Everything is logical, because emotions are faint and unreliable.

  400. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "OK then, random internet fuckwit, let me take you through this."

    You didn't read the part where I said "No one cares" did you? Shitty reading comprehension isn't Asperger's.

    "I was diagnosed, by an actual diagnostic professional, in 1994 when few people knew what the condition was."

    "No one cares".

    "Unlike you, random internet fuckwit, I am not actually a loser."

    Wishing does not make it so, loser. You're a twat with a diagnosis, one that no one cares about. The fact that you discuss it openly like you do directly refutes your claim of "not being a loser".

    "A pathetic insecure creature projecting your ignorance and self-loathing onto others over the internet in a way you dare not to their face."

    WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE A PROFESSIONAL IN THE EXACT AREA YOU ARE PRETENDING YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF. Maybe you should have paid attention to that asshole, it makes me anything but a "random wanker", meanwhile, you're just another nerd loser trying to pass his shitty social skills off as a genuine disorder because blaming your lack of social ability on an outside factor is much easier than admitting that people think your a cunt.

    Lastly jackass, I specifically asked you what significant impairment do you have to which you replied _______. Your lack of an answer goes directly to my claims, and illustrates why your "diagnosis" is bullshit.

    Meanwhile, I would like to draw attention to the fact that you, who are claiming superiority, are cursing and insulting people who were attempting to goad you into demonstrating that you're a poorly socialized twat whose only disorder is being a moron.

    And yet you think by doing exactly what I wanted you to, and proving what I wanted you to prove, that you're somehow making your point.

    Well, if your point is that you know I'm right, you proved it mightily.

  401. Re:Justified murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was in a sexual relationship with a negro. Do not know how many videos they made or where they are now.

  402. Re:Still could be innocent by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    Actually I was just refuting the stupid assertion that knowing about a crime = guilty of it, by giving two counterexamples.

    No, you were trying to refute them, and your attempts failed.

    That internet mindreading course - I'd demand a refund if I were you. That goes for the ones on logic, English comprehension and debate too.

    In other words, you know I'm right. So do I.

    Perhaps he thought nobody would believe him?

    Perhaps that's a stupid attempt at reasoning. Wait, no perhaps necessary.

    Now before you make a fool of yourself again for responding to what somebody didn't say, read that in the context of the whole message, particularly the first part.

    I did, still ridiculous.

    Now unless you want shoving face-down in a hole too, I suggest you shut up and fuck off in whichever order suits you best.

    Wait, wait, wait, you're threatening me? SERIOUSLY? A scrawny nothing loser ass nerd like you is actually attempting to threaten me over the internet? And you think I won't virtually laugh in your virtual face? Ok chief, shove me "face-down in a hole", back it up tough guy. I'm waiting patiently...

    Jesus, I was half kidding when I said you were pathetic before, but it looks like I was more correct than even I thought.

  403. Re:Still could be innocent by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Okay, so "significant impairment in day to day function", in a spectrum disorder, to you means that a high-functioning Aspergers patient cannot communicate non-emotional ideas clearly?

    The major issue with high-intelligence Aspergers tend to be not functioning well socially, usually because of an inability to relate to the emotions of others, isn't that right?

    In fact, one of the things that differs between Aspergers and the traditional autism diagnosis is that people with Aspergers tend to suffer less from a low IQ but are markedly distant, unsocial or antisocial, suspicious of authority, and feel outcast from normal social groups, right?

    Asperger's is characterized separately from other autistic spectrum disorders specifically by the distinction that there is no delay in verbal communication, language skills, or cognitive development, right?

    People with Aspergers tend to fall normally along the curve of IQ, have excellent vocabularies, communicate non-social ideas very clearly, and suffer from lack of understanding of social conventions, body language, and the causes and signs of emotions in others. right?

  404. Bad Boy Billy is not the greatest example by toby · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates or some other closed source proponent

    Bill had his day in court, and it didn't turn out so well. Just a pity there was no appropriate penalty applied for the damage that @*&$^% has done civilisation. And you can bet Microshit has killed quite a few, not to mention the monopoly impairing the quality of life of hundreds of millions... the lies and corruption are damaging honest people daily (look at the POXML war alone)... with no end in sight...

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Bad Boy Billy is not the greatest example by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And you can bet Microshit has killed quite a few

      Really?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  405. Re:Still could be innocent by damburger · · Score: 1

    Gotta love a blowhard AC trying to claim some kind of professional qualification. You really are a fucking retard - and by the one of my significant impairments is that I do not suffer fools easily. You are a deeply stupid person and I feel it is necessary to point this out to you.

    It isn't 'my' diagnosis by the way, which you would know if you weren't such a fucking retard. I already said, it was by a health care professional at a time when few people knew of the disorder and nobody was pushing it as 'trendy'.

    Your opinion of me, random Anonymous Coward wankstain, matters not one bit. I just feel the need to put you in your place again and point out your laughable inability to read simple sentences because it gives me satisfaction to do so.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  406. So what? does yours? by toby · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    you had me at #!
  407. Re:Still could be innocent by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
    Of course in the UK it is different. Could someone tell me whether I should or should not say something when a police officer quotes You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

    Well I googled it and came up with this link when I was looking for the exact quote ... http://www.foot-ansteys.co.uk/index.cfm/solicitors/News.Details/sectionzone_id/9/news_id/189

  408. Just use the magic words. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    How do you know when you're a suspect?

    Well, if the answer to the question, "Officer, am I free to go?" is something other than "yes", then you should seriously consider shutting the fuck up.

    In your apartment building example, if it were me, I'd handle it thusly:

    If I was not a victim, and I did not have any information that could help the police, I would just tell them who I was, where I live, and that I hadn't seen or heard anything out of the ordinary. If they still wanted to continue the conversation (doubtful they'd want to waste their time), I'd just say that "I have an appointment soon. Am I free to go?" If that doesn't end the conversation, then I invoke my right to counsel.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Just use the magic words. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      If I was not a victim, and I did not have any information that could help the police

      The person you're replying to probably has a different hypothesis. Suppose the situation were thus: you're not a victim, and you have information that might help the police. The smart thing to do is not help (because talking to the police is risky even if you're innocent), but if everyone does the smart thing, we all lose.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:Just use the magic words. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The person you're replying to probably has a different hypothesis. Suppose the situation were thus: you're not a victim, and you have information that might help the police. The smart thing to do is not help (because talking to the police is risky even if you're innocent), but if everyone does the smart thing, we all lose.

      I'm having a difficult time imagining a situation where I might have some helpful information, but revealing it might lead to me being charged with the crime.

      I guess in such an oddball case, I'd consult an attorney before proceeding. But it's not as though you need to lawyer-up every time a cop says, "Hi, how are you?".

      The fact of the matter is, our jails are not stuffed to the gills with people that helped the police. So something in the system must be working as designed.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:Just use the magic words. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I'd just say that "I have an appointment soon. Am I free to go?"

      Ah, but what if you didn't have an appointment soon, and they found out that you lied? Ha!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:Just use the magic words. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what if you didn't have an appointment soon, and they found out that you lied? Ha!

      I always have an appointment soon. For varying degrees of "soon".

      Go to the barbershop on the corner and get a haircut. Or substitute "I have some errands to run" if you feel uncomfortable with the whole appointment idea.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    5. Re:Just use the magic words. by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm having a difficult time imagining a situation where I might have some helpful information, but revealing it might lead to me being charged with the crime.

      It's not that hard to imagine. Usually, it happens when there is violence involved.

      Heck, man, you're likely to get grilled if the cops think you're "too calm" in a situation involving violence. Happened to me while I was helping treat a gunshot wound.

      No, I didn't do it. It was someone I cared about a great deal and it was self-inflicted, but the sheriff was bound and determined that he was going to try to pin it on me because solving an attempted murder or attempted homicide would look better than a suicide attempt. Thankfully, the state troopers there (who were first on scene) had my back. The very first one there looked like he was about ready to beat the living daylights out of the sheriff because he saw what I was going through.

      Hell, I guess the cop at the hospital where they took her even tried to get her to say that I did it.

      Never underestimate the lengths some cops will go to in order to get a "suspect".

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Just use the magic words. by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you had to go through all that, but I'm not sure how your story is relevant.

      Would you have been considered any more or less of a suspect if you invoked your right to remain silent and your right to counsel? I can't see how your providing information to this sheriff would have led to your being charged with this crime.

      Do you really think the DA would have filed charges against you? What did the victim say about "whodunit"? Why would the assailant call 911? Whose prints were on the gun? Did the victim have a history of diagnosed mental illness? What was your relationship to the victim? Did you have motive to murder her?

      I still can't imagine what truthful information you could have given that sheriff that would have led to the DA filing attempted-murder charges against you. No motive. Her prints on the gun. Her history of depression. You are the one who called 911. Dozens of people to testify that you cared for the victim.

      So that is my question for you. Would you have been considered any more or less of a suspect if you invoked your right to remain silent and your right to counsel? That is what this discussion is about.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    7. Re:Just use the magic words. by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but I'm not sure how your story is relevant.

      2 things - I was there (actually, I was rushing up the hill in question because I had a bad feeling) when it happened so I had the information in question and it's an example of the lengths cops will go to in order to stretch the truth in order to "get the suspect" (make their career).

      I can't see how your providing information to this sheriff would have led to your being charged with this crime.

      You have obviously not dealt extensively with police. More than a few of them will take "I gave information" to mean "I did it because I know what happened".

      Do you really think the DA would have filed charges against you?

      In that county? Hell yes.

      What did the victim say about "whodunit"?

      I don't know how to break this to you, but the cops kept trying to get her to say that I did it even after she told them what happened. This is while she had a bleeding gunshot wound. She actually ended up spitting on the cop that was trying to get her to say I did it. (According to her, that was a mistake, because it really hurt. With a hole in your chest, I'd believe it)

      Why would the assailant call 911? Whose prints were on the gun? Did the victim have a history of diagnosed mental illness? What was your relationship to the victim? Did you have motive to murder her?

      In order: I had to flag down a car because I didn't have a phone at the time (long story), but an assailant would call 911 in an attempt to make it look like they didn't do it or because they panicked and had second thoughts (it happens). Both of our prints would have been on the gun. Yes, but the police don't care (especially not there. trust me). We were engaged. No.

      I still can't imagine what truthful information you could have given that sheriff that would have led to the DA filing attempted-murder charges against you.

      The fact that I knew the gun used, knew where it happened, and was "too calm". You don't seem to get that not all police officers are straight as an arrow (and that sheriff, well, isn't).

      So that is my question for you. Would you have been considered any more or less of a suspect if you invoked your right to remain silent and your right to counsel?

      Actually, this part of the discussion was about how being free with information (whether or not you are a suspect at the time) can lead to you being turned into a suspect and/or being charged with the crime, and I'm telling you that it can, has, and does happen.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Just use the magic words. by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Why are you so sure we'll all lose rather than seeing a police and legal system reform that will make it safer to cooperate with cops?

  409. Damn preview button by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    To finish the though, I'm not sure why the DA chose to pursue 1st degree in this case to begin with. Circumstantial evidence makes for a hard case - proving intent with circumstantial evidence has got to be a nightmare.

  410. "old fashioned" by toby · · Score: 1

    In fact, reptilian. A little too "old fashioned" to fit comfortably in a modern framework of civilisation, apparently.

    --
    you had me at #!
  411. Re:Still could be innocent by Harlequin · · Score: 1

    I read that as nina brought her friend along to translate for her.

  412. Re:Still could be innocent by Hugonz · · Score: 1

    You should have begun your post with IAAML (I am a movie lawyer)...

  413. Ever stop to consider Audrey Hepburn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me, I remember that she disappeared on a yacht trip with her husband, and her husband immediately hooked up with someone else. Doesn't seem to me that I remember him being charged with anything.

  414. Serious question by Enahs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've no plans to drop Reiser (still using v3 dern near everywhere) over something like this, but the serious question is this: What's going to happen to ReiserFS at this point? Would Hans have to turn over the copyright? Is there a precedent to be set here, take it out of his hands, whatever?

    I use ReiserFS on a home machine, my wife's laptop, and a fileserver at work (with tail-packing ENABLED) and can't imagine doing without it. Anything comparable on the horizon?

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    1. Re:Serious question by clampolo · · Score: 1

      Would Hans have to turn over the copyright?

      No need. It's in the kernel so it is available under the GPL.

      Anything comparable on the horizon?

      Well ext4 is in experimental mode. Looks like it is still slower than Reiser4 though. But it will be an improvement over ext3 since it at least has an online defragmentation tool.

      What's going to happen to ReiserFS at this point?

      I was looking forward to Reiser4 but who know what will happen now. Some people are hopeful that Hans will be working on Reiser4 from prison, but it kind of seems like a long-shot to me. It's a shame, because it looked like it was blowing everything out of the water (including ext4.) And there was still room for major speedups according to Hans.

    2. Re:Serious question by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You've got balls putting that on your wife's computer.

    3. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use ReiserFS on a home machine, my wife's laptop, and a fileserver at work (with tail-packing ENABLED) and can't imagine doing without it. Anything comparable on the horizon?

      As a fellow long-time ReiserFS user (and regretful occasional Reiser4 user), XFS is probably what you want going forward. More featureful and performant without sacrifice in stability or stupid misfeatures of ext3.

  415. Re:Still could be innocent by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    You should get moderated for the Shawshank Redemption reference

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  416. You know who I feel REALLY bad for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know who I feel REALLY bad for? The FOSSies. This whole time they were saying he couldn't have done it, it was all a Microsoft plot, etc etc. And now...

    Next thing you know, people are going to start saying that Linux will never be viable on the desktop. Oh, what horrors has the reality based world unleashed?

  417. Re:Still could be innocent by Toonol · · Score: 1

    Can you point me to a reference? I'm interested in reading up on that (assuming you weren't joking).

  418. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent may have been intended as a flame, but it's completely accurate.

  419. Re:Still could be innocent by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    "There are plenty of people with Aspergers who can speak more eloquently than you or I"

    Well, you at least...

  420. Re:Still could be innocent by internerdj · · Score: 1

    He was trapped in the closet.

  421. Re:Still could be innocent by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How about he came home to find her getting bopped by her boyfriend ( or girlfriend, hell it is 2008 ) and in a fit of blind rage shot them both.

    Its called a crime of passion, and while it wouldn't make him innocent, it would reduce the charges significantly.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  422. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For lifetime the "lover" would be a rapist. The rapist was her best friend's abusive husband. The best friend knows but stays quiet and lives in fear, until she discovers she has terminal cancer.

  423. Re:Still could be innocent by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.

    Who said anything about morally justified? Well maybe that's what they meant, but I read it as simply saying that is what he might do.

    People, normal human people, do things all the time for which there is no moral justification. They aren't people without morals, they are just people. And morals are a trapping over our primitive emotions that doesn't always hold them in check.

    That's why we have the thing called the "crime of passion", and why premeditated murder is considered a more serious crime than coming home to see your spouse in bed with someone else and right then and there deciding to kill them. Especially when the perpetrator expresses remorse, demonstrating that they know there was no moral justification for it, then they end up with much reduced crimes and sentences. Even the law recognizes that people are human.

    Not that I don't agree with you that it's wrong and morally depraved and what not. And I highly appreciate not wanting to be with a highly possessive and jealous person. But I think I should let you know that there are a lot of jealous people out there, and more importantly that if your SO ever catches you "in the act", you might suddenly find them to be more jealous and possessive than you ever thought possible.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  424. Re:Still could be innocent by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    Your social skills are clearly proof that the diagnosis was accurate.

    Just sayin'

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  425. Same thing for OJ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not trying to flame, but I think thats why the black vs white thing played out in the OJ trial. Black people wanted him to be innocent whereas white people didn't have the same connection.

  426. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, he would help his attorneys maintain that she had deserted the kids and went to Russia even though he knew there was a body? Nice guy. He clearly had no concern about the kids during the trial.

    I understand the maximum sentence he can get is 15 years now. Well, it was worth it to get confirmation that she is dead, despite what his attorneys said.

  427. Re:Still could be innocent by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    You said

    "I can't write a witty rebuttal so I shall just say 'Fuck You'

    Fuck You."

    Then you said

    "the ultimate tool for letting lippy cocksuckers who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag say what they like to people without getting a richly deserved kicking."

    Then I laughed at you.

  428. Re:Still could be innocent by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    a raped woman could be forced to marry their raper (as depicted in the movie "sedotta e abbandonata)"

    contraception was strictly forbidden.

    Great... so if some guy raped me with a condom, then I'd be forced to marry a convict serving time in prison for wearing a condom during?

    "We don't care about the rape, but by God, we won't have him wearing a condom!"

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  429. BZZZZT! by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    and the jury most probably declared him guilty because of the overwhelming evidence, even though it was mostly circumstantial

    Fixed that to make it reflect reality.

    He didn't get convicted because he was weird, or arrogant, or strange, or exasperating, knock that shit off please. He got convicted because there was real evidence which he failed to explain adequately, or even believably, or hell, even non-absurdly.

  430. Re:Still could be innocent by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    I have Aspergers. However, since I am according to you not articulate, and have poor speech skills, I can't write a witty rebuttal so I shall just say "Fuck You"

    Fuck You.

    I make it a point to not argue with mentally disabled people. Good luck to you.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  431. Not really. by gmarsh · · Score: 1

    Meh.

    I drive a Volkswagen, and have no problems sleeping at night despite the fact that VW was basically started at Hitler's orders, and was a big supplier to the Nazi war machine.

    If anything, using ReiserFS means that the oxygen used by this douchebag isn't a total waste.

    (That being said, I use ext2.)

  432. Re:Still could be innocent by geneven · · Score: 1

    I think that telling the police that you were on tv in Europe during the killing and can prove it might help exonerate you.

  433. Re:Still could be innocent by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    Well, why can't you lie to them? The trick is not to get caught ;-p

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  434. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right - and then Hans doesn't mention this killer to the police, and cleans up the murder scene and buries her body? Makes as much sense as bigfoot killing her. Nice police work there, Lou.

  435. Well about that by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Well about that by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I _know_. Which is why I said it is _my_ opinion as well as stating that I am in no way qualified to venture an educated guess. We are basically agreeing with both of you not realizing this :p

  436. Spelling by godless+dave · · Score: 1

    What is so fucking difficult about spelling "led" correctly?

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  437. Re:Still could be innocent by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

    The justice system is designed to deal with suspects, and suspects with Aspergers and other disorders think differently than the majority of suspects. So he possibly was different than most suspects. Significant.

    Criminals who think differently shouldn't be treated differently, but you shouldn't be assumed to be criminal because you think differently.

    His suspicious actions and the suspicious way he defended himself in court could be caused by Aspergers instead of guilt. Not saying he is innocent and or has Aspergers, just trying to explain.

  438. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assholes, this is a real person with a real family, not some fucking Manga or Anime or video game.

    From the article:

    "Nina Reiser's family have since sold the rights of their story to Japanese writers Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata, who will make a manga to be serialized in the Japanese magazine "Weekly Shonen Jump." The magazine indicates that these will also be made into a cartoon series and trilogy of video games."

  439. But but but... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    But everyone here on Slashdot said he was innocent! He was only convicted because the jury was prejudiced against geeks! There was insufficient evidence to convict! So how can he have led anyone to the body?

    I'll be waiting for his book on how he would have done it if he had really done it.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  440. Re:Whatever by metamatic · · Score: 1

    I was thinking more that there would be snide comments inciting flamewars.

    "Hans, do you want to take a stab at a suitable patch?", that sort of thing.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  441. Re:Still could be innocent by otopico · · Score: 1

    for the same reason you could somewhat get away with killing your wife if she just was behaving in an unappropriate way

    But, she was cheating him! She was secretively using NTFS!!

    Hell, this needs modded up. Best comment in this thread AND funny.
    Maybe it wasn't just NTFS, it was NTFS running on an Vista install running on a Mac Pro via BootCamp!

  442. Re:Still could be innocent by otopico · · Score: 1

    And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.

    "Follow my will or I'll kill you" is not something I would expect from civilized people under the rule of law.

    There's a certain irony in this pair of statements.

    Not just a 'certain' irony, its damn painful the original poster missed it. Or just chose to miss it to avoid having to think about how the statements don't make much sense together.

  443. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That advice would have cost me a lot of felony charges, where simply going along with them and being a nice guy let me walk away.

  444. Re:Still could be innocent by aurispector · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but concocting some cockamamie story doesn't mean innocence, either.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  445. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    Yes and many people have this attitude; until it's one of their own loved ones. I'm not saying you're one of those people, but most people would have a change of heart when it's one of their own loved ones murdered.

  446. No juror said "they didn't like him" by MushMouth · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately we live in a soundbite nation....

    on SF Gate
      it is far more nuanced than they simply didn't like him. More correctly they didn't find the whole of his testimony believable. Likely because it was a lie.

    I've been on a San Francisco criminal jury, and there is no way you would find 12 people in this area where all 12 would convict of murder simply because "they didn't like the guy". These jurors live here, they all personally know plenty of asocial people, they probably like some of them even.

  447. wow. by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    A 15 year deal just to disclose the location of the body???

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  448. Re:Still could be innocent by Pollardito · · Score: 1

    you left out the part about the one-armed man

  449. All Hans needs to do now is ... by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    .. run fsck.reiserfs

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  450. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just as anonymous as I. You just wish you were different, so you pretend you have a mental problem instead.

  451. Re:Hans' black belt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, you really believe in the martial-arts woowoo, don't you?

    Here's a hint, kiddo: breaking boards isn't a mystical thing, and no amount of martial arts training makes you into an ethical superman.

  452. Hans has no friends? by metamatic · · Score: 1
    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Hans has no friends? by zsau · · Score: 1

      Better still is: http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser/foes/ "hansreiser (6963) loves everyone or plays their cards very close to their chest". Apparently not!

      --
      Look out!
  453. Re:Still could be innocent by MushMouth · · Score: 1

    This will be on the web forever, and the kids may very well read it at the very least their friends (or enemies) will read it in time.

  454. Won't someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PLEASE think of the children?

    Oh wait, it actually fits in this case

  455. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    That's true. But one of the very useful purposes of government is moderating people's desire for vengeance and solving problems with violence.

    I would hope that if I were ever to find myself in that position I would remember my principles and keep true to my ideals. But I might well abandon them in the grip of the powerful emotions I would likely experience.

  456. Hans and 2600 Magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Hans now be advertising in the back of 2600 magazine?

  457. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    I'll have to agree to disagree with that. The Government's job is justice and certain extreme crimes justify extreme punishments.

  458. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But the thing is, your position is not true and never was. The conviction was not against the principles of the system. If you're one of the people who think that Habeas Corpus means you have to have a corpse to try someone for murder, Habeas Corpus doesn't mean what you think it means. And convictions can actually be based on circumstantial evidence, provided the evidence is strong enough to leave no reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

    Just think about history for a few minutes The basic principles of U.S. law you're claiming are being violated were codified in the 1700s. Did modern forensic evidence exist then? No. Could they have ever proved a murder well enough to satisfy you? Doubt it. Virtually every trial where there were no direct witnesses to a crime would've involved evidence of the same quality -- or worse -- as seen in this case. Do you really think they wanted a system where anybody with half a brain could get away with murder?

    That's why the standard is 'reasonable doubt', not 'ironclad proof'. The legal system is not intended to be like formal mathematics.

  459. Re:Still could be innocent by RogueyWon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm... I see your point, but you're being a little harsh on people in general, I think.

    I grew up in a little town in the North West of the UK called Hyde. This town is known for being where the UK's most prolific serial killer on record went about his business; Dr. Harold Shipman. I remember how people in Hyde reacted when the story broke, and how this changed as it developed.

    In some ways, the parallels with this case are strong. Sure, there are differences - while he committed suicide before he could be tried for more than a handful of them, the best estimates (from medical and judicial professionals, not the gutter press) are that Shipman killed hundreds (I've seen numbers from 200-400 throughout his career quoted), while Reiser just killed one. However, I think the similarities outweigh that.

    Both were highly respected within their respective communities. Both were, in some ways, slightly odd, but certainly not to the extent you'd consider them dangerous. Both, thought themselves smart enough to talk their way out of any situation, including a well-evidenced murder rap. Both, ultimately, found out that they weren't.

    Shipman was always popular around Hyde, particularly with his elderly patients (who formed the bulk of his victims). I did some summer work, before the story broke, at another General Practice in the area while I was a student and there was always a steady drip-drip-drip of patients leaving the books of the practice where I worked to move over to Shipman's. He was renowned for a good bed-side manner and his patients liked the fact that his surgery was a one-man-band; they could be sure that they'd always see the same doctor when they needed to, whereas at a larger practice, they might end up seeing somebody they didn't know so well.

    The first public rumblings came when it was revealed that a non-local woman had complained to the police, after she'd been cut out of her recently and suddenly deceased (Hyde resident) mother's will in favour of Shipman. The reaction of both the local press (albeit by inference) and public was pretty much unanimous. "The mother was very old and had just died of natural causes - she hadn't been fantastically well for some time, after all. She'd been living on her own in Hyde for years, not seeing much of her daughter. It perhaps wasn't surprising that she'd decided to leave her money to her well-liked GP, who she would have seen a lot of in her later years, rather than to a daughter who she felt had abandoned her. The accusations were just a spiteful attempt to get the will overturned."

    This lasted several months. However, as time went on, it became clear that the police were actually taking this very, very seriously. More and more bodies were exhumed. There was talk of strong evidence that the will in question was a clumsy forgery. More and more local residents came forward to say "Actually, my Mum died quite suddenly, now that I think about it, and the last person she saw was Shipman". Then it came out that a GP at another local practice had actually informed the police of her concerns about the number of deaths among Shipman's patients over a year earlier and had been ignored. By the time the trial started, there were few in Hyde who believed that Shipman was innocent.

    Can you blame people for this? Not really. The man was, to use a rather hackneyed but nevertheless fitting phrase, a pillar of the community. People base their beliefs on the evidence they have available to them and in the early days this was very thin. The narrative of the spiteful attempt to overturn the will fit with the general public mood quite well, and understandably so - there was growing concern at the time throughout the country (and there still is today), that litigation was making it impossible for medical practitioners to do their jobs safely. When the available evidence changed, people's views changed. At a guess, I'd say an overwhelming majority of the locals went through this path, self included.

    There were, it is true, a tiny minority who did

  460. Re:Still could be innocent by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    Herr Zeller: Perhaps those who would warn you that the Anschluss is coming - and it is coming, Captain - perhaps they would get further with you by setting their words to music.

    Captain von Trapp: If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.

    Herr Zeller: You flatter me, Captain.

    Captain von Trapp: Oh, how clumsy of me - I meant to accuse you.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  461. Re:Still could be innocent by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    There's a technical term for this: Selective Photographic Memory Loss. Bill Cliton suffers from this condition.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  462. Re:Still could be innocent by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    And if you then think, you are morally justified in killing them when they don't comply, I'm glad that capital punishment is still available.

    ...he said with no irony whatsoever.

  463. Re:Still could be innocent by rk · · Score: 1

    I normally don't respond to ACs, but if you're truly any sort of professional in the field of mental health, your writing oozes non-professionalism and a profound lack of empathy and caring. If you're a professional who thinks that goading people like that is okay, whatever professional certifications you have should be revoked.

  464. Re:Still could be innocent by damburger · · Score: 1

    But you assume I don't speak to people like that in person. I do. Generally, I find that most of the big guys who could kick my arse aren't so deseperately insecure that they would make something of my comments. It tends to be punchy little guys who take exception, and get laughed at.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  465. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Guess we know which category you're in..

  466. Re:Still could be innocent by immcintosh · · Score: 1

    A remorseful, intelligent man would've realized that a life with a murder on your conscience i just as bad as prison, maybe even worse.

    I think this is one of those things that works out a lot better in theory than practice. Life outside of prison with a murder on my conscience vs. life inside of prison with a murder on my conscience. Hmm...

  467. Re:Still could be innocent by molecularaz · · Score: 0

    Sorry to admit to this but when i was 17-18 years old i got in trouble alot with the cops for car stereo theft and what not. I never really got in trouble, but i was smart too. They would often try and trick me.. They would call my parents house and ask to speak with me. They would say stuff like "Hey would you mind coming down here and giving us a set of fingerprints?" I said "For what"... "Oh we just want to make sure your not involved in this theft. To which i replied " You can have my prints if and when you come arrest me" "Oh but why not, are you guilty of something" they replied. "No, i just know i have rights." "Oh well your friend Rick has admitted to doing this crime with you and he says he will testify against you" I replied "Well then i guess you have enough evidence to arrest me, so i will se you when i see you" Nothing ever happen.... but they tried to trick me real well.. I was so notorious at the time i would get pulled over while walking and get frisked down. I got a few cops suspended (with pay of course, utter crap)

  468. Maximum penalty in CA - Death by MushMouth · · Score: 1

    Murder is a capital offense in California, which means, he could have received a death sentence for killing his wife like Scott Peterson.

  469. Re:Still could be innocent by 1karmik1 · · Score: 1

    The link you supplied regards U.S. legislation, not Italy (which is not mentioned in the whole wikipedia article), not to mention that the article is flagged as lacking any citation and possibly containing unverified claims (As of 09/07/2008). In Italy such a thing as justifiable homicide doesn't exist, there are just _isolated_ cases in which an alternative punishment is considered in regards (usually) to the mental health of the assailant. That's it. It's quite different from saying that you can kill everyone that fucks your wife at pleasure. And yes please, i'd be glad to see your history. Possibly in the last 30-40 years (the "murder of honor" was indeed present in pre-WWII code and it took time to abolish it). If you were referring to a time frame previous to that, i apologize for having been harsh but such a tainting and humiliating past is twice as painful if stated to be our present (when it's not). Regards :)

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
  470. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah! You seem to be thinking of Death Yoga practitioner Sean Sturgeon!

  471. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by SinceEBCDIC · · Score: 1

    So you're suggesting this was merely a management issue? Total Quality Management or somesuch?

    --

    I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there. -- Richard Feynman
  472. Re:Still could be innocent by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Eventually, the chance meets 1 that it does, due to someone getting killed that I know.

    But I hope you don't expect from me now that I break down into deep mourning mode whenever someone gets shot on this planet. I have a life, ya know...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  473. Quality dev time by garglebutt · · Score: 1

    At least he'll have plenty of time to finish reiser 4 now.

    --
    Do anything, anywhere, anytime.
  474. Re:Still could be innocent by DrCode · · Score: 1

    Aarrhh! I still haven't seen "Shawshank Redemption", and now you've spoiled it for me!

  475. Re:Still could be innocent by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    You can fully well lie to investigators. Hans did.

  476. Re:Still could be innocent by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    True but is killing something over ego issues really worth it?

    I can just see it, his thought was "rage building, blood pressure climbing...". Maybe he should change his name to Mr Furious.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  477. Everyone's capable of murder? by flajann · · Score: 1
    Despite everything, I am not buying that assumption that everyone's capable of murder.

    If that were true, with all the crap that's been done to me over the years... well, suffice it to say that I am incapable of murder.

    Besides, death would be too good for some people. Why put THEM out of THEIR misery? Why not do something far worse -- allow them to live? See all of the advantages:

    1. You don't get your hands all bloodied up, having to clean up the mess, etc.
    2. You don't go to jail or get a bad reputation.
    3. You can sit quietly by and watch the misery that is their life.
    4. You can go on and become wildly successful and make'em hate you even more!
    5. And finally, you can watch them find some way to take themselves out, and you can spit on their graves.

    See, I like my plan much better. Death is NOT a gift I would want to give to my enemies!

  478. Re:Still could be innocent by crashfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ya gotta wonder about the people who thought he was innocent.

    What's to wonder? Lacking the whole story as told in the courtroom, they merely thought that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Hans was guilty.

    Absent the body, absent any known murder weapon, and with the victim being a foreign national holding dual citizenship and with plausible motive to flee the country and frame Hans for murder, that's not an unreasonable conclusion. It may not have been the conclusion you came to, but different people have different ideas about how much evidence you need to convict a man of murder.

    Now, of course, after a guilty verdict, a confession, and with the body right in front of us, it's pretty stupid for anyone to continue to maintain his innocence. I know I'm convinced. But before all this? "Beyond reasonable doubt" depends entirely on how you define "reasonable."

    --
    I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
    If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  479. Re:Still could be innocent by hotfireball · · Score: 1

    Never fuck with russians. Ever.

  480. Re:Still could be innocent by crashfrog · · Score: 1

    The conviction was not against the principles of the system. If you're one of the people who think that Habeas Corpus means you have to have a corpse to try someone for murder, Habeas Corpus doesn't mean what you think it means.

    You may not need the body, but you need some kind of evidence that a murder had even been committed, and the disappearance of a woman with dual citizenship and a history of duplicity (plus a missing car seat) may or may not constitute such evidence.

    I don't think it did. Now that we have a confession and a body, that's different.

    That's why the standard is 'reasonable doubt', not 'ironclad proof'.

    I don't think it's reasonable to convict a man of murder when it's every bit as likely his victim is alive in Russia.

    Now, obviously we know that's of zero likelihood. But that's what we know now. And the jury might very well have known things that we did not. But back then, when we didn't know those things? There were serious questions about whether it would have been reasonable to convict him.

    But I don't expect you to agree, and apparently you were right not to. Congratulations, this time.

    --
    I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
    If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
  481. UH..WTF...Seriously by caveat · · Score: 1

    How long has the table in the Wikipedia article had a "Murders your wife" column? I can't see that lasting too long..

    Funny though :D

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  482. Re:Still could be innocent by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    make me wonder what stake you have

    Hey moronic coward, you caught me. I am really Hans posting from prison trying to save my name on slashdot.
    What a fucking dork you are.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  483. Nevermind. by caveat · · Score: 1

    Drunken surfing...I totally missed the "This is an old revision of this page"..

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  484. Re:Still could be innocent by nomadic · · Score: 1

    How do you know when you're a suspect?

    When they read you your rights. If they're talking to you, and elicit incriminating statements from you without reading you your Miranda rights, those statements can (and should) be suppressed at trial. And the legal standard for being in police custody is whether a reasonable person thinks they have the option to leave, I believe.

  485. Re:Still could be innocent by flajann · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually, if Hans had kept his mouth shut and let his lawyer do all the talking, he would've gotten off anyway. There was no solid evidence that Nina was dead.

    Oh well, this is sad on so many fronts, and now the "justice" system will feel more empowered to convict on flimsy evidence, which will result in more harm to innocents.

  486. Re:Still could be innocent by flajann · · Score: 1
    There is a chance an inmate told him where a body was that he murdered, and Hans decided to use that to cut his jail time.

    But they still have to actually ID the body to make sure it's Nina's. So we'll see.

    But honestly, I can't support the man anymore. Hans really and royally screwed himself and that's all there is to it.

  487. Re:Am I the only one that feels 15 years is too li by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not an extreme crime. Killing 50 hookers over a span of 10 years is an extreme crime. Shooting people randomly with a sniper rifle is also pretty extreme.

    Killing your ex-wife in rage during an argument when she's also had an affair and embezzled from you is not that extreme. It, in fact, is sadly all too common a scenario (though the having an affair and embezzling bits are details that change from case to case). It is definitely criminal, and definitely deserves punishment. But reacting as if it's the most horrible thing in the world isn't particularly realistic.

  488. Re: Let me Guess by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    He was protecting the NTFS from an upstart. If RFS had taken over, Linux would have won and Windows would have been dead.

  489. Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have time to read 1350 comments, but here are some details which are not yet public, from a source inside the oakland police department.

    The body was cut up into pieces, and taken to the grave in 3 duffel bags.

    He killed her by first punching her, then strangling her.

    Just thought that might be interesting.

  490. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no reason whatsoever to believe he was guilty. It was all speculative garbage and not even slightly suspicious. This confession is the first indication of his guilt.

    They obtained a conviction with no body, no weapon, and no motive. That is an undeniable fact. Lie to yourself all you like, I see right through it.

    Just keep telling yourself all those lies, and don't be surprised when you're the one convicted of murder without a shred of real evidence.

    1. Re:Bullshit by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      He had plenty of motive. Plus, he had already threatened to kill her. He also had the means, and the opportunity. All this was apparent during the trial.

      The jury got it right, and so did I. Eat it.

  491. Re:Still could be innocent by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    No, contraception has nothing to do with it. Two seperate issues here.

    In some cultures, rape is a form of promiscuity. As such, a forced bond in marrage is for the citizens and *not* for the victim or rapest. For them to not be married would be a dishonor to the rest of the people.

    Contraception was generally forbidden as it would interfere with Gods plan of procreation. Only He should decide whether or not to bless a couple with children. In the eyes of catholicism, contraception is somewhat of a sin.

    None of this is my POV. I'm just providing an explanation of these issues for what it's worth.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  492. Re:Still could be innocent by iamacat · · Score: 1

    If it really comes to you walking in on your wife having sex with another man, I doubt you will see the situation as "humans lawfully and consensually having sex" right at that moment. You might even get more angry than you would be at a house robber or mugger. All murders must be punished, but some consideration must be given to the degree to which you were provoked and weather many reasonable people would react in the same way as you.

  493. Re:Still could be innocent by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ was tried, convicted and executed by the laws of his country. He even got a trial by jury by people deciding which of two detainees will be pardoned. So you think you get a pass from your God just because your actions are sanctioned by your government? Better think again.

  494. Re:Still could be innocent by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

    The same is true in New Zealand. Coming from the USA, I had to laugh at the sentencing here. Convicted murderers get like 10 years in jail. I don't think I've ever heard of a life sentence here. They let convicted murderers out on parole who go on to murder more people. There was a dude last year who went on a killing rampage immediately after being parolled. People here are wising up and getting really pissed off though; there was a large (for New Zealand) demonstration in Auckland last week against the lenient attitudes towards criminals that the system has here.

  495. Re:Still could be innocent by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>But yes, to return to my original point, it's a little harsh to criticise people for changing their opinions on the basis of the available evidence, so long as they are reasonably honest about it, which most peole generally are.

    I don't blame those that change their opinions based on the evidence, but those that will come back and say that they knew *all along* he was guilty.

    Just like your aforementioned priest.

  496. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he could be an accessory and obstructed justice, i.e., he viewed someone else commit the crime and didn't report it and resisted exposure.

    worse, he could have actively participated, but not be up for a murder-1 charge.

    finally, she could have died accidentally and he became afraid and buried her.

    there are many possibilities other than murder-1. we will find out when the forensic scientists finish their work.

  497. Good God! by james_bray · · Score: 1

    An intelligent, well-reasoned response from a Slashdot poster?!?

    What ever next!

    --
    http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
  498. Innocent by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    Actually, OJ was not proven guilty, and is thus innocent. Perhaps that was a case of "We can't believe he's innocent because he isn't one of 'us'".

  499. Re:Still could be innocent by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

    At this point, the midget comes out of the closet...

  500. Re:Still could be innocent by pez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although we're all innocent until proven guilty, for those of us without access to all of the facts it certainly seems damning. He was already convicted of this crime, and now *on top* of that conviction, he is the only person who has been identified as knowing where the body is. I'd say that's pretty compelling.

  501. Re:Hans' black belt by painehope · · Score: 1
    Considering that he murdered his wife

    Unwillingness to hurt/kill is one of the first obstacles that someone must overcome to be a survivor. Admittedly, shooting one's wife in the heat of passion does not make one a cold-blooded killer. But if he's in decent shape, keeps his mouth shut, shows racial solidarity, and hurts a few people bad enough (I don't care what people say - most real fights are over in about five seconds, and if you know what you're doing, you get in the first shot at the slightest hint of aggression), he'll be fine.

    Of course, this is Hans Reiser (aka "Mr. I'm Smarter, Better, and Slicker Than Anyone Else") we're talking about.

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  502. Re:Still could be innocent by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.

    And if you admitted as much to the cops, and testified to such in court, the district attorney would likely seek no more than manslaughter.

    Is thay you, O.J.?

    Sounds premeditated AND with intent to me. You're not to go to the house, so you do anyway. Why? "To get a cup of sugar?" Or is it because you want to see if she's screwing with someone else - which shows some sort of planning. What she's doing is none of your business once you're separated. You kill her while committing another crime - the breaking of the restraining order. It's not manslaughter. You had, in your mind, a reason that motivated you to go over there in defiance of a court order. That shows planning and intent.

    "If you love it, let it go. If it comes back, it's yours - if it doesn't get a shotgun and hunt it down and kill it" is stupid, but that's what you're excusing, if only partially.

  503. Re:Still could be innocent by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    The apparent hypocrisy is easily cleared up.

    If someone is positing "Do my will or I'll kill you" - why not apply that exact standard to them. They don't do what we want (refrain from murder) by killing others, so we apply their rule - "Do my will or I'll kill you" to them, killing them.

    It's holding someone to their own standards. Can't get more just than that ...

  504. Re:Still could be innocent by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    If it really comes to you walking in on your wife having sex with another man, I doubt you will see the situation as "humans lawfully and consensually having sex" right at that moment

    One day Rosenberg caught his wife having sex with Greenbaum, his business partner. Rosenberg was outraged.

    "Solly, I don't understand this! Why are you doing this thing? She's my wife! I'm married to her! I have to! But you ...?"

    (source -- Isaac Asimov's Joke Book)

    IOW, if someone is screwing around on you, you haven't lost anything of great value, so why get so upset just because your illusion was shattered.

  505. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty handsome abstraction ad absurdum you made here, but after all it is untrue.

    Matter of fact is, don't kill unlawfully or be killed by law.

    The GP advocated killing other people for having consensual sex without his explicit approval, which is rather obscene.

    You could be right when you tried to say "an eye for an eye makes the world blind", but then you should make that statement more precise.

    The way you phrased it, we could very well assume you advocate free will for everyone, consequences and severe bodily harm be damned.

    Your right to swing your fist ends right before my nose, if you think that's oppression by society then get off my lawn.

  506. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not necessarily his diagnosis could still be incorrect. I suffer very similar symptoms but I have been diagnosed as disorganized schizophrenic. What makes his diagnosis correct is that he was diagnosed by an actual psychological health professional and not some random fucktard on the internet.

  507. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    I support the death penalty. For murderers only.

    And I support the death penalty even more for barbarians who murder people that don't follow their will.

    Yes, I advocate killing tyrants, now you know.

    And if you cannot differentiate between murder and capital punishment, cause and effect, please avoid jury duty. A broken heart heals faster than a broken skull, every time, so spare me the pity for old Mr. Reiser.

  508. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    You mean, just because I have no objections when a known mass murderer has a terrible "accident" while police custody, I am morally worse than a mass murderer myself?

    You say, agreeing at the death of a very guilty man is worse than actively murdering 20 people?

    Are you posting from prison or just from the other side the moon?

  509. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    They are not, obviously. They are rather grouped by a youth-weighted bodycount, if you want the grim details.

    Just because they all qualified for The Chair, they aren't equal any more than you and me.

    I'm no native English speaker, so let me correct the term "child molester": touching a child surely does NOT, rape MAY but raping AND killing surely qualifies for death row. Just showing your wee to a kid is sick and wrong, but the kid will survive and so should the sicko.

