backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 80 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Apr 30 at 11:13 PM
"Misunderstood" programmer receives 25-to-life

Wrapping up six months of trial and three days of deliberations, a jury found Linux programmer and ReiserFS creator Hans Reiser guilty for the first-degree murder of his estranged wife, Nina Reiser.

Nina Reiser was reported missing on September 5, 2006, after she failed to pick up her kids from school. She was last seen dropping them off with Hans on September 3, and reportedly failed to meet her best friend afterwards. While police never found Nina’s body, they did find traces of her blood in Hans’ residence and car.

Hans claimed Nina fled to Russia, where the couple met in 1998, after he accused her of embezzling money from his company, Namesys. Prosecutors alleged, however, that Hans killed her instead, possibly by strangling her to death.

Reiser’s lawyer, William DuBois, tried to paint Reiser as the misunderstood geek, and cautioned jurors against reading too much into Reiser’s outwardly suspicious behavior. In one example, investigators found Reiser’s car -- a 1998 Honda CRX located several miles from his house -- to contain two books on murder investigations. Further, the car was missing its passenger seat and flooded with nearly an inch of water.

Responding to the findings, Reiser said he assumed that auto engineers always “put a hole in the car.”

Reiser’s “geek defense” culminated with his appearance before jurors on the witness stand – a move that Wired’s Threat Level thinks “may have been [his] undoing.” In front of the entire courtroom, Reiser explained away nearly every accusation thrown his way in explanations described as “lengthy and verbose.” He purchased the murder books, for example, in order to better understand how the police were operating in his investigation.

Jurors were visibly skeptical of Reiser’s 11 days on the stand: eyewitness accounts report jurors laughing to themselves and shaking their heads in disbelief, and Alameda Court Judge Larry Goodman was spotted smirking to himself on at least one occasion.

For now, the future of ReiserFS, and its parent company Namesys, remain in jeopardy. Reiser put the company up for sale in December 2006, and as of yet the company is unsold. Namesys employee Alexander Lyamin, writing in the Linux Kernel Mailing List in December 2006, said his company will continue its work absent of Reiser’s leadership, and attempt to appoint a “proxy” to run operations until a better solution could be found. At this time, Namesys’ website is current inaccessible.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By the goat on 4/29/2008 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 5
No body. No murder weapon. No witness. No evidence. How could they convict this guy?

His wife's blood was in his car. I could think of thousands of ways for that to get there. Plus if the police say he strangled her, why would there be blood?

There must have been more evidence presented at trial then this article (and every other I've read) talks about. Because what is listed couldn't meet the legal burden of proof in my mind. It seems the jury simply thought he was a sketchy guy and convicted him.

This should be over turned on appeal. Or the judge should set aside the verdict.




By bhieb on 4/29/2008 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm suprised the DA even tried the case as murder, I agree there must be more to it than this.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By falacy on 4/29/2008 12:18:00 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. Either they are not telling us the whole story or this guy is another example of an innocent person being convicted by a stupid/biased jury. It's the whole reason why we no longer have the death penalty in Canada: We were killing too many innocent people! After the last guy was found innocent a little too late, that was the end of it.

One of the troubles with the legal systems in the world is that none of them are without fault and often completely innocent people are convicted and have their life ruined or taken away. Also, it only takes an acquisition to change the way people look at a person, for the rest of their lives that person has to live with the stigma of the acquisition, guilty or not.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Ananke on 4/29/2008 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
Being a "geek" doesn't make him innocent. Btw, "geeks" are just very very highly qualified and expensive workers; no offence, but you guys are not gods or sth, it doesn't matter what your boss tells you :)
So, the guy could've have easily called his wife in Russia, and close the case, if she was alive. And, Russia is not Central Brazilian jungle, it is prety much modern country with Interpol, police, investigators, etc. institutions which easily can trace a missing citizen. That didn't happen. So, the guy was not given life penalty, he still has a chance to prove innosence. I feel fed up with smart murderers who think can escape judgement.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By the goat on 4/29/2008 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Being a "geek" doesn't make him innocent. . .

