Oh shit. v.hansreiser

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by deusexaethera, May 6, 2008.

  1. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    yanked from ArsTechnica...


    Hans Reiser is fscked: jury delivers guilty verdict

    By Ryan Paul | Published: April 29, 2008 - 09:05AM CT
    Hans Reiser, the software developer credited with the creating the ReiserFS filesystem, has been found guilty of first-degree murder. Jurors concluded that Reiser killed his estranged wife, who vanished suddenly in 2006. A well-known figure in the open-source software community, Reiser was working on the next-generation version of his filesystem with funding from DARPA and Linspire prior to his arrest.
    Hans Reiser and his wife Nina were separated, and a divorce was pending at the time of her disappearance, which took place shortly before Hans was expected to appear in court over allegations that he had failed to provide child-care payments to Nina for their two children. In the past, Nina has accused him of being physically abusive and was granted a restraining order against him in 2004 when they separated.
    Reiser became a prime suspect early in the official investigation into Nina's disappearance. Law enforcement officers arrested him in October 2006 after conducting many interviews and a thorough, three-day investigation of his home.
    [​IMG]
    Reiser's booking photo
    When police officers located Hans Reiser's vehicle, it was missing one passenger seat, had an inch of standing water in the bottom, and contained two books about police murder investigations, as well as a sleeping bag cover stained with Nina's blood. Reiser himself was found with a fanny pack containing his passport and $9,000 when he was interrogated by police during an early stage of the investigation. Although the prosecution could not locate a body and could provide only circumstantial evidence, Reiser's bizarre courtroom behavior and convoluted arguments largely undermined his attempts to defend himself during the trial.
    Reiser attempted to explain away the suspicious circumstantial evidence by claiming that the individual pieces were merely symptoms of his paranoia, personal idiosyncrasies, and socially dysfunctional tendencies. To explain the removal of the car seat and the presence of the sleeping bag, he claimed that he had previously fantasized about converting the car into a bed. Reiser used a laser pointer and a picture of the inside of the car to demonstrate to the court how he had intended to convert the car into a bed. The prosecutor pointed out that, if Reiser's explanation was true, he would have been sleeping with his back directly on a one-inch tall metal bar while the car's floor was completely covered in water. When questioned about the bloodstain on the sleeping bag, Reiser attributed it to the fact that he and Nina had slept in it during a camping trip before their separation.
    Reiser claims that his wife is still alive and returned to Russia after stealing money from his company. During the trial, he said that he feared a police conspiracy, and he attributed his paranoid behavior to concerns that the police might plant evidence against him.
    Although the case against Reiser was strengthened by his inability to provide believable explanations for the various incriminating details presented by the prosecution, there was one piece of evidence in his favor that was barred from being presented during the case. Sean Sturgeon, a former friend of Hans Reiser and one of Nina's lovers during her separation from Hans, confessed to eight unrelated murders. Nina ended her relationship with Sturgeon in 2006, partly because she was disturbed by his fetish for sadomasochism.
    David Kravets of Wired's Threat Level blog, who has provided excellent gavel-to-gavel coverage of the entire trial, spoke with prosecutor Paul Hora and defense attorney William DuBois after the verdict was issued. "The strongest piece of evidence is every piece in light of every other piece," Hora told Wired. DuBois complained that Reiser's stubborn insistence on taking the stand was ultimately what demolished his chance of winning. "I'm sure he negatively impressed the jurors," DuBois told Wired.
    Reiser's company, Namesys, has ceased practically all operations. Reiser attempted to sell the company during the trial in order to raise money for his defense, but no buyers have emerged. The company's web site is currently inaccessible, and company representatives could not be reached for comment.
    The few prominent Linux distributions that were still shipping the stable version of ReiserFS by default have shifted to the more common Ext3 for various technical reasons. Reiser4, his next-generation filesystem, has been under active development for some time, but has not been streamlined into the Linux kernel because Linux developers claim that it fails to adhere to coding conventions and has several technical problems. Reiser, who claimed that the reasons for the exclusion of his new filesystem were primarily political, was attempting to address some of the technical issues prior to his arrest. The outcome of the trial largely eliminates the possibility that Reiser himself will be able to continue working on Linux filesystems.
    Further reading

     
  2. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio


    How the fuck does a guy who was dating her, and killed 8 other people, not wind up getting admitted into evidence?