  510. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to be writing cheap women's "love" novels instead of techy work... I assume you ARE doing tech work?

  511. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    I didn't advocate killing people for doing something, except for killing.

    The irony here is easily resolved when you stop pretending crime and punishment are one and the same. Both actions end the life of a human being, but they are not equal.

    You may advocate that the death penalty is wrong and I understand you, even if I disagree. But you may not advocate that the death penalty is the same as a cold-blooded murder of someone whose shoes you didn't like.

    If it was, every prisoner would be a hostage, every act of self-defense ironic and the whole world a cartoon.

  512. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're pathetic. Totally fucking pathetic. You'd have rather seen a cold blooded murderer (the other evidence was not flimsy, by the way) walk than "empower the justice system"? Get the fuck out of my country. Seriously. We don't need your kind.

  513. Re:Still could be innocent by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I was half joking, there isn't a specific law, except those on racial discrimination which are used to justify all manner of things from forced (or arranged as they call it) marriages to female circumcision to voodoo exorcism.

    What's obvious is that the police often go soft or turn a blind eye to avoid being accused of racism.

    And none of those is from the Daily Mail - for the benefit of lefty imbeciles like the one who modded me down.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  514. Re:Still could be innocent by Don853 · · Score: 1

    Okay, you're probably not reading this two days later. But he bought books on criminal investigative techniques. I'd assume that he wanted to cover his trail, and that it was indeed premeditated.

  515. Not for lying by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    So she went to prison for lying to them. To me, that is insane.

    No, she went to prison because some prosecutor made a name for himself by 'taking down' Martha Stewart. Lying was just the hook.

    See, it's not insane, it's just evil. Feel better now?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  516. Poking the Hornet by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I mean holy shit how can we tolerate this in our prisons and act like it's not an 8th Amendment violation if we just let the prisoners do it to each other...

    Agreed, it's abhorrent. But watch as I suggest separate prison facilities for gay prisoners, the tsunami of 'homophobic' comments that follow.

    I don't care, though, when you lock up criminally insane* homosexuals or bisexuals with members of the same sex it's no different than locking up a criminally insane man with a woman, and this would not be tolerated. To be perfectly clear: Prison is the punishment. Getting fucked in the ass is only something that should happen consensually.

    * I define those who commit violent crimes as insane, whether the State says so or not

    Oh, and while we're at it, can we stop compounding this problem by giving weight training programs to the inmates so that the hardest criminals are always the physically strongest? JHFC.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Poking the Hornet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's abhorrent. But watch as I suggest separate prison facilities for gay prisoners, the tsunami of 'homophobic' comments that follow.

      I don't care, though, when you lock up criminally insane* homosexuals or bisexuals with members of the same sex it's no different than locking up a criminally insane man with a woman, and this would not be tolerated. To be perfectly clear: Prison is the punishment. Getting fucked in the ass is only something that should happen consensually.

      I wouldn't assume that prison rape has anything to do with homosexuality or bisexuality. You don't really think there are just huge numbers of gay inmates, do you? Prison rape is first of all like all rape about power and control. Second of all it's about "any port in a storm" if you catch my drift. Most of the guys who rape in prison would never think about having sex with a man when they get out. Because they aren't gay. So separating gay prisoners won't help.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Poking the Hornet by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Most of the guys who rape in prison would never think about having sex with a man when they get out. Because they aren't gay

      As I said, perhaps they're bi-, but straight men don't think about having sex with other men at all. Not for power or fortune. If a storm's a-brewin', Mr. Righty is a sufficiently safe berth.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Poking the Hornet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Is this like your definition of "crazy" applying to all violent criminals regardless of the complete lack of psychological validity? Sorry, whether you understand it or not, it's just not the case. Prison is a pretty fucked up place, and like I said rape isn't about sexuality it's about power and control. Think for a second about the implications of your axiomatic definitions -- you're implying that homosexuals or bisexuals are more likely to be "crazy" and commit violent crimes. Maybe that seems logical to you. Doesn't matter. Separating everyone you could identify as either before incarceration would not in any way result in a reduction in prison rape in your hypothetical "straight man" prison.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Poking the Hornet by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Is this like your definition of "crazy" applying to all violent criminals regardless of the complete lack of psychological validity?

      Well, if 'popular' psychology says you can be completely sane and commit heinous violent crimes, then sure, I'll happily stand outside that circle. I'm not talking about competence to stand trial, but rather having a mind that works properly in a society.

      Think for a second about the implications of your axiomatic definitions -- you're implying that homosexuals or bisexuals are more likely to be "crazy" and commit violent crimes.

      How's that? My assumption is that most men entering prison do not want to engage in anal sex with other men.

      Separating everyone you could identify as either before incarceration would not in any way result in a reduction in prison rape in your hypothetical "straight man" prison.

      Has this been tried? How about as a remediation measure?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Poking the Hornet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'll happily stand outside that circle.

      Of people who know anything about human psychology. It's great that you want to be your own person with your own ideas. Don't expect anyone to take policy suggestions based on those ideas seriously.

      How's that? My assumption is that most men entering prison do not want to engage in anal sex with other men.

      And yet anal rape occurs in prison at a rate larger than that of the ratio of gays/bisexuals in the population at large. If anal rape = gay/bisexual, and violent crime = crazy, then the implication is that homo/bi-sexuals are being incarcerated at a rate greater than their occurrence in the population, due to their increased rates of insanity.

      It's not hard logic. But then again neither is the logic about rape and sexuality.

      Has this been tried? How about as a remediation measure?

      No. Because nobody who actually knows anything about the situation has any reason whatsoever to believe it would work. And in the real world, you can't just go around trying every crazy-stupid sociology experiment that some random know-nothing thinks up just to see what happens.

      Just because it is comfortingly sensible to you that only insane people commit violent crime, and only homosexuals or bisexuals would ever rape a member of the same sex (not make love to, rape), does not mean that in any way correlates with reality.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Poking the Hornet by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And yet anal rape occurs in prison at a rate larger than that of the ratio of gays/bisexuals in the population at large. If anal rape = gay/bisexual, and violent crime = crazy, then the implication is that homo/bi-sexuals are being incarcerated at a rate greater than their occurrence in the population, due to their increased rates of insanity.

      No, your logic doesn't follow. If we assume for a given block of prisoners that all of them are violent criminals, then that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, simply that violent criminals tend to wind up in prison. I was not assuming that the number of perpetrators of these acts is higher than the general population of homosexuals - this was your assertion. What I found is that the number of victims is estimated between 1 and 12% of the prison population, with the oft-cited numbers being between 3 and 7%. The population demographic for homosexuality is between 1 and 10%, not terribly different, with numbers near 6% being the most common. These are only correlated, not causative, however it does not support your hypothesis that a higher number of abusers in prisons exists than homosexuals in the general population. Additionally, one meta-study found that criminals convicted of violent crimes are more likely to engage in this kind of violence than criminals imprisoned for non-violent crimes. I can't argue that this proves my assertion that these are violent at-least-latent homosexuals, but it doesn't rule that idea either. Rather, that ~90% of the prison population does not engage in prison rape supports the idea that the typical inmate isn't interested in this kind of behavior.

      No. Because nobody who actually knows anything about the situation has any reason whatsoever to believe it would work.

      So, you have personal knowledge about this field of study you've not yet divulged?

      And in the real world, you can't just go around trying every crazy-stupid sociology experiment that some random know-nothing thinks up just to see what happens.

      Well, fortunately for humanity, it appears that much of the literature that I was able to find is oriented to understanding the problem and studying ways to reduce and/or eliminate it, not to accept it as status quo. It would be truly unexpected to achieve a revealed understanding and promulgate a derived set of rules based upon such enlightenment to correct the problem. It's much more likely a solution would be achieved by having a large number of experiments conducted, each guided by some insight, and see which ones work to correct the problem and which ones do not, and then to iterate based on success or failure, perhaps after greater understanding has been achieved. Then, continue to work vigorously on the problem until it is solved.

      Just because it is comfortingly sensible to you that only insane people commit violent crime, and only homosexuals or bisexuals would ever rape a member of the same sex (not make love to, rape), does not mean that in any way correlates with reality.

      I grant that our definitions do not concur but if I'm defining a well-regulated mind to be one that does not allow for violent anti-social behavior, and 'straight' as one who does not engage in homosexual acts (the impetus for which is not relevant) then this is a matter of classification (the positioning of which I would expect many members of our society would ascribe to), not belief or disbelief. I find it insufferable that you're willing to take the offense lightly because it may be done as means of control rather than as an expression of love. The non-willingness to spend resources, perhaps in vein, in order to try to protect the victims, as is required by our social contract (perhaps a US-centric view - our Constitution requires this of our government) belies a lack of sympathy for the victims. It's curious that these may be two facets of the same issue - that unwillingness to honor a social contract would be considered by many an anti-social behavior, especially about an issue of violence, so it's likely natural that we'd disagree about both issues if we were to disagree about merely one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  517. God, y'old dummy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Contraception was generally forbidden as it would interfere with Gods plan of procreation. Only He should decide whether or not to bless a couple with children. In the eyes of catholicism, contraception is somewhat of a sin.

    Gosh, I hate how God is so dim so as to have not thought that giving us brains would lead to contraception. Oh, wait, he's omniscient.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  518. Wow, Slashdot mods are CRAZY by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Someone actually modded UP a post saying don't be hard on a man who murdered his wife... because of a bitter divorce?

    THIS got modded up?

    Did anyone, like, notice this madness?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Wow, Slashdot mods are CRAZY by flajann · · Score: 1

      Someone actually modded UP a post saying don't be hard on a man who murdered his wife... because of a bitter divorce?

      THIS got modded up?

      Did anyone, like, notice this madness?

      Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.

      It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust?

      There is no excuse for what Hans apparently did. But that does not mean we shouldn't try to understand what lead him to those actions. He is doing his time. What more do you want? Damage is done. All we can do is try to understand it.

    2. Re:Wow, Slashdot mods are CRAZY by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.

      It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust?
      -------------------

      Sorry, but I refuse to have compassion for murderers.

      This is the same argument people used when Susan Smith killed her two kids and Andrea Yates drowned all 5 of her kids.

      It's bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    3. Re:Wow, Slashdot mods are CRAZY by flajann · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been through a bitter divorce? You have no idea.

      It's easy to slam Hans for offing his wife, and I am by no means trying to excuse that. But at the same time, does that mean we should ignore the incredible levels of stress, the way the court system is stacked against men, and the fact that Nina betrayed his trust? -------------------

      Sorry, but I refuse to have compassion for murderers.

      This is the same argument people used when Susan Smith killed her two kids and Andrea Yates drowned all 5 of her kids.

      It's bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

      I am not asking for compassion, but understanding. It is all too easy to say "he's bad", but then we never understand what led up to what he did.

      And if we ignore such basic understanding, we learn nothing. And such tragedies will continue to happen.

      I thought slash-dotters would be the last ones to choose emotions over rationality, but alas, still only human...

    4. Re:Wow, Slashdot mods are CRAZY by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      How about the murderer get some understanding?

      As in, "Understand this, dickhead... murder your wife in cold blood and we will start chopping shit off until you're dead."

      This isn't about emotions or rationality - it is about deterrence. In fact, what you're trying to sell here, smells a lot like feel-goodism, and not anything close to tried and true reality.

      If you want rationality as you define it, then I suggest you start pushing for Maori justice.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  519. Re:Still could be innocent by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    People that kill their wife when they caught her in the act are not reasonable people. Not at all.

    I'd wager to include all people who get angry when disappointed in that definition, but I'd leave that to a PhD in psychology.

    First and foremost, because the statistical odds are against your idea of monogamy. Heavily, I might add. The odds that your wife - and YOU! - remain absolutely faithful through the course of fourty long years are slim to none.

    Half the population has had an extramarital incident and that includes millions of people who would swear to God, Steve Jobs and anyone who dares to listen that they would never cheat their partners. Most people love sex and they have all "the tools" available so they do it sometimes.

    Just get over it. It's not worth breaking your marriage, losing your sanity or risking a felony because your partner has had some fun without you. Sheesh, I'm no polyamorist or hippie, but I'm still pretty sad when people blow their lifelong marriage because of two drunken hours...

  520. How about a different angle - deterrence by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Absolutely go to town on a murderer.

    Let future potential murderers take pause and consider what could happen to them if they cross that line.

    It is a proven fact that people are getting WAY out of control these days because we don't hammer down on their butts.

    Three hots and a cot for Hans Reiser? WTF? Forget that, put him in a chain gang in the hot sun. And that punishment hasn't even begun to fit the crime - considering it's much more humane than the punishment meted out by him to his wife!

    Those of you who disagree with me - which of you has lost a loved one to murder? Please, I dare you, tell me you don't want that animal's head on a stick.

    He murdered his wife in cold blood and a bunch of Slashdotters who have never suffered anything more than 500 gigs of lost porn, want to talk about cruel and unusual punishment?

    To hell with political correctness. I say bring back public executions. Make a game show out of it. Let's show criminals that if you kill someone in cold blood, you will go down. Painfully. Let's see, who do you know wants to die in screaming agony? I didn't think so.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  521. Re:Still could be innocent by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *sigh* I'm aware that there are two separate issues theres.

    First, I were to be raped... in order to protect "the people"* I'm forcefully married to him, and him to me.

    Second, since he used a condom during the rape, that means that he is guilty of a crime, and is either punished, or put in jail for it.

    They wouldn't have really cared that the woman was now married to a convict.. I mean, it's his property, and he's a doofus for having done something to acquire the property that ended up being illegal.

    * Note that "the people" here, means "the patriarchal system." If a woman is raped, it's like dropping a glass at a department store, "Hey! You broke it, you buy it!" In the Old Testament, the law was to ensure that a father got a dowry for his daughter, who was now undesirable to anyone else. If she was married, then crap, if she has a kid, whose is it? No way to tell, and so a man might be raising a kid that isn't his... best to just kill her, and then you don't have to deal with potentially bastard children. Modern rape is a violent crime assaulting another recognized person... in old times, it was a non-violent crime of property damage.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  522. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are multiple axes?
    They found the murder weapons, too?!

  523. Re:Still could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes... Fabio *Reiser*... Hans' long lost brother; who, although bearing a striking resemblance to Hans (at least in Hans' mind) was never recognized as such due to the fact Fabio never used his last name.

    The story of how these two brothers were separated at birth, and one ended up unknowingly being selected as the model for a book about the others tragic life, is soon to be a CBS miniseries.

  524. Re:Still could be innocent by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Modern rape is a violent crime assaulting another recognized person... in old times, it was a non-violent crime of property damage.

    Rape and promiscuity are two different things. The difference is that one act goes against the consent of an individual while the other is mutual.

    Regardless of time periods in human history, rape is often emotionally and/or physically disturbing to the victim.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  525. uh ... just don't bury it! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    You can hate the world as much as you like, just don't bury it under the Petunias ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  526. They have solutions for that ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Search for Tampon...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  527. Re:Still could be innocent by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    So she's dead, he's in jail for life. The kids aren't likely to read up on the slashdot story about their dad killing their mom.

    So where's the harm in joking about the murder?

    Does the phrase "common human decency" ring any bells?

    Actually, it probably doesn't, so just carry on being an asshole.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  528. Re:Still could be innocent by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I make it a point to not argue with mentally disabled people.

    YMBNH.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  529. Re:Still could be innocent by phorm · · Score: 1

    Agreed. As most of the case to me has been heard through third-parties, I held somewhat of a belief that it was possible he was not guilty (stupidity and arrogance does not equal guilt). From what I heard, there was no body and a lot of circumstancial evidence, not enough to clear reasonable doubt (I'm guessing the judge/jury heard a more substantial evidence though).

    However, he got convicted. I can't argue with it, I wasn't there. There was just a small inkling of "did he really do it" left.

    However, I'd say that that little inkling died handily with the knowledge that Hans knows the whereabouts of the wife's body. *Now* we have a body folks, and Hans is tied to it. Let it go folks, the guy's guilty.

  530. How did it get there by phorm · · Score: 1

    While some divorces or separations are understandably less amicable than others, am I the only one wondering how this one ended in murder. Now I don't really want to see it is a book by Hans entitled "My Story" or an ABC special, but I'd like to know how this whole thing ended in a murder (a few pages of summary would be fine for me). Is Hans just that out-of-control? Was it a crime of passion? Was it premeditated?

    The common opinion is that Hans is a smart guy, but arrogant. How did those two play into it, and what led up to the fatal end. Maybe knowing that could avoid a similar situation in the future.

  531. Re:I guess this means he falls under the messy typ by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    So there are people who divide everything into two, and those who do not?

    No, there are people who divide everything into two, and those who are right :-)

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  532. Torture, or death? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Under a lot of the "old ways", the punishment for killing was death. Some of these were somewhat inclusive of torture, as they were rather painful ways to die. In many cases, though - other than the unavoidably unpleasant expectation of the end - the pain itself was rather brief. Beheading/guillotine, sepuku (doesn't look pleasant, but if done right should be quick), poison, execution by firing squad, etc, are they more or less humane than 20+ years in prison, to be released into a world where you have no place and a record that almost guarantees unemployment or future criminal activities?

    However, in avoidance of sentencing innocents, even those on death row have a very lengthy wait. It takes up space, it takes up time, and it takes up money. It even gives some - up until before the end - the chance to come to terms with what they've done and possibly change themselves... just in time for it all to end anyhow.

