Hans Reiser To Reveal Location of Wife's Body 882
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.'"
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, while it might be true, is still stupid.
Imagine if Albert Einstein had accepted the position of leader of Israel after World War II and ordered some massive war crime, like say slaughtering the Arabs with nukes.
Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?
Snarky comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
Now that he confessed, I'm sure he's guilty.
Let's wait until he does cough it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
reasonable doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't. To most people, even people who "defended" him, it was more likely than not that he was guilty. But the legal criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think based on the publicly released evidence, there was still a reasonable doubt.
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there. And there are, indeed, lots of wrongful convictions, so it's not like the system is working perfectly.
Still, it looks like the jurors were right on this one.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
This being said though, I prefer ZFS myself
Also, considering Microsoft has so many employees, I have no doubt, that there have been people working there that comitted far worse than a crime of passion. Doesn't mean that the product is bad... Well, okay it is, but not because of some employee going nuts.
Besides, I think there are many CEO's or CFO's or any C?O's out there that have comitted far worse than a single murder, like Shell pumping oil in africa, killing thousands knowingly by pollution. If you'd go your route, you wouldn't be able to get groceries anymore in a normal fasion, because the truck getting the groceries might have filled it up with diesel at a shell.
State sponsored open source (Score:2, Insightful)
Hubris (Score:3, Insightful)
this reminds me of oj simpson (Score:5, Insightful)
the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson. had this guy not authored a file system,
1. no one would care about this case
2. most would assume his guilt
a lot pof people here think of themselves as intelligent and unbiased. if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins
Hmph (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:5, Insightful)
Long terms in prison tend to be the result of mandatory minimum sentences. Politicians, in a zeal to "fight crime!!111" have placed certain minimum terms on crimes, so judges can have their hands tied in sentencing. For the record, depending on which case you're thinking of, the US couple got 99 days in jail. And none of it was related to the death of their child, it was for neglect of their other four children (being underweight and malnourished).
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:3, Insightful)
No where in the article does it say that he has agreed to it, they are speculating that there might be a reduced sentence if Hans discloses where the body is.
For all those defending him there's still a string or two of hope. Personally I think the whole thing is too fishy to be able to put a man in prison for life for something he might not have done.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" my ass...
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Hognoxious hit that detail on the head
"Well if the DA says it then it must be true! I mean a DA is a kind of lawyer, right?"
Alright alright, I'll RTFA before posting next time.
Nerds and Geeks (Score:2, Insightful)
We nerds and geeks have real issues with interpersonal relationships. We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope.
If the stated facts are true, she was having an affair and embezzled money from the company. People have killed and have been killed for less.
What makes it hard is that Hans didn't watch enough CSI or Columbo to get away with it. The two kids losing their mom is tragic. I can't say the woman had it coming, but everyone knows that sort of behavior triggers primal and violent reactions. How enraged would you be?
Its certainly murder, but not 1st degree.
Re:this reminds me of oj simpson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutor: Come on, you've been found guilty. Your only hope of improving your situation even slightly is to admit you did it and tell us where the body is.
Reiser: Didn't do it.
(lather, rinse and repeat)
Re:reasonable doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes"
Frankly, that bothers me a whole hell of a lot less than the fact that he was convicted of murder without any significant evidence his wife was dead as opposed to simply missing.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order.
That can be a point of prison but there are at least four not always compatible reasons from prison:
1. Deterrence.
2. Reformation.
3. Punishment.
4. Removal.
Ultra long sentences serve 1,3, and 4 at the expense of 2. Furthermore, reform tends to get lip service at best in the US. We're generally a revenge minded lot Who Want Criminals Off The Street And Thinking Twice About Messing Up.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
This means, of course, that if you are innocent, it sucks to be you when you front up to a parole board.
Disclaimer: I garnered my knowledge from someone who was innocent but in jail, and also the movie Double Jeopardy, starring Ashley Judd.
Re:*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
Where does it say he confessed?
You're an idiot.
And so is whoever modded you up.
interesting insight on possible outcomes (Score:5, Insightful)
Conclusion: Either he is guilty and gets 15 years or he is innocent and gets 25 years.
For that reason I think the whole idea of "making deals" should be tossed out. Criminals should not be allowed to trade aspects of their crime to reduce their sentence. All that seems to do is encourage them to plan their crime more carefully so they have more "bargaining power" if caught. If he did it, and hadn't hid the body as well, and they found it, he wouldn't be offered this option to reduce his sentence.
Although someone else said that recently no governor has granted parole for anyone convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder, so it may not matter either way. The "to life" probably will be applied.
Re:Nerds and Geeks (Score:4, Insightful)
The evidence one hears in the press of her blood in the car, the front seat mysteriously gone missing with no explanation, and the car hosed down inside, all might tend to point to something that was perhaps unplanned (you'd think a nerd could plan it better), but OTOH we didn't hear all the evidence, and the jury that did hear it apparently thought it was planned (maybe for the exact reasons you suggest).
Re:World's Greatest Detective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like they're making a fake murder case.
I'm almost convinced that they are.
And regarding the lack of a body - that hasn't been needed for a conviction for many years, simply because there are so many ways to dispose of a body such that there is no way anyone on Earth will ever find it again.
Looking at the facts, Reiser's estranged wife disappeared off the face of the earth without even attempting to contact her own children, and shortly afterwards he's found to have removed a seat from his car, hosed down the inside and taken a book called "How to get away with murder" out of the local library. He'd have needed a pretty good alibi to shoehorn reasonable doubt into those facts.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa there, never feel like a moron for defending the accused before (most of?) the evidence is in and the jury has deliberated; that's the whole point of the innocent until proven guilty system. Otherwise we'll have to chant 'burn the witch' before the dunking tests.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps not at the time; if it were to happen today, you could put money on it.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
I still drive them both with the required plates that have to be on all vehicles.
Hmmm, since they were made by convicts, can I decline or move to free myself of anything created by a criminal? LOL I think NOT!
Funny how stuff works!
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:5, Insightful)
While I can follow the logic - if people fear prison, harsher sentences will make them fear it even more - I think making prison sentences too harsh will force people to become desperate, desperate animals will fight to their death and thus you end up with more violent arrests where the one being chased will have no regard for others life since their own life is now on the stake.
Here in Denmark we used to have next to no high speed chases, when police came you would generally just give up, get the slap on your wrist, serve the time and get back out for a second try. Lately sentences has gone up, crime has become more violent (but less frequent) and you hear about high speed chases about once a week.
Yes it sucks that people only serve 6 months in jail for rape (in Denmark), but at what point have they suffered enough? Will someone ever be punished enough for the victim to feel restitution? (I think it has been proven that having the victim and perpetrator meet along with counseling works better, than locking him up for umpteen years)
(Disclaimer been victim of assault and I think the 2 month probation and an apology was sufficient - also been victim of a hit-n-run where I think the driver got correct sentence (lost his license for a year and have to do a full drivers test to re-qualify) and paid for destruction of property)
Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Reiser is guilty. The evidence was overwhelming, I thought. The reason the DA would be willing to cop some sort of a deal would be to bring closure to the victim's family. They would be able to bury Nina and try and move on with their lives, and Hans is still going to be behind bars for a good, long time.
Finally, the juror mentioned in this article [wired.com] that made his decision based on the accused's eyes really scares me. What if I had been tried? Would a crazy schoolteacher send me to prison for life because he didn't like the look in my eyes?
I think you voice the fears of someone who is younger. As you get older, you get a better sense of who is sincere and who has something to hide and I would probably think the juror's judgement is ok. The human mind is a pretty darned good judge of character, if you listen to it.
And besides, that's why there's more than one juror.