    These trial judges should be kicked off the bench when they pull shit like that.

    I don't care if the guy did it or not, the jury should know about that.
     
  3. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not the issue. He's anti-social and probably plays videogames. i.e., of course he killed her. What anti-social videogame lover doesn't want to kill someone, after all? They can't help it, they're all psychopathic, or else they'd watch football and date the largest tits they could find.

    Right?

    - - -

    EDIT: The thing that kills me (and might kill him) is that the jury was weighing his reality-stretching explanations versus a single alternative: he could be lying to cover up the murder. It never seemed to occur to them, through months of watching the guy fumble around with reality, that he might actually have been telling the truth with all of his crazy ideas, and only found out they didn't mesh with the real world through trial-and-error. Like the hosing-out-the-car thing -- sure, he could have checked the manual, or rented a rug doctor, but it does seem reasonable to assume the car would have a drain to deal with flooding, right? Well, to someone who's used to simply creating whatever structures he needs to do what he wants, yeah. Unfortunately, in the real world, thinking it should be a certain way doesn't simply cause it to be that way.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2008
  4. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    The murders were unrelated. The way our legal system works, it doesn't matter how many other people you killed.... if there was no evidence that you killed this person then you are not supposed to be tried for it.


    likewise, who cares how bad someone else is... you need to pay for your own crimes.
     
  5. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Assuming he actually did it, anyway.
     
  6. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    jury said he did.

    the whole car thing is suspect.
     
  7. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Unrelated how? The guy who murdered the 8 people, and that's just 8 they know of, dated the woman who is now missing.

    That casts a reasonable doubt, and the jury is allowed to know about anything that does that.
     
  8. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    I forget why I did stuff all the time.
    A while back, I was being treated for a strained back, that had been effecting my trap on the right side of my neck.
    Well my doctor didn't seem to think it would work that way, and I couldn't remember why I thought it did.
    I came up with like 5 different things happening at work and because of the back strain.. a week later.

    Of course this guy sounds suspicious.

    But we're talking about someone trying to develop a new file system.
    Talk about having your head somewhere else.

    The body was never found and she was dating a guy who has admitted to killing 8 other people?

    Please.
     
  9. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol... you're arguing against pothead again. pothead would say the sky is green if deus said it was blue. he has a major hardon for deus for some reason.


    that whole thing sounds really fucked up. on one hand, this is really the writers understanding of the circumstances. so, maybe he doesn't have the full story or whatever. but, it does seem really fucked up that someone was found guilty of murder on all circumstantial evidence, especially knowing there was another bit of circumstantial evidence to help his case that wasn't allowed in court.

    as much as it sucks at times, our justice system is built upon the defendent being innocent until proven guilty. it isn't until you believe that he is guilty but until it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the person being charged is guilty of the crime at hand. this is done to make sure that people get a fair trial and because it is much worse to put an innocent man in prison than it is to let a guilty one go free. it doesn't sound like this guy got a fair trial.
     
  10. GOGZILLA

    GOGZILLA Double-Uranium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,760
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Plantation, FL
    read an article on this a while ago, they had tons of physical evidence on him to sum it up. it was written up well before the trial even and just from reading that article i knew he was going to be fucked. it was basically a nerdy OJ case
     
  11. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Physical evidence just means things that exist. It doesn't mean you don't have to extrapolate to connect them to the crime somehow. Even physical evidence can be circumstantial. Dude had a passport and $9000 on him? Shit, I know people who always carry their passports on principle, because it's an unarguable form of ID and it means they'll never be stuck in the country because they don't have it with them. Not that they ever leave the country, but that's not the issue at hand.

    $9000 and a passport doesn't mean the guy was going to flee the country, it means he's got a lot of cash and he's a little paranoid.
     
  12. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the court, and the police, did not believe his confession. It was not a credible confession. Note that Sean has not been charged with ANY murders, let alone 8. He just talked shit about killing 8 people. He's a 'tough guy.'
     
  13. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    You need to actually read up on the case. He disappeared for many hours on the night his wife disappeared, her blood was in his car and he removed the passenger seat/washed the interior and could provide no credible explanation of why he did so. He actually took the stand and tried to 'out smart' the court with his inane explanations.

    Any reasonable jury would have convicted him.
     
  14. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    The guy didn't murder 8 people. He just said once he murdered 8 people, and noone believed him.
     
  15. GOGZILLA

    GOGZILLA Double-Uranium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,760
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Plantation, FL
    yep
     
  16. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown Don't make me make you my hobby

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio
    Err uh, err uh, he should have drowned the bitch.



    [​IMG]
     
  17. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    there was ZERO evidence outside of the confession. There was lots of evidence against reiser.

    Furthermore, the confession was for OTHER murders. not this one. It is in-admissiable becuase it wasn't about THIS case. Basically you can't have all this evidence against yourself and then say "well bin laden is a bad man". That doesn't change or minimize what you did.
     
  18. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that is why it was inadmissible. It was inadmissible because it was bullshit, and the police made no arrest.
     
  19. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    well if you consider what I just said, you'd realize that it makes perfect sense. I mean with zero evidence to support the confession, and the confession not covering this murder, and no evidence existing for this murder then the confession was bullshit, and the police wouldn't have made an arrest.

    but thanks for agreeing what I said. :coolugh:


    edit: even if there had been evidence for the other 8 and he was on trial for them, it doesn't mean that it would be admissible if there was no evidence regarding THIS murder. In order for there to be reasonable doubt you can't just say "another bad man could have done it" you must either show how you couldn't have done it, or how they could have done it... And the jury is going to pick which "could have" scenario that makes more sense.


    Remember that it is NOT beyond "any doubt". It's simply beyond "reasonable doubt".
     
  20. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the police had for any reason suspected Sean Sturgeon, it would have been admissible though, I believe. If they had thought his claim of 8 murders were true.
     
  21. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the requirement for a murder conviction is "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Lesser offenses are "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil offenses are "more likely than not" (paraphrased, but the same meaning).
     
  22. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Law enforcement is required to release people without evidence, though. A confession without evidence or probable cause is worth nothing.
     
  23. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. His confession was bullshit, and so it had no place in court. Reiser killed his wife. Deal with it.

    He should be allowed to work on it for free from Prison.
     
  24. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    you're fucking joking, right? Because that is WRONG.


    *ALL* (read: EVERY SINGLE ONE) criminal cases are "beyond a *reasonable* doubt".

    Civil cases are "by a preponderance of the evidence".


    There are only those two conditions; criminal and civil -- reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence, respectively.
     
  25. SagaciousKJB

    SagaciousKJB New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, let's say he did kill her...

    To this date, there's no murder scene, there's no provable weapon that was used, the prosecution argued that because he was trained in judo, he likely choked her. However, when photographed, he had absolutely no injuries that would indicate defensive wounds on Nina's part. Above all, a body has never been found.

    Now, remember who we're talking about here. The guy that decided, "Hey, I'm going to go ahead and tell them that I thought there were holes in the floor-board, so I washed my car out because it smelled bad and I had to sleep there." That's actually what he said. Now, you're telling me that a man capable of killing his wife without leaving a trace of forensic evidence on himself, could dispose of the body without a single trace, wouldn't think to check that there wasn't holes in the floorboard, and for that matter, wouldn't wise the fuck up and not offer such a completely inane, unbelievable explanation to a jury?

    The only forensic evidence in the entire case were two blood samples. One was found on a slip-sack for a sleeping bag, and it was a small drop of Nina Reiser's blood. The second sample was contaminated with both Hans and Nina Reiser's blood due to poor collection procedure. There is nothing to explain how either samples got there, and neither one of them were deemed suspect.

    Every single bit of evidence against Hans Reiser was purely circumstancial, allbeit very suspect. He removed the seat of his car, disposing of it, and then stated on stand that he did so because was sleeping in his car. He then also explained that it smelled foul in the car, so he decided to wash it out, claiming that with a previosu model car he had, the floorboard had holes in it to drain.

    He was stopped riving through the Sierra Nevada mountains with $9000 and a passport, alledgedly with his cell phone batter removed from his cell phone. This was a strong point of the trial, because they found Nina's cell phone in her car with the battery removed. However, in the actual evidence photograph, the batter was seen in the cell phone. This photograph was shown to the jury.

    All the testimony entered by his son was basically rendered void by the prosecution themselves, allowing the young boy to contradict himself. On one instance he claimed to see "Hans", he even called him by name, carrying a large black object in a "ball" down the stairs. Then on another instance, he testified that he actually saw Nina walk out the door, basically negated previous testimony.

    Hans did act extremely suspect after the murder, in fact, for someone so intelligent, you would think that buying books about murder, withdrawing large sums of cash, driving around with your passport, and driving around in secluded mountain ranges would be a no-no after just killing your wife. However, Hans' explanation is that he knew the police were vollowing him, and was taking counter-surveilance measures on advice from his father, who has an interesting history all on his own. The police even testified that Reiser was taking these measures. Now, the big question I have, is why would a man that has killed his wife, and managed to dispose of the body in such an unprecented manner, call so much attention to himself and cause himself to appear criminal?

    Now, I'm really undecided on whether I think Hans killed her. If I'm relying on the evidence in this case, the investigation, and the prosecution, then I would have to say without a doubt that he did not kill her. There just might be mountains of forensic data to implicate Hans' guilt, but if there is, it certainly wasn't found in the investiation, and wasn't presented in the case. The only thing they did have was flimsy circumstancial evidence, all of which could be explained, although most of those explanations were arguably credible. This is the crucial point of the case in my opinion.

    Hans' attorney William DuBoi relied on "the geek defense". This was a terrible mistake in my opinion. He claimed that because of his defendant's "logical" nature and social ineptitudes, that he did not consider the behavior he was engaging in after the murder to be at all anti-social. The fundamental flaw of this character attack upon his own defendant, is that it just as easily led to jurors believing he was also socially capable of murdering his wife. The prosecution Hora used this to his advantage, basically using Hans' own unlikable personality, the defense's flimsy argument, and basically attacked the believablity of Han's already ubelievable explanations while DuBois basically sat by and said nothing more than what amounted to, "Hey, I know it sounds ridiculous, and this guy is an asshole, but I'm telling you he didn't do it." DuBois actually attacked Reiser on a personal level several times in his cases. In fact, when Juror #7 was interviewed about how they made their decision, he pretty much revealed that he felt Reiser was guilty based off of personal character, and in his exact words, "...for the lack of sympathy he had for his wife." It's pretty clear the jurors had their mind made up from the start of things.

    If he did kill her, then either he did a phenominal job avoiding leaving forensic evidence behind, only to leave a mountain of circumstancial evidence and act suspiciously. More likely, if he killed her, the investigation was just a lousy one; I mean, they have not even found a body. It's almost the polar opposite of the OJ case. White, computer nerd with virtually no forensic evidence against him is convinced; a black, football star, with virtually ever thread of forensic evidence needed to convict him acquitted.

    I've really never made up my mind based on everything I've read whether I think he killed her. I don't think his 5 year plan theory makes sense. In one second he claims that the marriage was just a ploy to get citizenship, and then accuses her of faking her own death to go back to Russia. Perhaps she didn't like it here that much, but I don't think she's alive. Given that the man she had an affair with confessed to killing 8 other people, and that Nina was involved with a Craigslist sex ring, I think there were plenty of other more likely suspects than Hans based on even the circumstancial evidence, which was by all accounts pretty suspicious. Whether he killed her or not, his trial was a complete joke.

    However, that's just my humble opinion, I only followed the story through news, I didn't sit on the jury. I think that's what a lot of people forget when discussing this case, is that ultimately it's not the same.
     

Share This Page