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"

Re:Linux defence

[Yvanhoe]

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

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

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:Linux defence

[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 about what the court would bring in for dinner than there was about the actual merits of the case. The whole experience was pretty disparaging. In hindsight, I should have been more forceful about my own thoughts on the matter, but I was very young and did not possess a nearly strong enough personality to be heard over the "leaders" in the room.

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:don't know mr. reiser

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

That depends on exactly how much planning she put into it doesn't it?

If we are to believe that people can snap and go into a homicidal rage, why can't we also believe that people can do stupid things when they are emotional. Including running away to another country.

You can't present one while ignoring the other.

"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."

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)

Re:Linux defence

[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 have alternatives sitting. In my area, there is two normally and more as the case get more important or controversial. I'm not sure on the details of how that works.

Re:don't know mr. reiser

[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 body, despite having performed extensive searches in the area.
• When Nina Reiser disappeared, she left $4500 in the bank untouched, she had paid a bunch of bills and was about the pay her rent, and she had $2000 in cash in her apartment, which was also untouched.
• Hans Reiser has been most uncooperative with the authorities.
  
• Has presented some forensic evidence (in her minivan) that suggests that she was murdered or at least seriously injured at the time of her disappearance
• The defense has provided some statements from prosecution witnesses that may create reasonable doubt, but hasn't produced a shred of evidence (so far) that backs up Reiser's defense. To be fair, the prosecution is only just about to rest its case, though.

And we can deduce that:

• Either she left involuntarily (was kidnapped), she left in an awful hurry, she was murdered by someone other than Hans Reiser, or she was murdered by Hans Reiser
  
• The prosecution has presented lots of (so far) mostly circumstantial evidence that suggests that Hans Reiser may have murdered Nina Reiser and was prepared to leave the country in order to avoid getting caught
• The defense still hasn't shown when or how Nina Reiser left the country with $0 and without a vehicle or a cell phone.
• The onus is on the defense to back up its claims at this point.

But what I do know? My entire legal expertise hangs solely on what I read in layman's periodicals and books, what I read on the Internet, and, of course, watching shows like "Law & Order". :-D

Re:Easy Fix

[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 might be to seat two or three juries and take the popular opinion. but anything done after the fact has the benefit of information not present in the original trial being presented as well as information being presented differently. If the first jury didn't buy that the reasons his fingerprints where on the gun and powder residue on his hands was because he took it to the shooting range the very same day it was used to kill someone, they could bring in others at the shooting range that saw him shooting it. If he claims it was stolen on the way home and there was a police report about it, then he has a plausible excuse for something that would normally be a conviction of guilt.

but it wouldn't have to stop at that. Anything could keep the fact the same and be presented differently if only in the words being used to change how convincing something is. The prosecutor could say something different and lose creditability and so on. It wouldn't be the same trial and the decisions wouldn't be the same.

Maybe forcing the jury to do interviews with the state and defense counsel and allowing stuff discovered in this way to be grounds for a retrial could be the answer. Otherwise, it depends on the other members to be reasonable enough and assertive enough to make the right things happen.

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:Easy Fix

[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.

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 to simply admit that one is also blind to their own weaknesses

say for example you have an expert on dna evidence. the man has various personal opinions of his own on certain procedures and such. it is impossible not to have these opinions. anyone who studies any special class of knowledge has certian passionate opnions on the subject. it is impossible not to. no one devotes years of their life to a subject matter and has a robotic neutral outlook on the subject matter. its simply impossible. if someone had such a neutral uncaring attitude on a subject matter, they would never get involved in studying in it in the first place. catch-22

so these underlying passions are always in danger of seriously clouding an experts agenda. there is no such thing as an expert on any class of knowledge that is also impartial and without an agenda. i repeat: it is impossible for a human being to be learned in a subject matter and not also have a dangerous (dangerous in terms of an ability to judge impartially) ideological agenda on that subject matter

furthermore, much of education really isn't education, but indoctrination into the dominant opinion on a subject matter within a given academic clique. for objective sciences, like physics, or math, this is less so, but still prevalent. go ahead, ask any doctoral student in any university if there is no soap operas and cliquish political drama and pressure to conform to the dominant opinion. for soft sciences, like psychology and criminal justice, this effect is massive. the end result is those who are supposedly annoited with the most objective knowledge on a subject, also saddled with the most subjective attitudes and agenda on the subject matter

this is why a jury of impartial peers is superior to a professional class of adjudicators: they don't care. your professional judging class of swedes DO care. about an ideologicla agenda. a concept absolutely anathema to the idea of impartial justice

universities, by bequeathing the imprimature of truth and knowledge, merely rubber stamp and give weight and credence to something that is nothing more than intellectual fashion and vogue in the soft sciences. go ahead and compare dominant attidues on controversial topics from now and 30 years ago. you can say new research merely changes attitudes. except that a lot of this new research often boils down to the conclusions of folk wisdom from 5 centuries ago! pfffft. it's all bullshit

so so-called experts have something to prove, an axe to grind. this will color their judgment on cases, espcially as they blur together. his or her judgment on cases begin to resemble less a search for impartial truth, and more a soapbox for him to push his agenda. i am deathly frightened of being judged by an "expert". he won't see and my case at all. he will see his or emotionally invested theories, and how my case befor ehim or her could prove or disprove his theories. frightening

meanwhile, the stupid, uninterested guy on the street who would rather be drunk? i MUCH RATHER be judged by him. the experts can be in teh courtroom to guide him or her about scientific facts and opinion. and taken as one or the other, the man on the street can most definitely have some really bad prejudices. but averaged out over 12 people, those prejudices cancel out. those prejudices don't average out that way with a bunch of so called experts, all born of the same university clique, deciding amongst themselves who is deserving or not, simply because they conform to the same opinio

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, what they are really saying, in a deferred way, is they hate the fact that justice is a human, flawed endeavour

that the lawyer class seems to attract the slimiest of human beings, rather than more virtuous ones, is an observation i won't touch, because i, er, agree with it

oh what the hell: shoot lawyers on sight, you win ;-)

Re:Jurisprudence

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty crap to be judged by 12 of your peers that aren't smart enough to avoid jury service.

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:He's so guilty!

[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:Jurisprudence

[Bryan Ischo]

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

Re:Linux defence

[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.

Shit sammich vs. giant douche

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

you are part of the system, and you can exert control in it this is absolutely true

Being able to choose between a shit sandwich and a giant douchebag every four years on the first Tuesday in November isn't exactly a hell of a lot of control. Did anybody tell you what the definition of an "honest politician" is? I'll tell you: an honest politician is one who stays bought.

Re:Linux defence

[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

[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.