Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder 1395
Anonymous Meoward writes "Today Hans Reiser was found guilty of first degree murder in Oakland, California. Quoting Wired: 'In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead... The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.' Whether he really did it or not, Hans basically just didn't know when to shut up."
US jury system does it again (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well, maybe Hans will confess and reveal where he stashed the body now.
[/rimshot]
Oblig ReiserFS Joke (Score:5, Funny)
The FAT defence (Score:5, Funny)
It has a 4GB limit, in the age of 5GB DVDs why would you ship a product with a 4GB limit?
It just doesn't make any sense!
If this is FAT32 partition, the jury must acquit!!
Re:The FAT defence (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The FAT defence (Score:4, Informative)
While I know where you were coming from you got your limits wrong
Partition limits FAT12:32MB FAT16:2GB* FAT32:8TB
File size limit for all 4GB --that's what I was referring to BTW
*upon further inspection there is a 4GB mode for 64k clusters (not widely supported), so your not wrong about the limits but you are wrong about me being wrong
Anyway I hope this posts explains the factual correctness of a joke, I will admit I was initially going to just refer to the partition a FAT partition but then I realised somebody might be running some obscure FAT64 that hasn't got the 4GB file limit and it could of spawned an entire thread of FAT comments debating its utility, so I stuck 32 in to avoid a pointless thread.
Re:The FAT defence (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that sure worked.
Re:What makes no sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, the police didn't take Mr. Sturgeon's confessions seriously enough to press charges. That should tell you something.
Re:What makes no sense to me (Score:5, Interesting)
So beware of those Anastasia International banner ads on Slashdot. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Disclaimer - I am half of the same nationality myself and I have observed how my mom has dealt with my dad (another geek) for 25+ years. No thanks. None of that in my house. Not now, not ever.
Sad, really sad, and IMO totally selfinflicted.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
]{
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:4, Informative)
And his attorney did advise against it, in very strong terms.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
There was the last case I helped with (civil, not criminal) for them (I was the *tech guy* who ran the powerpoint display) where we were representing a homeless man who's throat had been torn out (yes, he uses the same voice box similar to the tracheotomy having smokers) who was sueing the police for medical damages (he had been sleeping under a tree when they were chasing a criminal(not him) and as far as the cop dog was concerned, he *looked* guilty, don't believe that crap about the cop dog following a scent, these are the dogs trained to attack and disengage on a word (shedard dogs) not follow trails (hounds))(by the way, before everyone jumps and says "but he's homeless, so he was just money grubbing, DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) were putting a lein on the settlement outcome, had we got what we were after (money wise) it would have only have paid the debt to the hospital that treated him). Our attorney did a FANTASTIC job during jury selection (only a 6 person jury, they do that in civil court) but he advised over and over and over, don't take the stand.
He did.
I know what the real tale was, I'd met and talked to the defendant, but, he was homeless, very mentally unstable (as most are) and the jury thought he sounded crazy. End of story. No win. One branch of the government did not have to hand over tax payer money to an other banch of government. Cause he *seemed* unhinged.
Similar is this case. Hans is an egotist. He *knows* he's smarter than you. And he spews contempt at your ignorance for not realizing this. Ask anyone who's ever debated with him in a forum. He acts as though you are nothing cause he knows all. Well, how well you think that flew with the proles on the jury? I can tell you, it didn't.
All they saw was a smart man telling them they were idiots. And that, they don't like. So they voted for the lynching.
The fault in out justice system is that our fate is in the hands of the lowest common denomiator.
May Mr Saturday come for us all.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
As a former juror, let me be the first to say "screw you". All 14 of us (dont forget alternates) worked really hard to get our decision right, even in the cruddy little case we saw. Two days agonizing over it, worrying that we were being swayed by personalities or facts, reviewing written testimony over and over again. Its really easy to spew here on Slashdot because ultimately its completely meaningless. I had to look someone in the eye and say 'guilty', and probably ruin their life, and it was really *really* hard.
I will *never* second-guess a jury after that. Even OJ! Unless you've sat through the trial and been in the jury room, you have absolutely no right to pass judgement on them or the burden they carry. So you with the laptop projector and the speech impediment calling me a "moron"? Bite me.
Lawyers cant get smart thoughtful people *off* a jury, because people somehow get really smart in groups of 12. Strangely it mostly works just like it should. I bet some of them even watch CSI and Judge Judy once or twice, and *still* managed to ask intelligent questions, make rational or impassioned arguments, and most of all be willing to take criticism from others and force yourself to re-examine your own position. I've never seen anything like it... it's like an anti-slashdot, if anyone here could imagine such a thing. Hell, someone even quit in the middle of deliberations and was mostly afraid that if they told us why they might influence us one way or another. People get it right most of the time. Even the people who aren't as smart as you are.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and water is wet.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up. This is absolutely the case. I've been called to jury duty several times, and have been rejected every time as well.
The selection process is such that even if one side finds a juror that they may think may sway to one side, the other side will simply excuse them. Of course the idea is that once you are all done with the process, you should end up with total middle-of-the-road people that *should be* completely neutral to the case.
But there is another hidden factor involved: how easily does the attorney have a chance against persuading the juror to agree on their arguement? So pretty much you just end up with the dumbest, most gullible people on the jury making the final judgement call. These are the people you would totally not trust for any important decision making. (apologies for being elitist, but you just had to be there)
The last time I had to go, I took a quick look at who they were excusing, and who they kept. They kept the unemployed, the single parent, the person with a criminal record, etc. None of which had any form of education higher than a HS diploma, if that. The lowest common denominator was laughably stereotypical. They booted out the accountants, the doctors, the lawyer, and the tech geeks. If you went to graduate school, there was no chance you wouldn't be dismissed.
Attorneys are not interested in a fair trial; they have money riding on their case. They are looking for people that will listen to their 'vote for me!' speech.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the issues in the Hans Reiser case: Marriage. Money. Economic disparity between the accused and the alleged victim. Breakdown of an abusive relationship. Comfortable, middle-class, single male may just not have a lot of empathy for any of these situations.
Or, to put it another way: Who would you want sitting on your jury? Hans Reiser?
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the lawyer. My uncle was a bank inspector which caused him to assist lawyers prosecuting bank employees on several occasions. The prosecutors ALWAYS wanted smart, intelligent people who could understand how the defendants had defrauded the bank. Of course the defence wanted idiots who could not understand any of it.
My uncle joked that jury selection was as simple a looking at the newspaper the potential juror carried into the court room: FT and they were out, the Sun and they'd be selected!
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
- - went to college, and
- - have multiple Master's degrees, and
- - am an engineer, and
- - own and run my own successful business
I can only conclude that both sides prefer to exclude jurors who can think, who evaluate the evidence presented and are not swayed by emotional arguments beyond the evidence itself. Both sides (prosecution and defense) seem to want jurors who can be hoodwinked into believing the out-of-band implications of a theatrical presentation.Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Funny)
Hans Reiser has done himself in with the same weapon.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, his attorney was right in advising Hans not to take the stand. Better to have people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you imagine what would happen if this guy was black?
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure... either that or you make it easier to convict innocent people. You say "potato", I say "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Re:Down here... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Down here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Down here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Down here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Informative)
I introduced the lists to make it more readable, and put clarifications for the referenced sections in brackets to avoid the need to look them up.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you aren't on the jury and didn't actually sit through the full trial.
Neither did I, which is why I won't say whether or not he's guilty.. I (and you) don't have all the facts.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we've just proved that I can be convicted of first degree murder if my friend turns up missing.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah that'd do it, genius.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes there is a lot in psychology that is guessing. But they are guesses that match real world behavior. But to call it a complete pseudoscience is flat out wrong.
Try volunteering to spend some time in/around psych hospitals, and pull the other leg: it squirts Ovaltine!
Most private hospitals are simply cash cows. The usual psychobabble they throw at the parents keeps them happy, while a "healthy" dose of medication keeps the patients calm, if not content. Overmedication is rampant, and I'll use an example I saw:
"Kent" had been restrained after Monday's fracas over his phone time, and his medication had been bumped up. Flash forward to Wednesday, where he's in t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you bother to RTFA? There was plenty of evidence. A body is not required to arrest and convict somebody of murder. Otherwise all anybody would have to do would be to cremate the body and poof! No crime!
The article gives just a couple of examples, but they're obviously examples of many. The guy spent 11 full days on the stand. The one pretty incriminating example of evidence cited in the article is the fact that he removed the passenger seat of his car just after his wife's disappearance, then hosed down the interior and left an inch of standing water on the floor boards. Now, you tell me why any average person has reason to do that. I can tell you that in 20 years of car ownership and six different cars, I have never once taken the passenger seat out of my car, thrown it away and then hosed down the interior, and I don't know anyone else who has either. His explanation was that he liked to sleep in the car and wanted the extra room. Does this sound plausible to you?
So, let's just look at this *one* piece of evidence. Guy's wife disappears. He then immediately removes the seat from his car, which is never seen again, and he hoses down the interior of the car. That doesn't paint a picture for you? Now, let's say you ask the guy why he did that and he gives you a laughably ridiculous explanation. And let's say this goes on for 11 days as the prosecution asks him to explain every other piece of evidence, and his explanations are no less ridiculous in each case.
The standard for guilt or innocence is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean *any* doubt, and that's the mistake people often make. It's *reasonable* doubt. Is it reasonable to assume he was telling the truth about that car seat? Would any reasonable person do what he did with that car seat? And if all his other explanations about the evidence presented were similar, is it reasonable to assume he was telling the truth about anything?
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry but a missing car seat, wet car carpet, and a single drop of blood in a house they at one time shared along with random books about murder (I have about 15 of them on my bookshelves and at least one in my car because I like to read) doesn't mean someone killed someone else.
His kid said he saw his mother leave and there's no body. The bitch probably is back in Russia and from what I have read, and please correct me if I missed something as I was only watching what Threat Level was providing, no one even took the time to see if she was over in Russia like Hans' defense claimed.
Sounds like there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury was bored with his testimony (more that I read via Threat Level) and not the prosecutor's. If anything, this has more to do with juries being fucking stupid than Hans killing her.
That all said, he probably did do it -- she stole tons of money from him and seemed to come to the US just because she was now "married" and didn't do it for love -- I just don't think they proved that he did actually do it.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Interesting)
Coincidentally, not immediately. Your bias is showing.
This murder was not proved. They have no body, they have insufficient blood to prove she is dead. Typical human holds 8 pints IIRC, that is much more than a 6" stain. They have no evidence of planning to commit on his part. All they have is a defendant that got up on the stand and delivered answers that the jury found weird, strange, not-normal.
So they alienated him, found him strange, and thus, were no longer a jury of his peers. Just a jury finding that the defendant was odd and probably hiding something and since we're in a murder trial, it must be that.
I have no special knowledge of this case. He may be a raging lunatic for all I know. But the one take-away that all
When in court, on trial for your life, subject to judgement from average citizens who have no hope of understanding you, your mannerisms or your bizarre hobbies and interests, keep your mouth shut.
Re:US jury system does it again (Score:5, Insightful)
You've likely never slept in a car, then. I have, plenty of times. And I'd much rather sleep in the passenger seat than remove it and sleep on a hard bumpy floorboard with rails and bolts sticking out of it. Especially if I were tall, because if I slept on the floor, the back seat would get in the way, whereas the front seat back extends over the back seat and thus gives you more room.
So no, that claim is not credible at all. Especially when combined with a refusal to tell where you disposed of the seat, and hosing down the floor mats.
(Of course, the best car to sleep (or fsck) in were the old Ramblers, where you folded down the front couch, and it lined up with the rear seat to become a double bed.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Software (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free Software (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a chance. And even if there was, California is a state with death penalty, and for a crime like this, it's quite likely he'll be executed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The EFF was petitioning the State of California to allow prisoners to write GPL code. internet/telephone access would be blocked, and some people (Kevin Mitnick types) wouldn't be eligible. I think California does allow some prisoners the opportunity to do programming, but the software is considered property of the State of California.
He could still write research papers/articles for linux journals/etc, of course (that's more common than you might think).
The jury did the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I say let him sit in prison until his wife reappears alive. Nobody abandons their kids and cuts off contact with all family like that.
Getting caught with books on murder, evading police surveillance, having a front seat removed from your car, soaked in 3 inches of water?
This guy is a real piece of work. Saying he's narcissistic is an understatement.
Acquit him, and he's another OJ Simpson, free of ever being charged again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:4, Funny)
This line of action may come across rather as rather peculiar during court proceedings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."
The above is from the UK police caution [wikipedia.org] (after the govt decided people being silent in interviews was pissing them off).
No idea how often this clause is actually brought into play though.
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:5, Informative)
I once spent 48hrs in custody and 2 years of going to hearings for not listening to this basic piece of advise.
I ended up proving myself innocent of what I was being accused of (and the real guilty party, my boss at the time, was never accused).
So, I learned two valuable lessons after this ordeal:
1- If you find out that your boss is doing unethical and illegal stuff, quit your job.
2- If you find yourself being questioned by the police about something, ask first if you are under arrest. If you are, don't say a word to the cops until you get your lawyer to speak for you.
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you describe is entirely correct. When an officer starts asking you questions if you know what's good for you UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ANSWER any questions or volunteer any information. Instead and again like you said: Ask "Officer am I under arrest?". If you're not then leave. If you are, tell them "Officer I am invoking my right to remain silent". They will threaten that remaining silent only makes things worse. In many cases they will threaten with arrest if you remain silent or they will offer to help you if you admit to the charge. A POLICE OFFICER HAS NO INFLUENCE ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OTHER AS A WITNESS. A police officer can not reduce your charges, a police officer can NOT drop charges. But... they are permitted to lie to you in order to obtain incriminatory information. They are permitted to offer false legal advice if it serves the prosecution(!).
You can expect some very tense moments with officers when you deny them permission to search your vehicle or your property or if you remain silent. I have been there. Be prepared for pressure but know that in the end it's better to get intense with the Officer than with your future cell mates (not that I have been there
It is often said (right or wrong) (Score:4, Informative)
One must also remember that the US, as with the UK, use the adversarial court system. This attempts to establish guilt. Other countries use the inquisitorial system, which attempts to ascertain the truth of the matter. Both systems produce questionable results and have giant catalogues of miscarriages of justice to their names, which leads me to conclude that you either want a blend of the two or neither, but purely one or the other is inadequate. However, that's not the system used anywhere, as far as I know.
Do I think Hans Reiser is guilty or innocent? I don't think I know enough to say, for the above reason. I don't think the system exists yet to establish that with any certainty. I think he's guilty of stupidity - you don't ask a SQL database engineer to do assembly code programming, he knows that, so he should have been quite capable of inferring that you don't ask a software engineer to do lawyering. Beyond that, I don't know.
Sadly, his stupidity isn't grounds for appeal. He can't claim that he misrepresented himself. That doesn't work. We shall probably never know what really happened or why - again, the US system doesn't really try to establish such things. We shall also never really know to what extent Hans Reisers' autism affected the trial. In the legal system as it exists, criminal insanity (not knowing right from wrong) is only sometimes recogized, other forms of insanity or mental abnormality are neither recognized nor considered mitigating factors in a person's actions or a person's evidence. I don't like that either, but again we have the system we have.
This case proves only one thing to me, and that is that we'd almost be better off with no system at all. Not quite, but almost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ACLU has some hints about this:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb%20bust%20card7_04.pdf [aclu.org]
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let this case also stand as an object lesson in that other important rule: Once your attorney is there to do the talking, take his or her advice. If you are, oh, let's say an expert computer scientist with an advanced understanding of filesystem design, you wouldn't invite some random schmoe from the street to head your development team. That would be stupid. The converse applies: you are the random schmoe, so let the person with the legal degrees and an advanced understanding of criminal trials make the legal decisions.
Oh, and another thing: don't murder your estranged wife. Murder your uncle, your neighbor, or your boss if you absolutely must kill somebody. And then paint "PRIME SUSPECT" in three-foot-high red letters on your house. That is still an order of magnitude less suspicious than having your fucking wife go missing during the middle of an acrimonious custody dispute.
Now if you'll pardon me, the sudden revelation that any clueless jackhole can build a filesystem has me itching to fire up the ol' compiler.
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:5, Funny)
I have no particular interest in offering guilty people a defense for what they've done. If you've intentionally murdered someone, please go to jail and get the hell out of our society.
Re:If you get arrested and/or get put on trial... (Score:4, Informative)
As a side note... check out:
http://flexyourrights.org/ [flexyourrights.org]
They've got some good write ups about what your rights are under various police encounters...
Nephilium
Summary of the evidence (Score:5, Informative)
My personal opinion is that Hans killed Nina in a fit of rage, then scrambled to cover up the evidence. I did not see any evidence whatsoever of premeditation. So I can not at all understand how this jury reached a verdict of First degree murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From FindLaw: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html [findlaw.com]
Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.
According to Everything2: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1316784 [everything2.com]
A perso
WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it may not be accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Now this is important, because otherwise, it would create a "Get out of murder free" situation more or less. As an example:
Suppose you and I conspire together. You are going to murder someone, but I agree that if you get caught I'll confess to it at your trial. This would of course create reasonable doubt for you. However, I'll make sure that there is plenty of evidence showing I didn't do it (for example be on camera somewhere at the time of the murder) so when they bring me to trial, I get off. Bingo, you got away with murder.
This isn't even to mention the problem of people with mental problems who confess to things they didn't do for any number of reasons.
A good judge isn't going to allow evidence, on either side, that is likely false. They also aren't going to allow in evidence that is highly prejudicial if it isn't relevant to the case, even if it is true. For example on the prosecution side prior bad acts are limited. They can be admitted to evidence if they relate to the case, for example if someone is accused of robbery and he has 5 robbery convictions, well that's relevant because it establishes a pattern of behaviour. However if you were on trial for tax evasion, they couldn't get in a domestic violence conviction, since all that would do is prejudice the jury and it isn't relevant.
appeals court here we come (Score:4, Informative)
"Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.)"
Yes, I knew Hans and Nina (Score:5, Interesting)
I met Nina Reiser at a pre-school picnic.
Nina seemed like a typical harried mom - devoted to her kids and quite kind (she got a cup of juice for my daughter).
Hans, on the other hand, went out of his way to be mean, petty, arrogant, and small minded. He acted as if he owned the Open Computer Facility, and that everyone should kow-tow to him. Once he booted an undergrad off the system because she had posted a Usenet message that he disagreed with.
I attended the trial for several days. I was impressed with how carefully the jurors followed the witnesses, even though the testimony was boring.
Hans shot himself in the foot by testifying. Maybe he shot both feet. He used the passive voice when describing critical events, as if he were an outside observer. He varied from extremely explicit (remembering license plates) to utterly vague (not remembering where he slept).
Even though I wanted him to get out of this squeeze, I quite agree with the jurors on this one: there may not be a body, but Hans committed murder.
First degree murder? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now That He Has Been Found Guilty... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do think that convicting somebody based on circumstantial evidence is almost always a bad idea. In fact, it's such a bad idea, it usually doesn't happen... and when it does, the judge often steps in and overturns the conviction.
In this case, you have a guy who did some things that are pretty damn hard to explain away. The day after his wife goes missing he removes the passenger seat from his car and hoses the entire thing down? Seriously?
Should that be enough to convict him? I don't know. What I do know is that I find it very strange that so many of you are willing to ignore things like that and declare your outrage about his conviction.
Now that he has been found guilty, perhaps you should explain why you think he is innocent?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best defense is one where you STFU! (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think that given all of the evidence was so circumstantial, that he'd just keep his mouth shut or say as little as possible, but instead, he just keeps digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.
Advice for hyperactive folks who lack social skills who are accused of a crime not committed:
1) take a chill pill. no, really, chill. now is NOT the time to expound on the intricacies of your one and only view of the world.
2) you've got a lawyer. Use the lawyer as a filter. If you don't like the lawyer, get another one. If you don't know how, find someone who can help you manage stuff. this is another example of where you really shouldn't try to learn how to do it yourself, just because you can.
3) you don't "argue" with judges. You argue with other lawyers. Arguing with a judge is... well, it's just not wise.
I would have said that the lawyer was incompetent, but it sounds like the lawyer got fed up with his client arguing with him. Who's the lawyer and who's the guy being accused of 1st degree murder? Right. Either listen to the lawyer or get one you can work with.
He had a good case where the defense stood on fairly firm ground. Then, he opened his mouth and tried to explain things according to his world view, to the point where he could easily be painted as someone who was just not reliable.
There's alot to take away from this case. And unfortunately, one of those things is that "just being you", or "just being an unsociable geek" is not a valid defense.
Hopefully, he can appeal and perhaps prove his innocence there.
SAT analogy question (Score:3, Insightful)
as
"reiser is guilty" according to average joes is to "reiser is guilty" according to _____
hint: rhymes with "gerds" or "neeks"
that was a joke, but seriously, this case reveals sociology going on here. if reiser didn't program a file system, not only would no one here care, but most everyone protesting his conviction here would probably agree with it
what does writing a file system have to do with first degree murder? absolutely nothing
except according to all the douchebags here protesting this murderer's innocence here on slashdot
prejudice according to clique. tribalism. its a powerful motivator. just look at all the comments here grandstanding on this murderer's innocence. as if they would know better than a jury
you don't
you present two sides of a case to a jury of your peers. they decide. there is no better of arbiter of justice. don't like the verdict. why do you think you know better?
you don't
deal with it. move on. the guy is murdering asshole. according to a jury. good enough for me. why isn't good enough for you?
So what exactly IS the default cellblock size? (Score:5, Funny)
What he did is bad, but you gotta admit... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm kind of disappointed... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm disappointed in the majority of slashdotters who are are convinced he's innocent. Do you realize that is really stupid? Why is a group of people who are so rational about technology, say, or science, willing to believe something they just can flat out not know?
He might have been guilty, he might have been innocent. The devil lies in the details, which the jury knows better than you.
Obviously it's out of some feeling of kinship with the guy, but, you know, that is a really poor reason. I swear; the reasoning here is about on par with somebody convinced that vaccinations cause autism.
It's because there are a bunch of zealots here (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean look at the crap with the OLPC. When it was all OSS, all the time, the zealots had nothing but praise. They talked about how great it was not because of the software, but because of how it would help children and bridge the technology gap and such. Now they are hating on it, even though it still promises the same fundamental world-changing things, it isn't within their dogma anymore so they hate it.
It's the same sort of thing as religious zealotry. You can be a zealot about ideals other than a religion, but it leads to the same kind of attitude and though process. When something doesn't fit in your beliefs, you deny it and explain it away.
Attorney's perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
I can tell you first off that most attorneys do NOT want engineers on their juries. The reason is not at all that we don't want critical thinkers. Rather, it's because most engineers are a lot more like Hans Reiser than they would like to admit. Engineers have a tendency to glorify logic to the point that they ignore common sense. The law, and particularly criminal law, is not a science. No one can conclusively proove that a person committed a crime in the same way that a mathematician can prove his theorums. Engineers also tend to be arrogant, and tend to believe that they know more than everyone else about everything. I ought to know, my brother is one. And so the fear is that engineers will have a marked tendency to consider the evidence in an unfair way, to ignore what the lawyers say about the evidence, and to bully everyone else in the jury room into a point of view that does not give due credit to all of the circumstances and the evidence.
Take Reiser's case. The man is so obviously guilty it reeks. An Engineer might say, well they haven't even proved that she's dead. But somehow we are supposed to believe that she left a car full of groveries on the side of the road, failed to show up to her best friend's house, and left her kids in the hands of a man that she hates so that she could fly away to Russia? That's ridiculous. A lawyer would say that you don't have to prove something as absolutely true, but only beyond a *reasonable* doubt. It isn't reasonable to believe that this woman left her car, her groceries, her friends, and her kids to fly off to Russia, where nobody has heard from her since.
Think about it, if the prosecution had to have a body every time they tried someone for murder, than any murderer who found a good enough hiding spot for the body would get off. That may be scientifically sound, but it's not justice.
Now take the fact that they found Nina's blood in Reiser's house, and on his sleeping bag. He removed his car seat from his car, and flooded the compartment to try to wash it, and left an inch of water in there. Then he claims he was sleeping in his car. Is there any other reasonable explanation than that this car was used to transport a body? Sure, you can come up with other explanations, but none of them are *reasonable* The books on murder, the suspicious behavior, etc., are just icing on the cake.
But the reality is that a good attorney might have had a chance to get Reiser off, despite his glaring guilt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a damn high burden to meet, and often times a good lawyer can inject enough uncertainty into a case to keep the jury from reaching that threshhold. But when Reiser took the stand, he basically removed all chance of that happening. He apparently gave some completely ridiculous explanations to some very important questions, like why in gods name would anyone use a hose to wash out their car and then leave an inch of standing water in there, when that is where they sleep. So basically, Reiser made what could have been reasonable doubts sound completely unreasonable. And that is why he was convicted, and not because of his arrogance or disdain towards humanity (although I'm sure that didn't help him either).
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
If you were the defense attorney and Sturgeon could provide testimony that would help exonerate your client, wouldn't you call him as a witness?
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
A typical jury is a group of 12 people hand-picked by the lawyers to be the most easily emotionally manipulated people possible. You were expecting them to come to a conclusion based on logic?
Doubt disappeared when Hans testified (Score:4, Insightful)
There was some doubt. Then Hans' insisted on taking the stand. The jury may have considered perhaps Hans took the seat out to go racing or make room for a large purchase. But if that were the case he would have said so on the stand. The same goes for any other evidence. Because Reiser took the stand the jury couldn't conjour up possible explanations. If Reiser didn't present the doubt himself the jury couldn't consider it. Since it was obvious Reiser was lying (he even admitted to it) the jury couldn't believe what he had to say.
Re:Doubt disappeared when Hans testified (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, that while there was only circumstantial evidence, there was rather a lot of it. That amount of evidence is used to convict people plenty often. You don't have to have a body, a gun with fingerprints on it, and ballistics that match the bullet in the body. "Circumstantial" blood stains require either a lot of good explaining, or a lot of shutting up and leaving room for the "reasonable doubt" that your lawyer will certainly argue for. When you try to explain it away, and your explanations sound hollow, then that only leaves the interpretation that you are lying because the circumstantial evidence is real evidence.
There's a good lesson here: Listen to your lawyer. If your lawyer says it would be a bad idea for you to testify, it's probably because they know what they are talking about. It's very much a geek thing to want to address every point made by your opponent directly, to leave nothing left unaccounted for. Except that when your rebuttals are weak, you can actually have the opposite effect. Let your lawyer figure out when that is appropriate.
that's nothing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A man... (Score:4, Informative)
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand.
]{
Re:A man... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heh.
From the SFGate blog [sfgate.com] article: "After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he was led out, he asked, 'Can I talk to my attorney?'"
How about next time, Hans tries listening to his attorney?
Re:A man... (Score:5, Interesting)
In all likelihood, Reiser's lawyer did not want to put Reiser on the stand. However, it is generally accepted "[i]n a criminal case, [a] lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer...whether the client will testify [abanet.org]." It is assumed that the right of a client to testify in criminal cases is a constitutional right. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, para. 16 [resource.org]. Even if the client's testimony can only hurt the defense, the lawyer must allow the client to testify if the client so insists. To do otherwise would be unethical and impair the client's rights.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Reasonable doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding. I would really like to see a poll of the jury members, and if they would change their votes if they had been told that Hans's ex-friend (the wife's new dude) had confessed to killing 8 people.
Some facts are prejudicial.
Some facts are prejudicial for a very good reason.
I'd like to see numbers on how that would have changed things.
Too bad ReiserFS will probably die. I'm going to guess that they won't be giving him his own computer in prison to continue development with. I wonder if someone else will effectively try to step up and take control of the project, or it will just lose all it's momentum (not that it didn't in the last few years anyway).
Re:Reasonable doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing it will disappear in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Police will arrest the xfs maintainer on chargest, the evidence being that neighbors saw him carry out what could have been a backup tape wrapped in a roll of carpet in the middle of the night.
Re:Reasonable doubt? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reasonable doubt? (Score:4, Informative)
Given that Sturgeon's a fameseeking whackjob, it's certainly correct that his 'confession' should not have been allowed in court to affect Reiser's trial.
Re:Reasonable Doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
For an interesting review of historical views on 'N' (and Blackstone's criteria in general), see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm [ucla.edu].
Re:Reasonable Doubt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At the risk of sounding sexist (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)