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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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