The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

[Jade]

THE HANS REISER MURDER TRIAL.
TIMELINE AND ANALYSIS.

This was copied from:

http://linux.50webs.org/politics/ReiserTrialSummaryAnalysis.htm
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/ReiserTrialSummaryAnalysis.htm

"I just keep thinking that I'm stuck in George Orwell's 1984," he said while shackled, dressed in a red, prison-issue jumpsuit, and locked in a cement room. "The government has taken away my kids, invaded my house, held me in solitary confinement and caused me all sorts of financial problems."

Name: Hans Thomas Reiser
Born: December 19, 1963
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Height and Weight:
Occupation: Computer Programmer
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Creator of the Reiser3 and Reiser4 filesystems.
Father: Ramon Reiser
Mother: Beverly Palmer
Wife: Nina (m. 1999, sep. May-2004)
Son: Rory
Daughter: Niorline
High School: (does not graduate, but goes straight to UC Berkeley at age 15)
University: BA Systematizing, UC Berkeley
Work: IBM Almaden Research Center, 1992-1993.
Work: Founded and ran Namesys, Inc., 1997-2006 (Naming System Venture).

Name: Nina Sharanova
Born: November 3, 1974
Gender: Female
Race or Ethnicity: White (Jew)
Height and Weight: 5 ft 5 in, 114 pounds
Occupation: Gynecologist
Nationality: Russia (U.S. citizen May, 2004)
Executive summary:
Father:
Mother: Irina Sharanova
Wife: Hans Reiser (m. 1999, sep. May, 2004)
Son: Rory
Daughter: Niorline
High School:
University:
Work:

1997: Han Reiser, age 32, founds Namesys, Inc., to develop a better computer filesystem. Most staff are in Russia, to which he takes frequent trips. Over the years, various Linux companies financially support the development, with the German company, SuSE, being the main contributor. After the American company, Novell, purchases SuSE, this support is stopped.

His filesystem, Reiser3 (ReiserFS) becomes the default Linux filesystem, the filesystem used by most Linux users. Although, Reiser3 is an outstanding filesystem, Reiser4 is better, again. The adoption of Reiser4, is actively resisted by Red Hat and associates. Their resistance, is taken to absurd levels.

1999: Hans contacts a Russian dating service, in St. Petersburg, to find a bride and meets Nina Sharanova, age 22. Nina has likewise been advertising for a husband. They date for a year.

Nina moves to Oakland and marries Hans while five months pregnant with their first child, Rory. Reiser claims his wife conceived their son, the first night they meet. Hans continues to go on frequent trips to Russia.

After their marriage, the Reisers lived for a time in Moscow. Hans Reiser, a software developer, employed Russian programmers to help with his business. Nina's mother, Irina Sharanova, said she often visited her daughter in Moscow.

1999-09-28: Son Rory is born.

2001-05: Daughter Niorlene is born.

Shortly, after the birth of Niorlene, Nina has an extramarital sexual affair with Hans' best friend, cross-dresser and BDSM enthusiast Sean Sturgeon, with whom she moves in. (Sturgeon had attended their wedding, in drag, as the bridesmaid. He was claimed to be addicted to pain pills and to have the word "rage" carved into his arm.)

2001: The Pentagon's R&D agency, DARPA, awards Namesys a $600,000 grant to build the filesystem of the future.

Hans' father, Ramon Reiser, takes a break from teaching high school science, to help out at Namesys.

Ramon Reiser soon becomes suspicious of his new daughter-in-law, who has taken the title of, chief financial officer, at Namesys. Ramon tells Hans that he believes Nina is stealing large amounts of money from Namesys and cooking the books. Hans does not initially believe him.

2004 Sturgeon lends Namesys $84,000 early in 2004.

2004, May: Nina gets US citizenship.

2004, May: Nina files for legal separation from Hans.

"She divorced me the day she became a citizen. I don't know whether it was the exact day, but same month -- close enough," Reiser said (ABC 20/20).

2004, May: Nina kicks Hans out of their home. Hans moves into his mother's house at 6979 Exeter Drive, in the Montclair District, Oakland hills. He pays $600 a month in rent. Nina and children eventually move to 49th Street, in Oakland, a few miles away.

2004-08: Attorney, Shelley Gordon, files divorce papers on Nina's behalf. Nina, is in Russia at the time. The divorce is still unconcluded two years later, at the time of Nina's disappearance. Child custody is heavily contested. On her return from Russia, Nina testifies that Hans has been psychologically traumatizing Rory (then aged 4) by making him watch violent movies (an example given was, "Saving Private Ryan") and play violent video games (an example given was, "Battle Vietnam"), causing him nightmares and was away so often on business as to be an ineffective parent.

Hans claims that Nina's boyfriend, Sean Sturgeon, is a danger to the children. He obtains a court order to keep Sturgeon away from them.

2004-12: Nina gets a temporary restraining order requiring him to remain distant, alleging he had "pushed" her and was "abusive."

2004-12-30: Sean Sturgeon, files a lawsuit against Hans, charging failure to repay an $84,000 loan, seeking $131,552 in damages.

2005-02-15: Reiser asserts that the money was loaned to Namesys, Inc. and that he is therefore, in no way, personally liable for repayment. He claims that Sturgeon is having an illicit affair with his wife and that Sturgeon is residing with her, and his children, in defiance of a court order (to keep away from Reiser's children). Nina, he says, spent most of the $84,000 loan during the divorce action and during Sturgeon's cohabitation with her. He notes that the lawsuit is not bought against the company, but against him as an individual and that the co-owner of the company, Nina Reiser, is not named as a defendant. Reiser claims, that this "is clear evidence of his malicious intent to destroy the defendant's marriage and leave the defendant to clean up the wreckage and pay the debts."

2005-09-08: Reiser, lodges a cross-complaint claiming that Sturgeon intentionally seduced Nina in an effort to "show that he was a better man than I and to convince my wife, Nina, to conspire with him to steal the Namesys company assets." Reiser states that Sturgeon acted as his financial agent from 1999 through 2002 and had access to and control over deposits, withdrawals and funds at the Patelco Credit Union. He also claims that Sturgeon had attempted to extort money from Hans and his mother by threatening to contact the Internal Revenue Service. The suits are eventually settled (one, just after Nina disappears).

2005-12: Nina wins full legal custody and shared physical custody of the children. Divorce legal proceedings, however, continue and Hans, is to have the children with him one weeknight per week and every other weekend. Hans is ordered to pay $5,400 a month child support. This amount is contested and later reduced to $1,000 a month.

Wed 2006-01-04: Nina withdraws her court motion for a permanent restraining order, and in exchange, Hans, without admitting guilt, agrees to be bound by a one-year civil restraining order prohibiting him from contacting, harassing or disturbing the peace of Nina at her home or place of work and ordering him to stay at least 100 yards away from her.

Fri 2006-04-28: Hans contributes $2,000 to Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele's election campaign, as part of his new-found cause, to reform what he sees as a flawed family court system and sends her e-mail saying this cause may end up being his true life's work.

Thu 2006-05-08: Nina brings administrative law proceedings of civil contempt against Hans, alleging he has failed to pay 10 months child support, at $5,400 a month, and 50% of medical and child-care expenses, for a total of over $54,000. This amount is reduced to $12,161.

2006-07: Nina takes Rory to Russia, about two months before she disappears and (in defiance of a court order) arranges Russian citizenship for him. Nina had acquired Russian citizenship for daughter, Niorline, some two years earlier.

Sun 2006-07-30: Nina mets Anthony Zografos through the Craigslist Web site.

Wed 2006-08-16: Reiser's attorney, Gregory Silva, files a response to Nina's lawsuit, in which she claims Reiser is complying with the payment schedule that the parties had agreed upon.

Fri 2006-08-25: Hans pleads not guilty to civil contempt, his attorney saying the contempt claim "is not only inappropriate and unfair but underhanded and deceitful." Trial is scheduled for Wed 2006-10-11, but Reiser seems to have been found guilty, without the need for this trial (which never eventuates).

[Jade]

Wed 2006-08-30: Reiser places an angry call to the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services, after getting a warning notice ordering him to pay the $12,161 the system now claims he owes in child support. The notice informs Reiser that the county can confiscate belongings to make good on the debt and that, if found in contempt of court, he may go to jail. The amount has since ballooned to $30,645.

Fri 2006-09-01: Nina is offered a full-time job with the San Francisco Public Health Department to serve as a liaison with Russian immigrants. It is also claimed that Nina is preparing to take an examination to qualify to practice medicine in California.

Hans telephones Supervisor Gail Steele four times about the court-reform issue, but...

In court, Nov. 28, 2007, Gail Steele says she didn't recall talking to Hans this day. However, Hans' phone records show that on Sept. 1, there was a 16-minute phone call and a separate six-minute call between Hans and someone in Steele's office (the two other calls were apparently very short). But Steele said, neither she, nor her staff, recalled talking to Hans (perhaps Hans was kept on hold for these periods).

These four calls have been used to insinuate an obsession with reforming the family court process, however, it turns out this was just Hans, attempting and failing, to make contact with Steele. This shows how easily, even facts, can be slanted.

Sun 2006-09-03, 10:30 AM: Nina speaks by telephone to best friend and fellow Russian emigree bride, Ellen Doren.

Sun 2006-09-03, 12:37 PM: Nina spends $15.18 on takeout food, according to police criminalist, Todd Weller, who found two receipts from the Berkeley Bowl (2020 Oregon St, Berkeley) in Nina's billfold, which, inexplicably, was left in her vehicle. Items included, soup, egg rolls, pot stickers and soybeans. Was this lunch, for her and her children? What then, of the family eating again on arrival at Hans' home?

Sun 2006-09-03, 1:55 PM: Nina goes through the store's checkout after spending $144.48 for 51 items, including crackers, yogurt, sour cream, Lucky Charms cereal, pretzels, English muffins, seven kinds of fruit, extra-large brown eggs, chicken and butter. Nina spends about one and a half hours at the Berkeley Bowl. It is not known whether she meet anyone there for lunch.

