Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Hans Reiser Leads Police To Nina's Body

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jul 07, 2008 09:05 PM
from the removing-all-doubt dept.
jlmcgraw was the first to alert us that Hans Reiser has led police to the location in the Oakland Hills where he buried the body of his wife Nina. (We discussed the rumor that he would do so last month.) SFGate.com reports that remains were recovered but have not yet been identified. Reiser is to be sentenced on Wednesday. CBS5 claims that Reiser made a deal for a reduced sentence, to 15 years, in exchange for revealing the body.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hans Reiser To Reveal Location of Wife's Body 882 comments
dlgeek writes "The story of Hans Reiser is well known to all Slashdotters by now. Some still placed doubts about the conviction, stating that he might be innocent. It now seems that all doubt has been quelled, since Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff has revealed that Hans Reiser will disclose the location of Nina's body for a reduced sentence. The deal is not yet finalized, though. 'There's been some overtures,' Orloff said, 'But everything is in its preliminary stage.' The deal would reduce his conviction from first degree to second degree murder. In addition, an anonymous source close to the situation said that 'the only real leverage he has is if he can provide a body. He really doesn't have any options left. Even if he won a retrial somehow, he'd likely be convicted.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday July 07 2008, @09:07PM (#24093301) Homepage Journal

    I feel bad for the kids - that is such a messed up situation.

    • Re:Sad (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2008, @09:17PM (#24093461)

      Hans shot first

        • by flanksteak (69032) * on Monday July 07 2008, @09:37PM (#24093745) Homepage

          He may have had knowledge of the murder, and use that to reduce the sentence.

          I would be interested in your theories of how he could have had knowledge of the murder and not be guilty.

          • by 2.7182 (819680) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:45PM (#24093867)
            Maybe he was angry with her because she was having an affair. He bought a gun out of anger, but didn't want to kill her. He goes home, to find her with her lover. In a struggle with the lover, the lover the lover wrests the gun from Hans. He's got the gun pointed at Hans, who reveals that his wife has in fact ANOTHER lover. In anger, the lover shoots Nina and flees. Hans has no idea who he was, and Nina dies sadly in his arms. The only way he can avoid blame for the murder (having just legally purchased the gun) is to bury Nina himself. In the end, Hans feels responsible for her death, having driven her away from him due to his obsession with work, and of course, the foolish decision to buy the guy. He sees only too late that he should forgiven her for such a minor human flaw, and if he had, then he would still be with her.
            • by flanksteak (69032) * on Monday July 07 2008, @09:50PM (#24093915) Homepage
              Was Fabio on the cover of this book?
            • by The Iso (1088207) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:51PM (#24093941)

              If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.

              • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2008, @10:06PM (#24094171)

                Remember to enable soft updates before executing this plan.

              • by vought (160908) on Monday July 07 2008, @10:15PM (#24094273)

                If I were separated from my wife and bound by a restraining order, and she was having sex with her new lover IN MY HOUSE, I would probably kill her, too.

                And if you admitted as much to the cops, and testified to such in court, the district attorney would likely seek no more than manslaughter.

                Crimes committed in the heat of passion, when the murderer is truthful with the police and penitent, aren't always prosecuted as a capital crime. To do so costs the state much more.

                Hans Reiser insisted on lying about every aspect of the disappearance of Nina Reiser from the moment he was questioned by police. The DA had no choice but to prosecute it as a murder case - and given the facts in evidence, he was convicted because he made a lot of stupid mistakes - typical for someone who commits a crime of passion and then thinks they can cover it up because they're so much smarter than the 'average bear'.

                If Reiser had even pled guilty and recanted his story after lying to the police and being arraigned for murder, he might have gotten off with a much lighter sentence for murder. But he waited until the sentencing phase, after he'd lied to the court.

                No, Hans was so much smarter than everyone else. Now he's going to go to prison for 15-to-life - and lying to the court as Reiser did means his parole hearings aren't going to go well for him, if he even survives 15 years in prison.

          • by jmahler (192217) on Monday July 07 2008, @10:07PM (#24094183) Homepage

            While there ARE certainly plausible ways that he could have been not guilty AND known where the body is, I would imagine that if he was innocent and knew where the body was that he would, oh, I don't know.... maybe.... CALL THE POLICE AS SOON AS HE KNEW WHERE THE BODY OF HIS DEAD WIFE WAS.

            I mean, if it was me, I'd be trying to find all of the evidence to clear my name that I could - and if I hadn't done the killing, you better believe I'd be demanding the police go all CSI on her body and the crime scene before we even get to the point of me being arrested. The fact that he knew where the body was and kept quiet is an indicator to me of intent.

            And while indicative of intent, it is not further proof of his guilt. At least it DOES bring closure to the family of the deceased.

    • Re:Sad (Score:5, Funny)

      by SoCalChris (573049) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:26PM (#24093575) Homepage Journal
      Obligatory...

      Comparison of filesystems on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
  • All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

    • by ergo98 (9391) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:11PM (#24093369) Homepage Journal

      All you people who said "I still don't believe Hans did it" -- do you doubt it now?

      The guy was persecuted for being a little strange, which is an outrage. Oh, and he also killed his wife.

      • Right. But you'd have to be bloody insane to think that maybe Hans didn't do it at this point. I mean, he knew where the body was buried.

      • by RedWizzard (192002) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:36PM (#24093725)

        Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?

        I think most thought it was more likely than not that he did it. Just that there were reasonable alternative theories (ran away to frame him, insane best friend that claims to have murdered people still alive are 2 that I can think of).

        I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection, perhaps because they could relate to him, I don't know. I always thought that the alternative theories were pretty weak - there was no evidence that crazy best friend did it and no real motive for Nina to try to frame him by fleeing to Russia without her kids. On the other hand there was a large amount of physical evidence, which taken together (and considering Hans' complete lack of a plausible explanations for any of it) didn't leave a reasonable doubt in my mind. Or the juries mind. And now a lot of people here have to admit that the police and the jury were right.

        • Re:Okay there you go (Score:5, Interesting)

          by D Ninja (825055) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:55PM (#24093993)

          I think a lot of people here wanted to believe he was innocent, perhaps because of the open source connection

          Heh, I'll probably be modded as Flamebait for this, but...whatever.

          I agree with you. The OSS connection, I think, is what made people think he was innocent. If this had been a story about Bill Gates or some other closed source proponent, I wonder if people's reactions would still have been the same on this site.

      • Re:Okay there you go (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nelson (1275) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:53PM (#24093965)

        I'll clue you in. Reasonable doubt requires more than just a semi-plausible alternative theory. It's not like reading something in a textbook. "Reasonable doubt" is made up of his actions, his inaction, the things he says to the jury, the things he doesn't say to the jury, his actions in court, his mannerisms, whether he appears to be lying, all of that stuff. There is no sterile, black and white "reasonable doubt" where he can just tell lies and suggest an alternative theory and get off.

        That's what makes serial killers scary, they are so emotionless and seem to not think that they did anything wrong that they can just lie to a group of people and most people find it believable. Many of them are smart enough to not get caught in lies.

        Hans had a lot of circumstances stacked against him and then he did the worst thing possible and he opened his mouth in court, the guy has a hard time communicating with people that really want to understand him and hear what he has to say (fellow kernel hackers) no way he's going to lie to a jury in a convincing manner. Even for a geek he is a very odd individual. Just not convincing in court, and as it turns out, he did the crime anyways. A jury saw through his lies and they were right, as they tend to be. Some estimates have them between 85% and 90% accurate.

      • Re:Okay there you go (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@nOspAM.yahoo.com> on Monday July 07 2008, @09:35PM (#24093711) Homepage

        Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

        Not in any state that I know of. Otherwise, the only thing you'd need to do to get away with murder is dispose of the body.

        Poison someone, dump them in the ocean with a rock tied to their ankle, and poof. No murder, right?

        That's not the way our legal system works. A missing person, another person who was their known last contact, poison residue on their hands, a poison bottle in their possession, a car that's got sand from a particular beach on its tires, clothing fibers from clothing the victim was known to own in the car, receipts for rope, a blindfold and other tools in the murderer's possession, existence of a motive... that's enough circumstantial evidence to arrest and probably convict somebody in any state in this country.

      • Re:Okay there you go (Score:5, Informative)

        by pudge (3605) * <pudge AT slashdot DOT org> on Monday July 07 2008, @09:44PM (#24093837) Homepage Journal

        Now, I don't doubt it. Before, though, there wasn't even any definitive proof anyone had died. I thought that was kind of a prerequisite for charging someone with murder.

        It's not.

      • There are two archetypes of nerds, which oddly parallel serial killer archetypes: disorganized and spontaneously creative vs organized and methodically calculating.

        The urge to divide everything into two -- black or white, friend or enemy, capitalism or communism, christian or heathen, disorganized or organized -- is a recognized mental oddity.

        In most cases, there is not only a sliding scale (or shades of grey, if you like), but multiple axes.