Hey don't get me wrong. I do think the guy murdered his wife. But our legal system is not based on the "I think he did it" burden of proof. It is based on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. There is a huge difference between the two.

quote:
the guy could've have easily called his wife in Russia

The defense's theory was that the wife was hiding in Russia because she allegedly stole a ton of money from her husband. She wouldn't be hiding very well if she answered the phone when the guy she stole money from tried to call her.

True he should have hired a private investigator track her down in Russia (of evidence that she had traveled to Russia). But it is the prosecutor's responsibility to track down leads not the defense's.


By JustTom on 4/29/2008 6:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the prosecution does not have an obligation to invalidate every remote possibility. If they did cases would never get tried at all.

Reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. Personally from what I have read I think it is more than likely he committed this crime. Judging whether a jury made the correct decision based on an article on a techsite is a fool's errand.


By rudy on 4/29/2008 9:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
They jury is coached in this thought, they must have decided there was not reasonable doubt. There are lots of murders that go to trial without a body. It is much harder to convict but if you do it then you probably got the right guy.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By falacy on 4/29/2008 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
give the victims families closure by seeing a scourge of civilized society put down like the dog


I love the sentiment of that statement. It's a testiment to the true nature of humanity. "Give the families closure" - no, you mean "Give the families vengence".

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but by the sounds of it, he did not get a fair trial.

One Tin Soldier:
(by Lambert-Potter, sung by Coven)

Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
'Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.

On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They'd have it for their very own.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they'd kill.

Came an answer from the kingdom,
"With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there."

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Now the valley cried with anger,
"Mount your horses! Draw your sword!"
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.

Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it...
"Peace on Earth" was all it said.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By falacy on 4/29/2008 2:57:53 PM , Rating: 1
Based on information like this,

quote:
Jurors were visibly skeptical of Reiser’s 11 days on the stand: eyewitness accounts report jurors laughing to themselves and shaking their heads in disbelief, and Alameda Court Judge Larry Goodman was spotted smirking to himself on at least one occasion.


I will not stoop so low as to partake in mud slinging, espeically with ignorant Americans who know nothing of Canada yet are more than willing to insult its ways and people. Way to live up to the steryotype of an "American" bucko...


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 3:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
So based on that paragraph alone hes innocent ? I see thats from this very article. Yeah, you really dug deep in finding your " proof " didn't ya ? Your " information " is nothing but second hand reporting of actions by a judge and jury thats not put into ANY context what so ever ! Oh my sweet Jesus, he smirked and they laughed to themselves !!??? Its a conspiracy on the highest order !

I think someone has been watching too much TV. In the real world judges and an entire jury, chosen randomly by the way, do not conspire to convict computer programmers of murder. Every single time someone is convicted of a crime, theres a vocal minority who just wont accept the facts as they are. If people like you were right, something of the order of 30-40% of all people put away for murder are " innocent ". You will excuse my " American ignorance " but I refuse to believe our system is that broken. Not hardly.

And your the one calling people ignorant ? Stop wasting my time.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By oab on 4/29/2008 4:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every single time someone is convicted of a crime, theres a vocal minority who just wont accept the facts as they are.


This is nit-picking, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that Paul Bernardo is innocent (meaning, he didn't rape/murder those two schoolgirls Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French), nor could I find on my search on the intartubes anyone who believed that he was not guilty of the crime. Mostly because it was on videotape showing it happen in both cases, and the fact that he said he did it.

Admittedly that is a specific case, but you should avoid universals whenever possible. Most people in prison are in fact guilty. The vast majority are guilty, but mistakes do happen, and should a mistake happen and it not be caught, does an innocent man (or woman) deserve to die for it?


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 6:44:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most people in prison are in fact guilty. The vast majority are guilty, but mistakes do happen, and should a mistake happen and it not be caught, does an innocent man (or woman) deserve to die for it?


I'm honestly beside myself on the phoenomenon in our culture of the criminal always being made to portray the victim. You are about the 4'th person who has said this on this topic. Not ONE of you have pointed out that sometimes mistakes happen the OTHER way, and murderers beat the rap or get set free or appeal because of a technicality. Mistakes happen BOTH ways. So what ? We just give up trying to be civilized because its not perfect ?

Your question to me is emotionally based and designed to trigger some type of guilt mechanism in me. Nobody wants people to die and you know it. Thats not the issue here.

Not once have I pulled the obvious card, and said that I'm sure YOU would feel different if someone you loved were murdered. But thats a cheap tactic and I don't go there.


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By oab on 4/29/2008 7:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's obvious that mistakes do happen the *other* way, (see OJ), but with a system that CANNOT be 100% accurate, the leaders of a society must ask, is it better that a guilty man go free or an innocent man be punished? Part of the entire idea of innocent until proven guilty.

The problem does not rest in innocent until proven guilty, but innocent men being found guilty when they were in fact innocent. The specific problem with capital punishment is not that it puts guilty men to death, but that it has put innocent men to death as well (or men found innocent by the justice system after the fact).

With capital punishment, after a sentence is carried out the mistake cannot be "undone" while if there isn't it can be (release the guy). Emotional scarring aside and all that.

If the justice system could be 100% accurate, right every time, capital punishment does not have any problems with it. Except for how to kill people in a way the law deems to not be cruel and unusual punishment, but that's a medical question not a legal one. However the system is not 100% accurate and therefore innocent men die for crimes they did not commit.

Is it better a guilty man go free, or an innocent man suffer? 10 guilty men? 100 guilty men? Does making the system more open to letting guilty men free make the system more uncivilized, or does it make it more civilized? Your opinion is heard loud and clear. That just because the system is not perfect doesn't mean that capital punishment should be abolished.

If an innocent man is put to death by the state, how is that different than a criminal killing an innocent man? It's a question of semantics really, the hangman is allowed by the state to kill him, while the criminal is not. The result is the same, but one is sanctioned (though apologized for profusely) and the other is not and is condemned..


RE: How could that evidance meet legal proof?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2008 8:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not deflecting your points at all, which are good ones, but do we have any numbers about how many mistaken convictions actually take place ? Or are we discussing a problem that doesn't really exist ?

I totally agree it HAS happened. That much is fact. But at what point do the few take priority over the many ?

I just really don't understand why people, in principle, have a problem with capital punishment. I honestly think its an irrational emotional response and not very well thought out. And its really insulting to the victims families to try and deny them the justice and closure they need. Not to mention our society simply does not need a bunch of murderers in it.


By oab on 4/29/2008 10:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
In Time magazine about 5 years ago, I read an article about this topic. I for the life of me can't find it sadly. It took a look at the 30-something capital murder cases a prominent (and single) state prosecutor/judge/forensics expert (I forget which) had presided over/in and found that 5 of them (or so) the person had been put to death, and the courts had later as part of an inquiry into his/her case history found that there was "significant doubt" about the persons guilt or innocence based on new findings/overturned evidence/improper procedures.

As for things I CAN point to, here's one about a pathologist who had made errors in about 13-20 of his cases leading to criminal convictions where he was found to be ... completely wrong: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/smith-char...

There's the entire list of "wrongfully convicted" things that the CBC has: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wrongfullyconvic... which is not a small number, though it is more than one or two, I don't know where a list of such things is for the US, <rant>the major networks news websites are ... horrible for finding lists like that kept up to day and don't have 'background' sections </rant>

There was the "Tulia46" incident which you can read a once-over lightly about on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulia#1999_drug_arres... (this may be the incident that I referred to above)

Wiki (unreliable though it is for some things is probably fairly accurate for this purpose) does have several lists on that question as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_de...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction#U...

quote:
I just really don't understand why people, in principle, have a problem with capital punishment. I honestly think its an irrational emotional response and not very well thought out. And its really insulting to the victims families to try and deny them the justice and closure they need. Not to mention our society simply does not need a bunch of murderers in it.