Re:Nerds and Geeks (Score:2, Insightful)
Had it coming? Nobody ever has murder coming. The guy is a murderer. He also tried to get away with it by destroying evidence. He should rot in jail until the end of his natural life whether he gives up the body or not.
Poor fucking Hans indeed.
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I garnered my legal knowledge from the movie Tango and Cash and others starring Mel Gibson.
Re:*sigh* (Score:1, Insightful)
You've got it backwards (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:reasonable doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point here is that while it seems the majority of us here think he's guilty, some would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man's life taken away.
OJ hasn't had the highest standard of living since his trial, so one can't really argue they completely escape punishment, guilty or innocent, in the court of public opinion.
Some offenders cannot be rehabilitated (Score:2, Insightful)
In any case, in rejecting the conservative koolaid you've apparently taking to smoking the liberal weed. Rehabilitation was not the original purpose of prison in the United States--pointed to by the fact that we _used_ to say that a criminal was released "when they had repaid their debt to society." You'll note that this is not the same as "You're fixed now--go forth and commit murder no more!"
The idea that someone can be rehabilitated is an interesting one, but evaluation of a prisoner's state of mind and character _while in prison_ is pretty much impossible--leaving us with the option of incarceration for the protection of society or freeing violent criminals to prey on new victims. And every some judge lets rapist out who proceds to molest and murder a little girl, the citizens (rightfully) get up in arms and want "mandatory" sentencing.
The system is broken on both ends--a few bad decisions by a few bad judges and people start thinking "I don't want them letting some serial killer loose in my neighborhood" (never mind how statistically unlikely this is) and then: poof! Mandatory Sentencing Law 1243b.
A better solution might be to push for rehabilitation in cases where the crimes were non-violent (or perhaps to use creative sentencing to avoid prison terms for some things) and to find some other alternative for violent criminals.
Unfortunately, the nuances don't lend themselves to sound bites as well as "Convicted rapist molests three-year-old" or "Man unjustly sentenced released after 20 year in jail." And rational discussion is right out these days, in any case.
Re:Nerds and Geeks (Score:4, Insightful)
No disagreement there.
a sociopath
That is a scientific term with specific meaning. I have seen no evidence that he is.
must be imprisoned for life
Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder.
Oh, and if you do include yourself amongst those who might even consider killing someone over a spurt of fury or over a great disappointment, then you have serious issues my friend. I recommend a group of good mental health professionals.
Sorry to say it dude, crimes of passion are in the human genome and there is nothing you can do about it. Want proof? Ask any parent if they could kill someone who harms their children. I know I could. If anyone touched my son or daughter, there wouldn't be enough left to identify.
I used to be afraid of big dogs, I was bitten by a german sheppard when I was a kid. So, I generally avoided them. One day, I was with my son in the park and a couple loose dogs were growling, fighting, and coming toward us. Instinctively I put myself between my son and the dogs, I had to kick one in the mouth before they ran away.
This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill.
Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not my department, says Werner von Braun
- Tom Lehrer
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess Nina is going to have a hard time "reaquanting herself with the social order" given that she's now in permanent "non-voluntary solitary confinement".
As for the starvation of a defenseless child... I don't even know how you can trivialize something like that.
Huh.
Punishment here seems to fit the crime.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one thing I didn't understand, Inspector... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was kind of on the fence about all this, as you never get a true/complete picture from the reporting.
Until I read, however, that he had removed the front passenger seat from his car so he 'could sleep in the car', and then claimed that he threw away the seat (or was unable to produce it).
That goes against the instinct of every geek-like person I've met - they'd all keep the seat, so they could replace it later if they needed to use it, or wanted to sell the car, etc. "I'll keep it just in case."
That was the bit of his story that made me think "uh oh".
Good job I wasn't on the jury, eh? :)
Re:Am I missing something or (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I would see much shorter sentences than that.
