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.
All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?
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.
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!!
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.
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.
From the article, the location where he dumped Nina must be approximately here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.833531,-122.182109
~Ben
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies