Live Blogs From the Hans Reiser Trial

whoever57 writes "The Hans Reiser trial has been underway for some time now, the prosecution is moving towards the end of its case. For those interested, not only in the outcome of the trial, but a detailed description of the trial, including some insights into police methods, two reporters are live-blogging. One report is by Henry K. Lee for the San Francisco Chronicle and the other is by David Kravets and published by Wired"

Linux defence

[DrXym]

If the tree doesn't balance then you must acquit!

Re:Linux defence

[cloricus]

This case sickens me. Even if he did do it they appear to have no evidence at all, and it really does scare me that they can potentially take away your freedoms with conjecture.

After seeing several law cases through, some famous and some not, for personal interest, my faith in the legal system 'getting the right guy' is almost null. I often wonder how they get any one at all...

Re:Linux defence

[Lumpy]

It has always been this way.

the worst part, have you ever sat on a jury? I have been in 2 and some people's "justifications" are insane. One trial 2 women were willing to send the guy down the river 30 secodns after we got in the room, they based it on what the DA said that the judge told them to strike from the record. It was pure fantasy on the DA's part and we were instructed to not consider it.

Their reason, " Oh the judge did not mean that when he said it. Plus he looks guilty."

we spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think. And this is the norm in Jury duty. Lots of really dense dits sit on those jurys. Many only listen to every other word or ignore everything from one lawyer because they dont like him.

Frightening.

Re:Linux defence

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why if I am ever accused of a serious crime, I would seriously consider a bench trial [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Yvanhoe]

I think you would be afraid to have a diner with ten judges, in private.

Re:

[thelexx]

"Du Bois made a reference to the expected testimony of Nina Reiser's mother, Irina Sharanova. Hora said something to the judge, and Du Bois didn't hear it because his client was speaking to him. Du Bois asked for what Hora said to be repeated, and the judge, smiling, said he wouldn't allow that to be done, as is usually the case, because the jury isn't here now. "Too bad," the judge said with a smile."

You're right, I'd end up sticking one of them in the eye with a fork and get locked up myself.

Re:

[anagama]

If you've been reading along from day 1, you'll note that Reiser was continuously interrupting his attorney and DuBois was constantly asking to have things read back. The judge told Reiser to knock it off a bunch of times, and finally said "that's it". That's why the record wasn't read back, bad behavior on Reiser's part. Reiser doesn't like his attorney either.

Anyway, since /. is now going to ruin my user-experience at that blog anyway, I'd suggest starting at day one and reading forward -- you'll h

Re:

[jonbryce]

In England, Magistrates sitting alone find around 90% of defendants guilty, whereas juries find about 60% of defendants guilty. So you are better getting a jury trial if you can.

Re:Linux defence

[coolGuyZak]

When I sat on a jury, I wasn't impressed by the mentality of my fellow jurors. Most of them wanted the trial over and done with, so they could get back to their lives/jobs/whatever. It doesn't help that the case was monumentally stupid. The defendant was a well-intentioned idiot, and the plaintiff was a poor middle-aged woman with a greasy, ambulance chaser of an attorney. On occasion, I wish that I wasn't as critical as I am. As we discussed the case, I flipped between issues, making me appear more whimsical than thoughtful. Next time, I think I'll make a run at leading the group, so I can set an appropriate atmosphere for deliberation.

Re:

[gfxguy]

The last jury I sat on backlashed against the ambulance chaser. I had mixed feelings at the end, after all there was SOME damages, but we did award SOME damages, just what was due... unfortunately, when the lawyer sucks out his chunk, that left the plaintiff with some money, but not enough, and a lot of wasted time...

On the other hand, he could have settled a lot earlier and not wasted everybody else's time and ended up with more in his pocket. As usual, the only one who actually made out was the law talk

Re:

[darkmeridian]

I was on a jury before, and I was actually impressed by my fellow jurors. They weren't rocket scientists; their vocabularies were limited (note to trial lawyers: use simple words), and they didn't want to be there, but they TRIED their best to reach the best/fairest result. No one was trying to screw the guy or to screw the MAN. The jury actually tried to figure out what was going on and what the correct verdict should be.

Re:Linux defence

[Shakrai]

I was on a jury before, and I was actually impressed by my fellow jurors.

I'll go one better. I've been judged by a jury of my peers.

Couple years ago I found myself accused of a felony crime that I didn't commit. I wound up testifying at Grand Jury and they eventually decided not to indict me. When I stood before them the DA asked me a series of questions. Afterwards the Grand Jurors themselves got to question me.

The crime in question was a computer crime. The Grand Jurors actually asked intelligent and thoughtful questions. Most of them didn't understand the underlying issues of the case or the evidence that had been presented -- but they went out of their way to find out when they questioned me and for that I am thankful. It would have been ten times easier for them to just issue a rubber stamp for the DA and go home.

I'm sorry, but all the people around here advocating that we get rid of juries are really missing the point. Go study the history of how the common law came about. Read the Magna Carta. Read our constitution. Study our legal traditions. The State shouldn't get to take away your liberty if it can't convince your fellow citizens of the need to do so. The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.

Re:

[Atario]

The erosion of the right to a trial by jury should scare the hell out of all of us.

As should the erosion of the public education system. That's something that undermines jury trials (by making juries dumber) as it does all other areas of a society.

Re:

[Shakrai]

Civil Law seems to me to guarantee better jurors (as they are learned judges)

Which kinda defeats the point of the "jury of your peers", doesn't it?

Regardless though, I wish people would at least study the reasoning and history behind the common law, even if they later come to prefer civil law. It's an important part of our history and provides great insight into why we have the rights that we do.

Jurisprudence

[mcrbids]

the worst part, have you ever sat on a jury? I have been in 2 and some people's "justifications" are insane. One trial 2 women were willing to send the guy down the river 30 secodns after we got in the room, they based it on what the DA said that the judge told them to strike from the record. It was pure fantasy on the DA's part and we were instructed to not consider it.

People are people. They are this way today, were this way 10 years ago, they were this way 200 years ago. That's why we have a jury system so rigged such that a *single* person can hang the jury and let the defendant go.

we spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think. And this is the norm in Jury duty.

See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

Welcome to jurisprudence! BTW: my heart-felt thanks for serving on jury duty!

Re:

[nomadic]

See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

13, actually, since a judge can (and often will) reverse a guilty verdict if he or she thinks the prosecutor hasn't made their case.

Re:

[Deagol]

See?! It works! This is why the jury system is so beautiful! (And why it sucks so bad for those of us that think a little bit) Most people suck. But the odds of everybody sucking when you get 12 random people together drops rather dramatically.

But it's not a truly random selection of peers. That's a fatal flaw right there. The jury selection process itself is a pitiful glimpse at how the system works. At my selection, there was a pool of possible jurors -- 12 initially selected to sit, and another 12 s

Re:

[Creepy Crawler]

That's the same with me right now.

I'm from a rural county in Indiana, and I was recently chosen for the second quarter of this year for the jury pool.

I await to see if there's any crimes that aren't settled before court takes place. After reading here, I can't say that I expect to much. However, what does give me hope is that our county is extremely political, in that they do seem to read a lot of happenings in our county government. The weekly paper and its 2 pages of opinions from readers shows that to be

Re:

[Bryan Ischo]

Or possibly "12 people who were too ethical to avoid their civic duties" ...

"Jury of your peers"

[CarpetShark]

Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING. Guilty, innocent, or entirely unaware of what I was being accused of, I'd probably still push the wrong buttons on the jury, just be being a geek.

One thing I find interesting though, is the legal systems assertion that you're entitled to a "jury of your peers". What exactly do they mean by that, I wonder? Can you say you consider your peers to be other geeks? People of the same non-judgemental religion? Literally, peers on your P2P network? Other pimp

Re:

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING

What he said!

I was in a civil case, I was accused of something extremely vague. It took nearly $20,000 of attorneys fees just to nail her down to something I could actually start defending against. In the end, it was just a sham, to try to get money from me (since I was her ex-husbands friend), and since she had nothing and I was running out, settlement was the only option.

Sort of an official version of:
"Give me $10k"
"No"
"OK, I'll

Re:

[Sique]

In the Magna Carta (where the wording comes from) it meant "people of the same rank".

Re:

[CarpetShark]

Yes, but how far does that go? Can I reject people just because I suspect they won't think like a geek? It's one of the few ways I can see of getting a fair trial, but I can easily imagine the law arguing that, if I could select based on thinking style/opinions, I could keep selecting until I found people who already thought me innocent before the trial started.

Re:

[juan2074]

I was kicked off the jury on a DUI trial because I actually know how the DataMaster BAC tester works, and that there is a large margin of error that prosecutors don't want you to know about -- even though every measurement device has some imprecision and inaccuracy.

At least two other jurors already thought the defendant was guilty if the police and prosecutor said so. And they served on the jury.

Lawyers should have to show familiarity with logic

[Futurepower(R)]

"We spent the next 8 hours going over things and trying to get these ditsy two to actually think."

Most people are not consistently able to be logical. Even judges often give me the impression that they are lucky not to be programmers. They are sometimes so unable to be logical that they would not be able to debug their programs.

States often hold cases in local city neighborhoods so that it can be comfortable for people to observe. For example, I watched a state supreme court case in an auditorium at a

Logic is in the eye of the beholder

[Infonaut]

Maybe no one should be allowed to be a lawyer except if he or she wrote a complicated program and debugged it.

Lawyers are trained in logic, but they use words rather than mathematical constructs. Judges are not trained to rely purely on logic, and they bring in their experiences and personal preferences. It is impossible, and likely not desirable, to have a legal system that is run by humans attempting to engage in robot logic exercises. The worst excesses of the law are as likely to be from logic divor

Re:

[JohnnyGTO]

I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.

Re:

[IndustrialComplex]

I think it's time to really reconsider what we call a jury of our peers. Frnkly if your to stupid to not get out of jury duty or you seek it your are not my peer. Maybe we should consider creating a large pool of pre-qualified jurists that are paid a living wage when they sit in jury.

Frankly, if you're too stupid to understand that serving on a jury is an obligation of your citizenship in our society then I wonder just what you think you deserve.

Re:

[Chemicalscum]

I was on the jury for two trials back in England about 25 years ago. I was impressed by the seriousness and clarity of thought all the jurors brought to the cases. Maybe times have changed or the US is different or just that both of have only anecdotal examples, however I went away impressed by the jury system.

Here in Canada now they are slowly trying to work towards the abolition of the jury system by stealth and a thousand cuts. They are making less and less cases triable by jury and the percentage of

Re:

[sumdumass]

Or how about a movie that was made several times called "Twelve angry men". I think it first appeared in the 50's but was remade not too long ago.

It is popular because it is true to some extent. In normal cases, the jury foreman should have told the judge that those women wouldn't drop what they were told to ignore because of the strike from the record. This should result in the judge clarifying his orders or invalidating the trial or replacing the juror with an alternative. Unfortunately, not all juries ha

Re:

[sumdumass]

No, not necessarily. Because there wouldn't be the wrong decision. There also wouldn't be an encumbrance to acquittal. So if I was afraid of falsely convicting someone and serving the time they were sentenced, then the easiest way out of it is to acquit and not have anything hanging over me at all.

The only way you could determine the wrong decision was made is to replay the entire trial to people who haven't talked about it or the outcome in any way since the conclusion. the easiest way to get around that m

Re:

[Erwos]

Correction: it'll end all convictions, period.

There's absolutely no reason for me to put someone away if I can be personally punished for making a mistake, but not be personally rewarded for making the right decision.

Re:

[maz2331]

Of course the suggestion is a little over-simplitic, but you have to start somewhere. The key is that the investigators, prosecutors, and courts have near-zero personal liability even when they act maliciously.

Actually, what's needed is to find out who in the system was responsible for what the jury heard or didn't hear. Quite often it will probably be the prosecutor who does the time (can you say "Nifong" boys & girls) for hiding exculpatory evidence or putting forth a bogus case. Other times it cou

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Unless the jury can be shown to have received deceiving testimony, they should be held to account. Use the same standard as in any other negligence case for this.

This would cause the entire legal system to collapse. No jury would convict if they were personally liable. There would be no reason to do so and every reason not to.

And the whole concept of a guilty plea needs to be abolished completely. Too many guilty people take "the deal" and get off light, whereas an innocent who pleads their case can be ramr

Re:

[Hognoxious]

I have little trust in democracy - it is government by incompetent people. You have to have studied government in order to be able to govern. Besides, the proles are more likely to act based on emotions, not on facts.

Fixed that for you.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

You're both absolutely right. Why the fuck should we let incompetent people decide either the result of our criminal trials or the course of our society?

Re:

[cHiphead]

You, too, are absolutely right, I say we run out into the streets and riot against such injustice.

Maybe we can get Anon in on it too, they seem to have some traction this week.

Cheers.

Re:

[CmdrGravy]

Not a problem for me, I inspire feelings of love and respect wherever I go so the last thing I need is some sort of jury genetically engineered against my abilities and considering the raw facts. I won't even get as far as ruling a small section of the local park with that sort of unfair handicap, never mind the world.

here are your choices:

[circletimessquare]

1. have no justice system at all
2. have a human system of justice

which means you have all manner of abuses and failures and stupidity at every step of the system

those are your choices. 1 or 2. there is no

3. have a perfect infallible system of justice

sorry, never will be

to have this sort of disdain for the entire justice system because it has human flaws doesn't make you wise, it makes you naive

of course things can be improved, and that is where our disappointment in the system should be channeled. but this is not the vibe i get from some people. some people i get this vibe that they hate the idea of police and courts, rather than they'd like to improve them. which is an attitude which is bizarre and ignorant

Re:

[esocid]

to have this sort of disdain for the entire justice system because it has human flaws doesn't make you wise, it makes you naive

while that may be true, having a distrust or skepticism I think is wise, rather then the naievity that some people trust it as 100% infallible. Some of these comments have made me think of 12 Angry Men [imdb.com], which in short is about a murder trial where a majority of the jurors decide that the defendant is guilty, and the minority (who think he is innocent) keep going over the facts that

well yeah, you've underlined the other extreme

[circletimessquare]

i was complaining about the morons who have 0% faith in the system

you are complaining about the morons who have 100% faith in the system

both extremes, of course, are moronic

the true attitude we should all have is found somewhere in the middle

the justice system, like most human endeavours, is severely compromised and insufficient and error-prone and manipulated

and yet, life without it is even worse

Re:

[Mark J Tilford]

There weren't any facts that pointed to the defendant's innocence; juror 10 kept pointing out weaknesses with the evidence.

yes, constructivie criticism is good

[circletimessquare]

but "Do away with the lawyers"? wuh? how's that supposed to work?

How to get rid of lawyers.

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Do away with the lawyers"? wuh? how's that supposed to work?

Use a few in your movie, and make it snuff film. As for the rest of the lawyers, there are plenty of options. I favor the sledgehammer, myself, but a one-at-a-time approach to the eradication of lawyers is rather inefficient.

yes, lawyers absolutely suck

[circletimessquare]

until you need one

a professional class of people whom you hire to guide you through a complex legal system is absolutely a necessity because

1. you will never find the time to learn the complexity of your legal system on your own unless you are a lawyer yourself
2. if your legal system isn't complex, it is simple and brutal and you are living in a barbaric society

so there's simply no way around lawyers. they are necessity. a disgusting necessity, but a necessity nonetheless

when people say they hate lawyers, w

you're somewhat amusing

[circletimessquare]

however, your atittude and your sig is disturbing. you have a profound mistrust of government, lawyers, and politicians. not that you should like them, but i think your severe dislike of them speaks more about your own personal failures in an ability to fundamentally trust than anything a lawyer or politician ever did to you. i wouldn't be surprised if your mistrust also poisoned your personal relationships. it is bad to trust too much in this world. it is also bad to trust too little

then the swedish system is absolutely inferior

[circletimessquare]

the problem with judging cases with a professional class of adjudicators is that over time, the adjudicator forms an agenda, and his or her judgment becomes less and less about the actual case in front of them, and more about his or her abstract approach to a certain kind of crime. judgments on one case begin to color and cloud judgments on others. this is extremely dangerous

btw, this effect is absolutely certain. it's called the seduction of power. no one is immune to it. to say anyone is immune to it, is

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[prelelat]

What really bugs me about a case like this were there is no evidence is what if he is not convicted, there is no evidence. If they do find a body and evidence that points the finger straight at him hes already been let off, can they even have a new trial? I agree it seems pretty stupid to have a trial with no evidence for more reasons than I can think of.

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

If they do find a body and evidence that points the finger straight at him hes already been let off, can they even have a new trial?

No. Double jeopardy is not allowed in the US legal system. They could raise new charges if applicable to the incident (e.g. breaking and entering), but they could not retry him for the same crime.

That's why it's always in the best interest of the prosecutor to ensure they have solid case before taking the case to trial. Otherwise a guilty man can walk out of that court and tell

Re:

[prelelat]

Thats what I thought, thanks for clarifying, I'm not from the states.

Re:

[Khyber]

This isn't taking place in a US court, AFAIK, so Double Jeopardy would not apply.

Re:Linux defence

[Hal_Porter]

Not all the evidence is circumstantial, there is the forensic stuff too.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html [wired.com]

OAKLAND, California -- Jurors in the Hans Reiser murder trial for the first time in the three-month trial were shown actual forensic evidence -- a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing.

...

[Reiser's car] was littered with trash, clothes, a sleeping bag and its cover, some maps, two books about murder and an Oakland Tribune newspaper with a screaming headline describing the authorities searching his Oakland hills residence. Still, it appeared as though the vehicle might have undergone some serious scrubbing. The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified.

...

Absent was the passenger seat. Inside the vehicle was a bunch of trash, a socket set and receipt showing the tools were purchased two weeks after the woman went missing. The bolts to the car seat were also found inside, and the socket on the ratchet matched the 12 millimeter diameter of the seat's bolts.

Now Reiser says he removed the seat and put it in a dumpster because he was sleeping in the car. But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.

Nina Reiser has disappeared. Hans claims she is hiding in Russia, but she was heavily in debt, mostly due to unpaid child support. And she just got offered a $50K per year job.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BAOFUTA27.DTL [sfgate.com]

Two days before she disappeared, Nina Reiser accepted a $50,000-a-year job with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to help Russian immigrants, the woman who hired her testified Wednesday. ...
Also Wednesday, Richard Wilson of the TransUnion credit bureau testified that Hans Reiser was $90,000 in debt as of late last month. The figure includes $29,000 in unpaid child support, he said. Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, Wilson said.

Other witnesses have testified that Hans Reiser complained that his wife was a financial burden to him.

The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BASIUUNE1.DTL&feed=rss.news [sfgate.com]

His behaviour on 20/20 was highly suspicious. Circumstantial admittedly.

http://www.eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2007/11/hans-and-nina-reiser.html [blogspot.com]

But realistically Hans's suspicious behaviour, creepiness and arrogance will probably end up dooming him whether he's guilty or not. I think trials are really a question of which narrative the jury believes. If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that. Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off. Then again, maybe not -

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html#44890938 [wired.com]

Re:Linux defence

[metamatic]

...a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing.

I'd want to know what they meant by "stained with blood"; that could be anything from a few drops to a large patch indicating a serious wound. My bet is the former, or they'd have been more lurid with the description. In which case it's circumstantial; my wife got a paper cut in bed the other day and got blood on the pillow (true story), but that doesn't mean I murdered her.

The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified.

Circumstantial. Ever spilled a quart of milk in the car and had to try to get it out of the carpet?

But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.

Still circumstantial. Yes, it could have been Hans cleaning blood off the carpet; it could also have been Hans cleaning oil off the carpet.

The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.

Also circumstantial, unless they can get ECHELON to tell us the content of the calls.

I agree that it looks suspicious as all hell; but the other side of things looks as suspicious as all hell too, when you read about Nina and her boyfriend.

Re:

[whoever57]

If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody),

The kids are currently in Russia. Their grandmother took them there and has failed to bring them back.

Re:

[whoever57]

Actually, his son has been sent back to testify: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/reiser-son-test.html.M [wired.com].

Check the date on that page. The kids have not been returned to the USA after a Christmas trip to Russia.

Re:

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that.

I've posted on this before, but perhaps it's worth repeating, although in a shorter version. I speak good Russian and I've spent a lot of time (too much honestly) in that part of the world. I had a fiancee at one time from Ukraine, but we never got married because I just couldn't put up with her lack of respect and constant an

Re:

[lawpoop]

Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off.

He's a smart guy when it comes to computers, machines, and inanimate objects. I'll bet he's on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum.

I'll bet that he's so smart with computers that he thinks he's good at everything ( perhaps even murdering people ). He might think that he can get what he wants out of the jury by using a simple command or technicality, just like a computer hard drive. But most neurotypicals judge people on some kind of gut feeling or likability, not any technical matters like truth, justice, or

Re:Linux defence

[Aladrin]

Wrong.

I sat on jury duty of a druggie bum that might have attacked the guy who let him live in his house. Why? For the money in his wallet.

The only evidence: The girl that lived there saw him running out of the house. From next door, where she was at a party. She admitted on the stand that she had done drugs the day before court.

Everything screamed 'guilty' except the lack of -any- evidence. It tooks us only a few minutes to reach a not-guilty verdict. We decided to stop and review everything to see if we could find -any- reason to find him guilty. We could not. It was unanimous.

So no, even though we assumed he did it, we were completely unable to find him guilty. Heck, if they'd put the girl on the stand, we'd have been as likely to think she did it, as she was the only witness and had just as much motive.

It's not 'very easy' to prosecute without evidence.

The worst part of the case was finding out they had kept him in jail for almost a year with zero evidence. And then the prosecutor said that 'New York' wanted him. Judge asked if they had papers, and they didn't, so they finally let him go.

Him, we were probably better off with behind bars... But that could have been -any- of us. They can and do hold people for years at a time with no evidence. Very scary.

Re:

[eln]

Sure, it may not be easy to convict without ANY evidence, but as you yourself point out, it's not hard to come up with enough evidence to convict when the jury, in your words, is reviewing "everything to see if we could find -any- reason to find him guilty."

The jury is supposed to convict only if they are sure of guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt*. However, most people tend to think that if someone was indicted for a crime, they must be guilty, so we should just look for any reasonable evidence to hang them

Re:Linux defence

[Aladrin]

I feel I have misrepresented the situation. We were worried that it took so little time to decide not-guilty. So we reviewed everything to make sure there was no argument. We were trying to find any reason to have a real discussion on whether he was guilty or not. Try though we might, we found nothing.

They would have had to -prove- his guilt to me before I'd have voted that way. And I feel most of the others there felt the same, too, though I can't prove that. The reason we were so quick to come up with not-guity was that each of us felt the prosecutor had proven nothing.

I will admit that the prosecutor was absolutely astounded that we came back with not-guilty, though. I supposed there's a chance that all of us were abnormal.

Re:

[eln]

I see, it seems like you may have had one of the rare good juries (although I hope they aren't as rare as they seem sometimes). My one and only experience on a jury was a civil trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages almost entirely because a.) she cried on the stand (seemed to be obviously crocodile tears to me, but apparently others felt otherwise) and b.) it was getting late and nobody wanted to come back the next day. In my opinion, her case had absolutely no merit, but there was more discussion

Re:

[Aladrin]

I hope it wasn't rare, because that has been my single positive experience with the justice system. (None of them directly involved me, really.)

The judge in this case was also very nice. Afterwards, he came and talked to us, and even let us ask questions we had.

It was a very positive experience and I actually look forward to jury duty again if I'm called. (I was dreading it before that time.)

Re:

[Doctor Faustus]

I will admit that the prosecutor was absolutely astounded that we came back with not-guilty, though. I supposed there's a chance that all of us were abnormal.
Quite likely. My wife was on a murder jury a couple of years ago, and the jury basically all agreed that they had no idea what really happened, and that the only person who testified who wasn't lying to them was the medical examiner. To my mind, that's reasonable doubt, but they just knocked it down to second-degree.

Re:Linux defence

[laing]

Giving up my mod rights on this thread by commenting but there's one important point to be made here. If you are EVER held or accused of a crime, NEVER waive your "right to a speedy trial". The court system is overloaded and your own lawyer may ask you to sign a form doing this, if they do then you should get a new lawyer. Better yet, before you get a lawyer you should make sure they won't do this. Lots of people spend unnecessary time in jail simply because their lawyer is too busy to work on their case. (No, I've never been in jail.)

--
This space for rent

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

More appropriate (he was a FS developer after all):
"If the disk doesn't fsck, then you must acquit!"

Re:

[CarpetShark]

I think you missed the fact that his fs used balanced trees ;)

Significance

[millwall]

What on earth is the significance of this? [wired.com]:

The officer also testified the defendant flatulated in his face when the authorities were snapping nude photos of him Sept. 28, 2006. The officer said Reiser told him: "'You're about to experience chaos' and, for lack of a better term, he farted in my face."

Jurors snickered and the defendant grinned.

"Did you make a report of that?" DuBois asked the officer.

"No. But it stays vividly in my head."

Re:

[jmac1492]

Why were they taking nude pictures of Hans Reiser in the first place?

Re:Significance

[teslar]

Why were they taking nude pictures of Hans Reiser from a distance small enough that it became possible for him to fart in the face of the officer?

Unless dear Hans has a very violent flatulence problem, there can't have been more than a few inches between face and venting hole and that's quite freaky, none the least because of the implied relative positions of the two. It also raises several disturbing questions at least a few of which contain the word 'goatse'.

Disturbing.

Re:

[megabeck42]

They were taking nude pictures to document any possible signs of a struggle. Try subduing a woman whom is convinced you're going to kill or rape her - you're likely going to end up with scratches, bruises, or marks.

Re:

[moonbender]

Do document possible marks of a struggle, apparently. One of the official reasons for the police to humiliate people, I guess.

Re:

[gfxguy]

Strip search. Yes, they check there. That's how people smuggle things into prison. Why they were taking pictures? I don't know. They probably weren't, it was probably just all part of one session when he was being booked.

Re:

[TeknoHog]

You're about to experience the awe and mystery, that reaches from the deepest inner mind, to, the outer limits.

Re:

[Vegeta99]

Your sig is sooo fitting.

The Reiser Side Of...

[Rob T Firefly]

The Wired link is interesting if only for the sketches, which resemble the work of the "usual gang of idiots" from MAD Magazine. All that's missing is Sergio's doodles in the margins.

For those who don't know who

[esocid]

Hans Reiser is a programmer who developed the ReiserFS file system as well as Reiser4. He's on trial for the murder of his wife who disappeared in 2006.

Re:

[TheLostSamurai]

Thank you, I didn't know and was somewhat confused. I still however, do not care.

Re:

[esocid]

I'm not quite sure why my parent post is getting modded as flamebait. I gave a description of what he's programmed and why he's on trial without adding any personal bias like I think he's innocent and the prosecution doesn't have anything in the way of evidence.

Re:

[esocid]

Thanks for making me aware of that. indymedia.org was what I meant to type. guess I got in that '.com' habit when I made my sig. /fixed it

Linux & Murder

[jlherren]

What disturbs me a bit is that one of the blogs doesn't mention the word 'linux' even once, while the other mentions it in almost every entry: "Hans Reiser -- the popular Linux programmer who is accused of killing [...]", "The trial of the Linux programmer, who is accused of killing his estranged wife", "Hans Reiser, the Linux developer accused of murdering his wife", "the 31-year-old estranged wife of the Linux programmer who authorities say murdered her"...

Of course, his work on the linux kernel might be what he's most known for and if you don't know him, then mentioning that is the right thing to do. But mentioning it so often creates an odd and disturbing link between 'murder' and 'linux'. Especially since as far as I know, his work on linux plays absolutely no role in the murder case.

Re:

[GodfatherofSoul]

You've just given me a FANTASTIC idea! Joe Shady Microsoft PR Rep

Re:

[Alain Williams]

He is a Kernel file system hacker, not a Cyrus Imap [cmu.edu] hacker -- they have the wrong man :-)

Re:

[Otter]

But mentioning it so often creates an odd and disturbing link between 'murder' and 'linux'. Especially since as far as I know, his work on linux plays absolutely no role in the murder case.

Wired is covering it in detail for the same reason it gets so much mention here: Reiser's filesystem work. It's not like either outlet spends a lot of time on random murder trials.

It has changed . . .

[arizwebfoot]

My late Dad, a retired Cop used to say, "We would rather let 9 guilty ones go free to protect the 1 innocent."

Now it seems that the cops think "We'll convict 9 innocent ones to get the 1 guilty."

Re:

[Daimanta]

And guess what, both situations are fucked up.

The first one because it shows that murder pays off(you do not get caught).

The second one because you throw innocent people to jail.

Re:

[OrangeTide]

The first one because it shows that murder pays off(you do not get caught).

No, you just get away with it 90% of the time, the other 10% of the time you are punished. Seems reasonable to me.

Re:

[OrangeTide]

A victim's feelings is no basis for a justice system.

Like it or not most criminals get away with many crimes before they are caught. this is today's reality, where are your vigilantes?

He's so guilty!

[tjstork]

Nina Reiser discussed mediation between the two in the e-mail, which she apparently wrote on June 19, 2005. The judge said the jury will hear a redacted portion of the e-mail. Goodman then read sentences from Nina Reiser's e-mail that the jury will not be allowed to hear because the prejudical effect outweighs the probative value: "I will not continue mediation if you keep threatening me. When you give me a hard stare and (inaudible) that you are very good at combat, your request that I drop domestic-violence charges against you, it very much sounds like another threat. I warn you that if you are going to communicate with me in this manner, I will have to end mediation and report it to the police. However, threats are not part of the mediation process."

But of course, that's not admitted.

Re:He's so guilty!

[russotto]

The stuff in the email about threats is Nina's words and Nina's interpretation. It may even be a deliberate lie; Nina could have known it could be subpoenaed and used later in court proceedings. Certainly it wouldn't be the first time there was a false accusation of abuse or threats in a divorce and custody case. Your response to it that it indicates Hans Reiser's guilt demonstrates why the judge felt it was prejudicial.

Re:

[NeoOokami]

The problem there is that we only have a response to a possible threat, not the threat itself. That's not to say that there wasn't, but it doesn't necessarily mean there was one either. It's also odd that they were able to dig up the email responding to the threat, and not the threatening email itself?

Re:

[tjstork]

The problem there is that we only have a response to a possible threat, not the threat itself. That's not to say that there wasn't, but it doesn't necessarily mean there was one either. It's also odd that they were able to dig up the email responding to the threat, and not the threatening email itself?

As it is, the Judge ruled out that evidence from being included. So now the jury doesn't know that she felt that she was being threatened by Hans so much that she was in negotiations with him to drop charges

While You Were Out

[Doc Ruby]

I'm often curious as to what those faceless FOSS contributors are doing instead of programming while I'm waiting for them to deliver their next milestone, as they blow their next deadline.

"Murder trial" usually doesn't occur to me. Usually something more like "new videogame release" seems more likely.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

Yeah, that's nothing the jury is going to see, though.

Here's what's bad in my mind:

Morasch testified that [Nina Reiser] had recently paid her utility bills and even paid $150 to register her car with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The testimony was gleaned by Hora in a bid to convince jurors that Hora believes Nina Reiser would not voluntarily disappear without her money while keeping her bills up to date.

Earlier testimony showed nearly $2,000 in cash was found in her Oakland apartment, and her inside her van the authorities found a $2,100 check made out to her landlord that she never delivered.

Now, guys, tell me: If you're planning on disappearing to Russia, do you make out a check for your landlord and stuff it in your van, never to be delievered? Because that's basically Hans' defense at this point -- that she volunatarily left for Russia. Now, it's still possible that she involuntarily left for Russia, but the defense, thus far, hasn't presented any evidence at all that this happened, either.

Re:

[bhima]

If I was planning to frame my ex?

Not only yes. But HELL YES.

Re:

[CrimsonAvenger]

If I was planning to frame my ex?

Not only yes. But HELL YES.

Perhaps. Would you give your ex your children just before you framed him? Somehow, I think not.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

And precisely why should they? Obviously the quickest defence would be to produce his wife alive and well. It disturbs me greatly when people start saying that the defence hasn't proven his innocence. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work in the US. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that he killed his wife, not for the defence to prove she ran away. The defence's only job is to highlight weaknesses in the prosecutor's case. This may include providing an alternative theory as to what happened, as they have done in this case. (She left the country)

The purpose of the defense is to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. Saying 'she went to Russia' may or may not create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors in and of itself. What we know is:

• No one has seen her since September 3, 2006.
• The prosecution has assumed that Hans Reiser murdered her based on his erratic behavior immediately following her disappearance and the fact that...
• ...when they arrested him, he had $9,000 on him and his passport.
• The prosecution has yet to find the

Re:

[Hognoxious]

But they aren't exactly giving any reasonable doubt when they say that she went to Russia without backing it up at all.

Nothing apart from the fact that she's Russian, her mother's in Russia and her kids are in Russia with her (and IIRC she sneaked them there without his consent and won't allow them back to testify).

Unfeeling moderators: NOT "Funny".

[Futurepower(R)]

"Hans Reiser killed his wife..." See this comment from on old Slashdot story: "My personal opinion is that she is not in Russia." [slashdot.org]

Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt...

[Futurepower(R)]

From the blog published by Sfgate: "In all, Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, he said."

More testimony:

"She seemed honest, right?" Du Bois asked.
"She definitely seemed honest, yes," Erwin said.
"You had the impression she was an honest person?" Du Bois asked.
"Yes," Erwin said.
"She exuded honesty?" Du Bois pressed as a juror in the front row appeared to have a bemused smile.
"Yes," Erwin said.

And this seems interesting, from the Wired blog:

"The Reiser couple's young son, now 8 years old, had told local child protective services officials and testified before a different judge during a 2006 preliminary hearing that he did see his mother drive away after his mother left him and his little sister for the Labor Day weekend. Before the jury, he did not testify he saw his mother leave the house."

This too:

"But on Wednesday, the scientist testified on cross examination that errors she made meant it was unclear whether there was two sources of blood -- meaning it could be the wife's or the husband's -- or blood from both of them. She testified she was not '100 percent certain' whose blood was on the pillar.

"It's an important distinction. There are two pieces of forensic evidence linking the husband to allegedly killing his wife. The other forensic evidence is a sleeping bag cover found in the defendant's car stained with the woman's blood. The rest of the evidence is circumstantial, including the husband's front passenger seat vanishing."