The sentence for murder being 20 years instead of 10 is going to stop how many murders, exactly? When death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering, why would you think longer sentences would?
The reason why the American people want harsh sentencing is because they want revenge. What causes the least amount of future crime has no bearing on it. Treating convicts like human beings, teaching them skills and values that can make them able to function in society without committing crimes, and letting slates be wiped clean when a sentence has been served, that all leads to less recidivism, without increasing the crime rate.
The often touted right-wing claim that if the criminals are treated well, they would want to go to jail is a completely unfounded fabrication. In countries that do treat their criminals like human beings, convicts still prefer freedom over incarceration, no matter how benign it otherwise is.
The big difference, as I see it, is whether you teach the convicts that being hard, harsh and treating others like they're worthless is the thing to do, or whether you teach them that being nice to others pays off.
But that's all academical -- as long as the US system is based on the biblical revenge system, it won't change, and the US is doomed to have a much higher crime rate and recidivism rate than other Western countries.
Re:reasonable doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that placing himself 80 miles away in the bay the day she disappeared and where his wife and child's bodies washed up a few months later was pretty definitive. Just the fact that his alibi was that he went fishing on Christmas Eve and having an 8-month pregnant wife about to deliver their first child made me suspect him early on. NO woman in that state is going to just let hubby go fishing 80 miles away while she prepares for company over Christmas.
I'm not that familiar with this case, but it's not uncommon for the husband to claim the woman abandoned their children for another life. But when examining the wife's character, it turns out extremely unlikely. There's another case, this time a Drew Peterson (a former cop) who's 3rd wife's manner of death has recently been change from accidental to homicide and who's 4th wife has disappeared. He's claiming she ran off with another man. Most, including police, have there doubts. But unless they find the body, they'll probably only be able to charge him with the 3rd wife's death. His manner is also cocky, so I have no doubt he'll trip himself up eventually.
From what I know of this case, Hans Reiser was the last known person to see Nina Reiser. It seems very doubtful that she not only would abandon her children to her ex-husband, but travel to Russia and then never contact her parents. Motive (divorce), means and opportunity were certainly all there along with forensic evidence of her blood. Defense lawyers love to disdain evidence as "circumstantial" but circumstantial evidence simply means there wasn't an eye-witness to the murder and is the type of evidence that makes up most cases.
Re:World's Greatest Detective (Score:3, Insightful)
What? isn't a jury made up of "fellow peers" generally meaning other civilians? therefore, you could probably say that...
"Jurors are more often than not, stupid"
Especially considering that they may have intentionally picked stupid people to be in the jury.. yeah yeah, "but they are picked randomly"...sure...but, they may have common sense, even if that common sense is only amungst those 12 people (well, plus the judge, lawyers, people watching)
Which, allows them the benifit of the doubt.
Re:A little compassion, perhaps? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people here know Hans or Nina Reiser?
Every time something like this happens, the tissue brigade (not that one, the other one) comes out berating others for not being all solemn about it. I don't know Hans or Nina Reiser, or their kids. If I could have intervened to stop the murder of this complete stranger, I would have, but pretending that this emotionally affects me in any way, shape, or form, is just being a drama queen.
It reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to drive out to my grandparents house for Easter on Good Friday and between 12 and 3 - the hours we'd be traveling - my mother would insist that there be no music or discussion in the car, because, you know, Jesus suffered on the cross two thousand years ago during those hours (supposedly). And she's screw on this phony bullshit look of solemnity and I'd just want to ask my father, "Is she REALLY serious?"
I wasn't listen to my Walkman, couldn't play electronic games - nothing. I had to sit there in the car in the fucking purgatory of the Poconos and pretend to be really upset about Jesus dying (which is particularly stupid if you already know the end of the story), but lucky me, I had several days, and several hours, of *church* in front of me to look forward to. Hooray.
This particular case is of interest only because many of us use MurderFS (sorry, sorry, shouldn't make light of this), and if we didn't, this murder really wouldn't make a damn bit of difference any more than the thousands of other deaths happening around the world right now.
As for joking about death, murder, mayhem, genocide - as far as I am concerned, the worst atrocities our species are capable of are definitely worth humor. Humor may be the only thing that even comes close to standing up to the very real and unpleasant reality of our own mortality. There is a big difference between joking about this or any other serious event, and somehow taking pleasure in other peoples' loss. Humor takes a little of the wind out of tragedy. Or it's supposed to, anyway.
I don't know Hans or Nina Reiser, nor the guy on his deathbed in Swaziland who is about to expire right now, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I am in any way emotionally invested in this enough to alter my behavior. This is how the human psyche works, thank god, or we'd do nothing but sob ourselves to death - what matters is what happens to our respective tribes. Everything outside of that is merely fodder for the rest of humanity to go into phony mourning in a display to everyone of how sensitive they are.
Fuck that shit.
Re:World's Greatest Detective (Score:2, Insightful)
Jurors aren't (usually) stupid.
Surely, you must be joking. Either that or you haven't seen many real juries.
Jury selection almost invariably results in the removal of anyone who has half a brain and a pinch of skepticism. They want easily persuaded people in the jury so the attorneys can bedazzle them with their big words and penetrating drama.
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:World's Greatest Detective (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been watching too much TV. You also forget that both sides can challenge potential jurors, either for cause, or for no cause whatsoever. The people who don't want to do their civic duty will lie to get out of jury duty - that leaves a pool of people who are there, for the most part, because they won't concoct BS stories to get out of service, and take their committment to a fair trial seriously. I've not only seen real juries, I've sat as a juror in a murder case.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.
WRONG BITCH! (Score:5, Insightful)
#ifdef __cplusplus
#define NULL 0
#else
#define NULL ((void *)0)
#endif
More about NULL [c-faq.com]
Re:Nerds and Geeks (Score:2, Insightful)
If he did it, he's a murderer. End of story.
How enraged would I be? Plenty. And if my rage ended in murder, I'd be a murderer too.
Re:Huh? Troll much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not having a body doesn't count much these days as 'reasonable doubt,' as plenty of jurors can imagine scenarios in which the body would not be found.
A lack of strong evidence could represent a reasonable doubt. While they found blood in Reiser's vehicle, it was only trace amounts and those trace amounts could be explained by circumstances other than 'he murdered her and dragged the body around in his car'.
However, I think what probably did him in was the eyewitness testimony, particularly that of his son, who changed his story from 'Hans and Nina left separately' to 'Hans and Nina left together and only Hans came back'. In the minds of the jurors, that must have seemed particularly damning.
OTOH, a different set of jurors might have seen it differently -- after all, the boy did change his story, so they might think "how do we know which time he told the truth?"
I dunno. But I think he did it. So what do I know?
Re:reasonable doubt (Score:2, Insightful)
Which was the right decision, considering that there is no evidence that Sturgeon actually killed anybody. That his "confession" never resulted in charges should tell you something.
Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it influenced his joining the SS or not, civilian rocketry was forbidden by the Nazi party, so it was either join them or don't do it. While I don't know his personal beliefs, in many ways he was a victim of circumstance - he was an SS officer before he claimed to have known about the deaths in labor camps (though I'm sure he knew they were anti-semitic) and at one point was under investigation by the gestapo during the war for anti-patriotic thinking. Given the situation and the government running a police state spying and incarcerating anyone that opposed them, I imagine he felt powerless to change it.
Like all scientists, he had a dream he would sacrifice anything for. Even the lifes of others.
British people are still outraged over the fact the the guy responsible for bombing London would sit next to a pool in Texas in the late 40s instead of the trial-bench in Nurenberg.
During the Nazi-reign, nearly nearly endless resources could get committed to your project - if you had the buy-in of the handful of top-brass that were able to directly talk to the Fuehrer and influence him.