Live Blogs From the Hans Reiser Trial 300
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:don't know mr. reiser (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what's bad in my mind:
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.
Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Linux defence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Significance (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux & Murder (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Linux defence (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux defence (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right, I'd end up sticking one of them in the eye with a fork and get locked up myself.
Re:Linux defence (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
"Jury of your peers" (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pimps?
It has changed . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Now it seems that the cops think "We'll convict 9 innocent ones to get the 1 guilty."
He's so guilty! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Lawyers should have to show familiarity with logic (Score:3, Interesting)
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 local junior college in which a man was being tried for doing something that was illegal when he did it, became legal later so that he was allowed to go without punishment, and later was made illegal again. The prosecutor was like an attack dog; he gave the impression he wanted to convict anyone for anything.
The state supreme court judges seemed sleepy; they seemed willing to put in an amount of energy that was comfortable for them, not the amount of energy necessary to make the right thing happen.
To serve in government, there should be comprehensive tests of ability to be logical. Maybe no one should be allowed to be a lawyer except if he or she wrote a complicated program and debugged it.
We live in a culture that is absolutely dependent on careful logic. However, people who are logical aren't respected. Our culture is also absolutely dependent on understanding of technology, but people who understand technology are called disrespectful terms: "geeks" and "nerds".
The amount of money available to corrupt the local governments and the federal government in the United States is huge. Millions are available to elect those who are intellectually lazy or easily influenced to be corrupt, judges included. In my state, some judges are elected; the money to create recognition of their names apparently comes from those who want corruption.
Read your state laws. They were written by people who were elected for their popularity, not for their ability to be logical, leaving numerous opportunities for corruption. Laws often (usually?) have numerous logical shortcomings, such as edge cases which often happen but are not considered by the law. A programmer who didn't handle exceptions would be fired; people like George W. Bush, who has apparently never shown any willingness or ability to be carefully analytical, are re-elected.
Another part of the problem is that lawyers make far more money if the law is confusing and illogical.
Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt... (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:Linux defence (Score:3, Interesting)
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 evidence.
Don't get me wrong, there are 'people geeks' who employ simple tricks to get what they want out of people. But Hans does not come off as a sophisticated charmer. Any clever stunts he tries to pull with this jury will go down in flames.
Re:don't know mr. reiser (Score:1, Interesting)
Hans Reiser earned a black belt in judo under Bill Cahill, who testified as much earlier in the trial. In unarmed combat, Reiser could probably make most Marines submit.
When you know that don't know what you're talking about, why continue talking?
Re:Linux defence (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe we can get Anon in on it too, they seem to have some traction this week.
Cheers.
Re:Linux defence (Score:5, Interesting)
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:He's so guilty! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 she filed against him. That right there is motive. He killed her to keep her from going to the police. Hans might have logically concluded that, if she lives, then, he goes to jail, so, why not do her in and hope to get away with it.
I wonder why it is, here, that I am a basically patriarchal right winger, but I'm way more inclined to believe the Nina is a victim of the brutal husband theory, than I am to believe in the innocence of the man? And, on the flipside, I wonder why it is that so many liberals otherwise sympathetic to feminist causes, particularly Europeans, are more willing to believe that Hans is innocent! One would otherwise intuit that we right wingers, feeling so obviously threatened by the notion of empowered women, that, we would be more open to Hans's point of view, and similarly, lefties would be sticking up for Nina in droves. But here, it seems to be completely flipped? I wonder if it has to do with a European prejudice against the American judicial system? I wonder if they think that Law and Order is how American courts actually work? [ they don't ].
Re:It has changed . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Like it or not most criminals get away with many crimes before they are caught. this is today's reality, where are your vigilantes?