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?
All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?
My blog
There was always that little (irrational) bit of me that said he was innocent. Foof.
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.
that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.
FINALLY
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.
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
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 hate the world.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
queue?
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
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.
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.
Why is parent modded 'troll'? HR has been discussed numerous times on slashdot. Parent's question does seem relevant.
I believe you mean Reiser4, which is the successor to ReiserFS, not ext4.
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
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."
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]
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
-Matt
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
HTH.
HAND.
-- Tom Rathborne
... that's because it's an unrecoverable error due to corrupt media.
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.
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.
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
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.
He's just proven that he is psychic!!
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.
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.
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!!
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.
No shit.
Now that they have the body, they need to charge him with obstruction of justice and anything else that could conceivably apply.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
he was definitely methodical about his FS!!!!!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Good thing he was journaling. We can just dismount his wife and restore her to a known-working version... questionmark?!
DATABASE WOW WOW
Was Fabio on the cover of this book?
Maybe nina did too.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
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.
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
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.
No, part of his punishment should be being forced to maintain a file system that he feels is inferior.
under the petunias, of course!
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/so-i-married-a-kernel-programmer
factor 966971: 966971
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"
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.
I honestly thought he was innocent until now.
They're using their grammar skills there.
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?
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.
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.
...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.
storage
This is the very essence of all that controversy.
Very good, I wish I had mod points.
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.
Remember to enable soft updates before executing this plan.
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.
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?
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
From the article, the location where he dumped Nina must be approximately here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.833531,-122.182109
~Ben
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.
This isn't the movies.
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
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
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."
Won't somebody think of the children?
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
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.
If they would only just replay the journal...
Invaders must die
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.
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?
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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
Presumably his lawyer worked this stuff out. That's the lawyer's legal responsibility to his/her client.
Yay! An intelligent human!
to work on ReiserFS 24/7 for the rest of his natural life.
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
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...
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.
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?
> 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.
In your opinion of course.
Who gets to define the "reasonable" part of "reasonable doubt"?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Ohyes oh yes oh yes oh yes
They both reached for the gun!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wasn't that an R. Kelly video?
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...
nowhere does the artcle sqy a 15 year deal was made.
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--
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?
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?
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.
Tweet, tweet.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Strange - you've just described conservatism (at least the American strain of it...)
This space available.
Shawshank Redemption?
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Isn't the manslaughter vs. murder decision usually given to the jury?
"..it is not further proof of his guilt.."
So..how's that hole your head is stuck in?
Yes, things are *never* black and white, they are *always* complex. Brilliant.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
"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.
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.
Soon he'll get the special visitor that says, "You work us now"
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
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!
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.
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/PatBenatar-CrimesOfPassion.jpg/200px-PatBenatar-CrimesOfPassion.jpg
Crimes of Passion? Hell yeah I'll permit it.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
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.
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
...because even decomposed, we know her eye nodes will be recoverable.
(too soon?)
Are you sure about that? I'm the disorganized type myself, and I can never remember where I've placed the body.
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
Inode Reiser did it.
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.
a cold blooded murderer
(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.
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.
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...
There are only two types of people in the world: Those who see gray areas and those who only see black and white.
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.
"if it weren't for those pesky kids and their dog!" Thanks scoob!
Hans has a black belt in judo, he'll survive better than another nerd might.
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!
...
For similar reasons, I kinda doubt he'll be returning to Slashdot. Or at least, not with his current login.
....
damn straight! . . . . . . whoops.
The jury convicted him on his personality. They even said so.
How we know is more important than what we know.
IOW: Occam, meet razor.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Body?
What Body...???
(blinks)
Oh, wait a minute-- now I remember, THAT body! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
"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.
Twitter?
Make SELinux enforcing again!
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?
Put identity in the browser.
beastiality? Video clips or it didn't happen.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
That depends upon how many wives you've had.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I hope he is brutalized in prison. Brutalized and savaged.
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!*
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.
There are two kinds of people:
All those that make generalisations ought to be shot.
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
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".
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 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...
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?
Because, there is very few things about Italy that could be considered civilized nowadays; we should not try to emulate it.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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?
You might be wanting the "Post Anonymously" button there, dude...
>>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.
Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said.
...red herring ? He was convicted on something which actually did not happen ? (it might also be that the "source" is blowing hot air).
So the blood in the car and in the house were
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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.
There are even axes to the graph, crazily enough. Plural.
I divide everything into 3 + 2i bins myself.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So you're saying that OpenBSD stopped supporting ipfilter because...
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.
Some guy on kernel.org: Will this bug in reiserfs ever get fixed, Hans?
Reiser: I'm incarerated, Lloyd!
(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.
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.
If the glove isn't 64-bit, you must acquit.
Close :)
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I can beleive he would still use it.
I am trolling
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YiOZRzfOUl0
If his ego was worth a damn, it wouldn't have bought a wife from a russian agency.
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.
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 /dev/hda -o /recovery/foremost
foremost -t wife -i
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.
Isn't that doublethink? Double plus ungood for missing the chan
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.
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!
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.
Hmm, I just caught myself doing exactly that. Strange how the brain works.
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.
Ok, you owe me a new keyboard. This one has very sweet tea all over it.
MP3 Search Engine
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Did you have breakfast this morning?
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.
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.
I wonder what his karma is like?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Free as in beer or free as in speech?
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
Alright, OJ, calm down...
----
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...
MP3 Search Engine
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
hmmm Chakravanti...? oh wait those aren't real. =(
Machine9dotNet
Oh, the ironing is delicious.
Carpe Daemon
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
Come home, find dead body, panic, bury dead body.
i'm from hollywood...you're hired!
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?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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...
... all of which are really bad things.
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.
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?
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
+2, Interesting – wtf?!
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
In the age of FOSS and GNU, how can one man's misbehavior doom a file format system?
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.
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
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.
Somebody tell Jack Thompson about this! Divorces are just as bad as videogames!
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
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
Your troll-fu is weak, my son. 891 comments so far and only two replies to your post (including this one).
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
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
...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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Legally proven, Big Difference from us IT crowds, who like "mathematically proven", and think legal systems work with math. Ha!
"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!!!
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.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Program Intellivision!
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?
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
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
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.
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?
...to all the people whining about how Reiser was "wronged" during the trial and was innocent all along?
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
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"
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?
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.
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.
Sir_Lewk(967686) wrote:
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.
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.
...by the fact one of the tags is 'storage' and the ambiguity of that tag with this story?
Ungh
"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.
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.
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.
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. ...during the trial the prosecution mainly showed that Hans was acting weird (whoa ! that comes as a shock for a file-system nerd...)
Ignoring the fact that now Hans has pointed the body and is very probably the killer for a rather strong value of "probably"...
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 ]
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
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.
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
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."
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.
We also joke when it hurts. See gallows humor, and, this article as an example.
Towards the Singularity.
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.
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.'"
"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.'"
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
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.'"
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.
Warning: at Subject, line 1: condition always evaluates to true
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.'"
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!*
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.
Not really.
I guess SOMEONE hasn't watched Law and Order:CI
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
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.
"They Both Went For The Gun"?
NO SIG
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.
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.
--endcycle--
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.
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
Isn't that saying that Nina's friend was the translator?
Actually I was just refuting the stupid assertion that knowing about a crime = guilty of it, by giving two counterexamples.
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.
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."
That makes you worse than any of those groups. Fairweather Freedom is worse than no freedom at all.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
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.'"
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'
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.
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
Ahh, yes, child molesters, dictators and mass murderers are of an equivalent level of moral depravity. Hmmm.... interesting.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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
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.
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...
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.
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
As the poster you replied to, I'm extremely pleased to hear this (that things are changing for the better).
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.
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.
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.
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.
10.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
I've always prefered 867-5309 Jenny Myself
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
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.
Maybe he did and his rage was over being turned away. ;-)
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 #!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
For the same reason that being too dumb to get the joke doesn't prevent you from posting to slashdot.
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.
>How do you know when you're a suspect?
Usually when they put the handcuffs on.
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.
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.
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?
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 #!
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?
n/t
you had me at #!
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
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
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.
In fact, reptilian. A little too "old fashioned" to fit comfortably in a modern framework of civilisation, apparently.
you had me at #!
...he'll be overconfident and at a disadvantage.
Hans Reiser, overconfident? Nooooo.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I read that as nina brought her friend along to translate for her.
You should have begun your post with IAAML (I am a movie lawyer)...
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.
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.
You should get moderated for the Shawshank Redemption reference
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
Can you point me to a reference? I'm interested in reading up on that (assuming you weren't joking).
"There are plenty of people with Aspergers who can speak more eloquently than you or I"
Well, you at least...
He was trapped in the closet.
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 ----
...kills you?
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
I think that telling the police that you were on tv in Europe during the killing and can prove it might help exonerate you.
Well, why can't you lie to them? The trick is not to get caught ;-p
Don't quote me on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
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." -
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
Yeah, but concocting some cockamamie story doesn't mean innocence, either.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
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.
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.
A 15 year deal just to disclose the location of the body???
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
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.
you left out the part about the one-armed man
.. run fsck.reiserfs
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser/friends/
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I'll have to agree to disagree with that. The Government's job is justice and certain extreme crimes justify extreme punishments.
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.
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
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!
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!
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.
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?
Guess we know which category you're in..
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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...
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Murder is a capital offense in California, which means, he could have received a death sentence for killing his wife like Scott Peterson.
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.
I wish I could high five you over the internet.
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
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
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.
How does him being savaged in prison bring his wife back, or help the kids?
... and then they built the supercollider.
At least he'll have plenty of time to finish reiser 4 now.
Do anything, anywhere, anytime.
Aarrhh! I still haven't seen "Shawshank Redemption", and now you've spoiled it for me!
You can fully well lie to investigators. Hans did.
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
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!*
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:
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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:
See, I like my plan much better. Death is NOT a gift I would want to give to my enemies!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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!
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...
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Never fuck with russians. Ever.
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!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
...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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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!
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
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.
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
That's why I chose a kung fu sufi [...]
I wasn't aware that Islamic mystics taught ancient Chinese martial arts. Good for them.
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.
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
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
He was protecting the NTFS from an upstart. If RFS had taken over, Linux would have won and Windows would have been dead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
An intelligent, well-reasoned response from a Slashdot poster?!?
What ever next!
http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
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'".
Lies about crimes
At this point, the midget comes out of the closet...
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
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=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Contraception was generally forbidden as it would interfere with Gods plan of procreation. Only He should decide whether or not to bless a couple with children. In the eyes of catholicism, contraception is somewhat of a sin.
Gosh, I hate how God is so dim so as to have not thought that giving us brains would lead to contraception. Oh, wait, he's omniscient.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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!
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...
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!
*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
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.
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..
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..
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
YMBNH.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies