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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
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
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.
This is the Devil here... when you die, please take the escalator down, not up. I need to have a word with you.
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.
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.
nowhere does the artcle sqy a 15 year deal was made.
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.
Random and weird software I've written.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can beleive he would still use it.
I am trolling
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.
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
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'.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat