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.
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?
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!
Even after the conviction, given the circumstantial case some doubts remained. This certainly removes all remaining doubts.
FINALLY
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
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.
My blog
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.
Oh, and there was no reasonable doubt. They had physical blood evidence that Nina was murdered in his car.
My blog
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.
\/\/\/
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
--endcycle--
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?
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.
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can also be found, that is the difference.
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.
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.
--endcycle--
(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.
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.
"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
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If his ego was worth a damn, it wouldn't have bought a wife from a russian agency.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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!!!
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?
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?