        That we so easily try place things in a two-bin system might be because it makes it easier for us to make decisions.

        Hans Reiser is an odd man out in many ways, but can't be explained this easily. He's not just a disorganized person. He's a complex person. And if you'd ever talked to him, you'd know that in some things he is meticulously organized, while in others, not. Binning him like you did seems silly, but if it makes it easier for you to deal with, hey, whatever sinks your bathyscaphe.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2008, @09:08PM (#24093317)

    Even after the conviction, given the circumstantial case some doubts remained. This certainly removes all remaining doubts.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2008, @09:51PM (#24093939)

      I think the conviction (first degree murder, i.e. preplanned) is still ridiculous. The evidence for preplanning was very weak. Part of it was that Hans bought a book about murder investigations--but he bought it AFTER Nina's disappearance. You'd think someone planning a murder and wanting to foil an investigation would buy the book BEFORE doing the deed. Another part was that he removed his cell phone battery to avoid being tracked--again AFTER the disappearance. I've been neutral about Hans's possible innocence (60% of Wired Magazine readers in a survey thought he was innocent) but I always thought the premeditation charge was ridiculous. If it was preplanned there are a million less crazy ways he could have done it, such as hiring professionals from Russia or at least making better arrangements to get rid of the body far away. I've felt it more plausible that he lost self-control in the heat of an argument, found himself with a dead wife and a potential giant heap of trouble, and then, after the fact, decided (unsuccessfully) to try to outrun/outsmart the police. That would be second degree murder rather than first, if I remember my Perry Mason reruns.

  • The kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ulash (1266140) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:16PM (#24093437)

    No matter how much we argue or try to make "programming jokes" about this incident the truth is these kids' mother is dead, their father is going away for a long time and they are going to be the ones bearing one of the heaviest burdens in this particular case.

    • Re:The kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07 2008, @09:38PM (#24093767)

      I think that there are two important points here:
      1) You can always joke about something (and often should).
      2) That joking and laughter doesn't help the kids who are the real victims. (The mother was the victim, but the kids will continue to suffer for a while yet.)

      So I ask this of Slashdot: Should the open-source/tech-community raise some money or do something nice for these kids?

      We don't have any obligation to, but some one from our community has hurt his kids and his kids are suffering. Should we do something to help out? (Scholarships? I nice thing of flowers?)

      I don't know the answer to this, but I think that it is worth some discussion.

  • by deft (253558) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:36PM (#24093723) Homepage

    all the people from LA.

    last time I saw that sort of hopeful thinking it was kobe and people saying he didnt cheat on his wife. And he did. We all love our heros, dont we?

    Well, heros are usually only good at the one thing they are touted for... im not asking kobe to fix my car for sure.

    With all the smart people around here, why would anyone think that a computer programmer is any less suceptible to violent acts than any other?

    I mean, is it just because computer geeks are well known as the most well adjusted people on the planet? :)

  • by RudeIota (1131331) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:53PM (#24093967) Homepage
    After his relationship became fragmented Resier rm'oved his wife by forking her to death and packed her tail in a shallow grave he allocated in the dirt near some trees. He was almost unlinked to the case, but he really fsck'd up afterward, because the fool wrote all the details of the murder in his journal!

    After being out-of-order in court, he spilled the encryptic details about where his wife was stored and from there on, the jury knew he was corrupted. Strangely enough, due to his cooperation, officials didn't even have to raid his home...

    You know what though...? inode he was a criminal all along.

    There, I'm glad to have gotten that out of my system.

  • Google Maps anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nukeade (583009) <serpent11.hotmail@com> on Monday July 07 2008, @10:10PM (#24094237) Homepage

    From the article, the location where he dumped Nina must be approximately here:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.833531,-122.182109 [google.com]

    ~Ben

    • by 427_ci_505 (1009677) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:10PM (#24093353)
      At this point, fuck him. Good luck to his kids.
        • I hope he gets his in prison.

          As understandable as the sentiment is, that won't bring Nina Reiser back. I've lost a loved one to a drunk driver, and it isn't much comfort that the bastard went to prison. I hope his kids get a little bit of peace from the fact that at least they have a final answer on the matter, and that they'll be able to visit their mother's grave. This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.

      • by freeweed (309734) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:15PM (#24093427)

        Personally, because I'd have liked to have seen her turn up alive and well. A living person is better than a dead person any day.

        Sadly, circumstantial evidence or not, the guy was clearly guilty as all hell from minute one. Even the weirdest, most anti-social geek I know doesn't do the strange shit he pulled in the days following her murder.

      • by jamesh (87723) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:34PM (#24093695)

        he's a despicable human being and deserves no luck at this point.

        I used to have an attitude like that, but by definition anyone who behaves that way is obviously mentally ill, and probably a jail term is only going to make things worse for him. I'm not sure there is alternative though...

        And that's what makes me sad, I don't think that there is an answer to the question 'what could have been done beforehand to prevent this?'. You can't just go locking people away because they are a bit (or a lot) arrogant and nerdy - slashdot's user base would disappear overnight! Maybe we need that 'voice in your head' ray gun pointing at people 24/7 with a message 'thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not kill. (drink pepsi).'

        Hopefully the kids are now in a more stable environment...

    • by nweaver (113078) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:21PM (#24093507) Homepage

      He duped a minority, methinks.

      There were lots of us who thought he probably did it: the "she ran away" excuse just never floated, and there was too much stupid circumstantial excuses (I don't care HOW much of a geek you are, doing BOTh the seat AND flooding the car AND saying you slept in the wet sopping car is just ridiculous)

    • by NightFears (869799) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:34PM (#24093703)

      The correct English idiom is a bit different: the proof of the pudding is in eating. It is interesting to note that the idiom is paradoxical. What proof would remain, if youa ate Nina's body?

    • by DrEldarion (114072) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:21PM (#24093511) Homepage

      This is just one more thing for the 15 year olds who think they're e-badasses because they use Linux to brag about.

      "Oh yeah? Who designed your WinBlow$ file system? Just some monopolist? My file system was designed by a murderer. I totally have you beat."

    • Oh, come off it ... there was no reasonable doubt. Doubt that isn't reasonable isn't sufficient to let him walk, and the *jury* - not the prosecutor - got it right.

      Bottom lne: Hans tried to bullshit them, and they saw through it. If he had shut his moutn, maybe he would have walked, but he thought he could "put one over" on a bunch of "dumb jurors."

      He forgot that jurors don't have to be smarter than the accused - in his case, all they needed was a baloney-meter.

    • Re:I can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by One Childish N00b (780549) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:28PM (#24093609) Homepage
      You're an ass, nobody deserves that. I know you're a troll, but you're also sadly indicative of a lot of people's attitudes towards prison rape.
        • Re:I can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

          by One Childish N00b (780549) on Monday July 07 2008, @10:08PM (#24094197) Homepage

          Why doesn't he deserve that?

          Gandhi? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? We are not barbarians.

          The punishment is the prison time, not rape, let along the long, drawn-out suffering that is an AIDS death. Yes he's a terrible person for having killed his wife, yes he should be punished and no the 15 years he's getting probably isn't enough for someone who can kill their wife and then calculatingly lie to the police and a jury about it for so long. That doesn't mean he deserves to be raped. At the very least it's mob justice, and the reason we have courts to hand out punishment instead.

          The sick individuals gloating at the idea of anyone being raped are no better than the people they wish it upon.

      • Re:I can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ya really (1257084) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:29PM (#24093617)

        I can only hope (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, @10:08PM (#24093325)

        that he is repeatedly raped in prison and catches AIDS. He deserves a long and painful death.

        Re:I can only hope (Score:2)
        by JebusIsLord (566856) on Monday July 07, @10:19PM (#24093487) Homepage

        How very human of you.

        Fixed that for you. Being a decent person has very little to do with religion.

        • Re:I can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Your.Master (1088569) on Monday July 07 2008, @09:46PM (#24093895)

          "We'll become monsters too" is not at all based on Christian morality, although it doesn't contradict it either. It's entirely orthogonal (I'm an atheist).

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice [wikipedia.org]

          Apparently you are a hardcore retributivist. I'm closest to a utilitarian by this scale.

          Torturing him doesn't really help anything and is just an asshole manouevre. In my opinion, it's not that one becomes a monster by torturing another, it's that one already is a monster for wanting to torture.

          I'm not happy for Hans Reiser's suffering. I'm happy to prevent him from causing any more suffering, and in all fairness, if somebody has to suffer it should be the one who forced the issue.

    • not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.

      Unless she was pointing a gun at him and it was self-defense, there is *no* excuse.

      If a woman makes you angry, are you going to hit her?

      If she cheats on you, are you going to kill her?

      Will you give her the same rights in return? How about if she just cuts your pecker off instead and feeds it to the dog?

      How about if it's your kids? If they don't listen to you, are you going to wack them to "teach them a lesson"?

      It's called murder because it wasn't justified. Blaming the victim is just fucked up.