    So who is being tortured there?

    As for those that administer the execution, in many it depends on mindset. How about the cops that deal with child-abuse cases? Yes, it's a terrible job, and no doubt damaging, but if they put an abuser away and possibly save others from a similar fate, isn't there also a sense of justice and personal satisfaction? How different would it be for an executioner. How about those in the military, do they think of themselves as "killers" or "defenders of freedom?" Is there a huge line between enemy combatants and convicted criminals (other than that the enemy is trying to kill you or your friends, and the criminal is killing or killed others)?

    Just some food for thought, at any rate. I'm rather torn on the issue myself, as I believe that there are some people (serial rapists/child-abusers/etc) that have no place in this world, but there are others who might end up on the row undeservingly.

  533. Victim by phorm · · Score: 1

    to make him compensate the victim (when possible, which it isn't in this case)

    There are many victims in a murder case. Nina was one, but anyone who knew and cared for her is also a victim of a crime such as this, especially her family and children.

    While nothing can replace her, how about having murderers - rather than just being locked up - do work with the proceeds/pay going towards restitution/relief for the victims?

  534. Sometimes it's valid by phorm · · Score: 1

    If somebody is put in a situation where they fear for their personal safety (or that of their offspring, etc), then it may be somewhat of a valid defense.

    From what I can tell, this doesn't apply in this case.

    1. Re:Sometimes it's valid by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      If somebody is put in a situation where they fear for their personal safety (or that of their offspring, etc), then it may be somewhat of a valid defense.

      Not disagreeing. I just get annoyed by (most) peoples assumptions that it can never apply to men. I've seen quite a few violent relationships where the abuser was a women, its very difficult for the man to get taken seriously in that case.

      From what I can tell, this doesn't apply in this case.

      Lack of information, we just don't know. But yes its probably not the case.

    2. Re:Sometimes it's valid by phorm · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing. I just get annoyed by (most) peoples assumptions that it can never apply to men. I've seen quite a few violent relationships where the abuser was a women, its very difficult for the man to get taken seriously in that case.

      Yup. The abuse reports against men are terribly skewed. First of all, in many places it's really not considered manly to have your ass kicked by a woman, so it goes unreported due to embarrassment, etc.
      Also, I've known many cases where guys have been getting beaten up by women, but bringing it up with authorities has them being the ones that get in trouble when the female in question claims she's the one being abused.

      I know many guys who are also afraid to defend themselves, for fear of causing the female damage and thus being considered an abuser, and other who have been attacked with household weapons (blunt objects, kitchen knives, etc).

      I have some experience with this myself... as I walked into a police station with a black eye and a split lip, and ended up having to clear myself after the girl in question claimed I had been violent (despite no physical signs of trauma on her part).

  535. Made me... by phorm · · Score: 1

    Stop right there. There is no such thing as "making X kill Y"

    Self-defense is about the only valid reason (and defense of another, in some cases). Neither of those seem to apply here, though.

    There are sometimes excuses for killing. There are none for murder.

  536. Re:Still could be innocent by megaditto · · Score: 1

    Isn't that why people like you tried to kill Salman Rushdie?

    That's what you get when your mind is tighter than your asshole, asshole.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  537. Re:Still could be innocent by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Modern rape is a violent crime assaulting another recognized person... in old times, it was a non-violent crime of property damage.

    Rape and promiscuity are two different things. The difference is that one act goes against the consent of an individual while the other is mutual.

    Regardless of time periods in human history, rape is often emotionally and/or physically disturbing to the victim.

    Of course the emotional harm done to a woman in old and modern times was the same. The difference is, in olden times that didn't legally matter. While rape was a devastating thing to happen to a woman in olden days, just as it is today (I wish I didn't personally know how devastating) the patriarchal society didn't give a s* because it was against a woman.

    In much the same way, Nazis justified their death camps because Jews, Retards, and Gypsies were all defined as "sub-human", and thus not afforded the same rights or respect given to another German, and before Americans try to get all high on the horse, that was the exact reason justifying slavery in the United States.

    Killing someone's slave in the United States was not a murder, it was property destruction... Nazi concentration camps weren't murderous, because it was vermin control.

    It is naturally up to philosophical debate, as to whether these acts were fundamentally any more immoral than destroying someone's chair, (or in fact, killing their dog), or destroying cockroaches and rats that have infested a house... You're free to hold your own beliefs upon which way it was, but I'm talking about legal fact, and attested history... not morality.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  538. Re:Still could be innocent by D.McGuiggin · · Score: 1

    "But you assume I don't speak to people like that in person."

    No actually, I didn't assume anything (other than the fact that you're a raging asshole, which you've proven true). You're trying to fabricate an excuse.

    But no, you just wrote something stupid and hypocritical and weren't smart enough to realize it.

    "It tends to be punchy little guys who take exception, and get laughed at."

    Maybe, but this time it was YOU. Ha ha @ you internet tough guy who lies about what he says in real life to avoid admitting he wrote something stupid.

    Go be pathetic somewhere else now, thanks.

  539. And the clueless shall rule the Earth... by flajann · · Score: 1

    How about the murderer get some understanding?

    As in, "Understand this, dickhead... murder your wife in cold blood and we will start chopping shit off until you're dead."

    This isn't about emotions or rationality - it is about deterrence. In fact, what you're trying to sell here, smells a lot like feel-goodism, and not anything close to tried and true reality.

    If you want rationality as you define it, then I suggest you start pushing for Maori justice.

    Huh?

    You know, there are many, many atrocities committed in this world. The Bush Administration is responsible for the needless deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and this was due to open malice and intentional circumvention of the law, and lying to congress and the US people. Hans is responsible for the death of one person, and it would appear to me to be a "crime of passion".

    If you feel so incensed as to "chopping s*it off until you're dead" for just one murder, how do you feel about Bush and Cheney, whom are responsible for the needless deaths of many of our kids over resource disputes? Do you feel the same, if not greater anger? Why not?

    This is not about "feel-goodism", whatever that's supposed to mean. There is no excuse for what Hans did. There is also no excuse for that poor 16-year-old boy, a Canadian citizen, who has spent at least a year in Guantumano(sp) Bay, being tortured by your nice friendly good ole' US of A.

    If you have any understanding about "crimes of passion", you know deterrence is a joke. In general, doing nasty things to people for doing nasty things has never worked as "deterrence", even back in the days they would chop off your hand for stealing a loaf of bread.

    Oh, but maybe it'll work today when it has failed for centuries. Hmmm. Maybe I'm just being too rational. Or maybe I lack Faith. Or maybe I am missing the boat entirely. Help me out here.

    But in my estimation, responding to clulessness with clulessness never got anyone anywhere. If we don't bother trying to understand, we might as well fully resort to the practices of our progenitors -- and eye for an eye, go forth with the pitchforks, let's have some more witchhunt trials. Or perhaps some Inquisitions. Hell, let's just chop up and slaughter everyone that does not measure up.

    Or perhaps we should finally begin to see a thing for what a thing really is.

    As far as Maori justice systems, it seems good in principle and I would be all for it, but I think it too will suffer from some of the same problems the current injustice system has unless one addresses the entire process of the determination of guilt or innocence, which is quite the joke right now.

    1. Re:And the clueless shall rule the Earth... by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      I'm all for trying and hanging Bush and his administration for treason.

      And spare me the knee jerk slippery slope'isms. The guy killed his wife in cold blood - that's a far cry from burning someone for being a witch. If you can't see the fundamental difference there then you and rationality aren't even in the same zip code.

      You know what, how about you be married to Hans in the next life?

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    2. Re:And the clueless shall rule the Earth... by flajann · · Score: 1

      I'm all for trying and hanging Bush and his administration for treason.

      And spare me the knee jerk slippery slope'isms. The guy killed his wife in cold blood - that's a far cry from burning someone for being a witch. If you can't see the fundamental difference there then you and rationality aren't even in the same zip code.

      You know what, how about you be married to Hans in the next life?

      Far cry? If so, then I presume you wouldn't mind being burned as a witch as opposed to being shot in cold blood?

      And you accuse me of "knee jerk slippery slope'isms"?

      So I guess you see absolutely no value whatsoever in understanding the conditions that may have led Hans to do what he did.

      I suppose when the next would-be Hans comes along, no one will be able to help/stop him/her in time because no one bothered to understand.

      I don't know about you but if I saw a friend or a co-worker going through the psychological angst that might lead to suicide or homicide, I'd want to personally help that person. But if I'm too busy being "angry at murderers", I'll never develop the necessary understanding and skills to be able to jump in an offer a hand in preventing another tragedy.

      And so I would say that those who exhibit attitudes like yours will be most unhelpful at helping a fellow friend or associate deal.

      I have learned my lesson in this regard, and it was quite painful. Quite. I just hope you'll never have to endure what I have. It would change you attitude, I assure you.