A few days later, Berkeley Bowl officials tells KTVU they had reviewed their security camera tapes for the day, but could not identify Nina Reiser and children. However, the prosecution later produces footage of Nina and the children. One wonders if this footage is from September 3, or some earlier visit, as Nina's son has testified to not remembering visiting the store, that day. There should be plenty of store surveillance video, considering how long she was at the store.

Sun 2006-09-03, 2:02 PM: According to a probable cause search warrant filed in court, the last call made from her cell phone was at 2:02 p.m. and was made to Hans Reiser's home.

Sun 2006-09-03, 2:30 PM: Nina arrives at Hans and his mother Beverly Palmer's house in Exeter Drive, Oakland, to drop off the children. She accompanies the children into the house. There had been a disagreement over who was supposed to have the kids this weekend and it was decided to split it up. Hans was to have the children until Tuesday morning, when he would take them to school. One assumes that Nina was to pick them up after school.

Sun 2006-09-03, 6:00 PM: Nina fails to show up for dinner with Ellen Doren.

Sun 2006-09-03, 6:30 PM: Ellen Doren leaves a message on Nina Reiser's cellphone. She keeps waiting and calling.

Sun 2006-09-03, 9:00 PM: Ellen Doren leaves a message on Nina Reiser's cellphone. This time, it doesn't ring, but instead goes straight to voice mail. This is meant to mark the point where the battery is taken from Nina's cellphone. Police claim, that Reiser never tries to call this cellphone, to find out where Nina is. This is disingenuous, as Reiser does not find out that Nina is missing until Tuesday.

Sun 2006-09-03: Neither, Reiser's children, nor any of his neighbors, report seeing Nina's Honda Odyssey minivan parked at the house later in the afternoon. This is odd, since if Nina doesn't drive it away, who does? Reiser's children have testified that Reiser does not leave them alone. Is it really possible, that no one notices the minivan, even though it is supposedly parked there till night?

Apparently, we are meant to believe, that Reiser waits until his children are asleep. He then drags Nina's, now rigid body, to his tiny Honda CRX, rather than Nina's much larger minivan, and forces the body through the passenger door, into the tiny car's front seat, rather than lifting it into the trunk, through the more roomy hatchback. Apparently, Reiser believes that a corpse on the front passenger seat, will be of less interest to the police and other wandering eyes, than one obscured in the trunk.

Reiser, doesn't seem to mind leaving Nina's minivan, like an, "I did it!" sign, painted conspicuously on his house. He also, doesn't bother to remove Nina's cellphone battery, till late that evening, even though his kids continually ask him why the freezer keeps ringing, "just like Nina's phone." We are later told, that Reiser makes a habit of removing cellphone batteries, but this day, he forgets.

On Sept. 3, 2006, sunset is at 7:37 PM. It is dark about 8:00 PM.

Of course, though it is more likely that Nina carried her cellphone with her, it is possible, that it was ringing all afternoon while in her minivan. If we assume the children are asleep by 8 PM, then Reiser must dispose of her body and return to his house, within less than an hour, in order to remove Nina's cellphone battery some time shortly before 9 PM. An impossible task. Reiser would then have to drive the minivan to its final location, close to the home of Ellen Doren, and then walk the 3 miles back to his home. All this, without his children, or anyone else, noticing.

It is claimed, that Reiser removed the cellphone battery in order to delay police finding the van and thus, any clues from the van. In this case, it is not clear why he left her billfold, cellphone and other clues in the van. In fact, it is not clear why he didn't just torch the vehicle, as this would destroy all evidence associated with it. It should be noted that Reiser left no fingerprints, no DNA, i.e., no spit, hair, skin flakes, blood, etc, no evidence of any kind, that he was in the van.

It is impossible to put together a consistent account of events of this day, if Reiser killed Nina at his house, as claimed.

However, if Nina drove away in her van, there is nothing to explain.

Mon 2006-09-04: The press is suspiciously silent about what happens this day. For example, we never hear what Reiser's son says about it in his pre-trial police interview, of Sept. 25, 2006. We never hear what Hans or Doren does on this day.

Many of the early press reports, mention that Nina is reported missing on Sept. 4, and that this is due to Nina failing to pick up the children. When the person reporting, is mentioned, it is always Ellen Doren. When the place that the children were not picked up from, is mentioned, it is always "school." Here is an example:

"Reiser went shopping at Berkeley Bowl afterward, police believe, but never showed up for dinner at her friend's house that evening. When she didn't pick up her children from school the next day, Sept. 4, friend Ellen Doren alerted authorities."

The problem with all these reports is that Monday, Sept. 4, was a holiday, thus there was no school. It is the Monday, of the Labor Day weekend. Funny, how all these press reports, make the same mistake, at the same time.

Ellen Doren does not phone Hans, or visit his house, to find out if Nina might be with him and the children, or to see if she has picked up the children and gone elsewhere. Is this because Doren already knows where Nina is?

Mon 2006-09-04, 5:30 PM: Nina fails to show up for dinner and a movie with latest boyfriend Antonio Zografos.

Tue 2006-09-05: The children attend day care at Joaquin Miller School. One assumes that Hans Reiser takes them to day care.

Tue 2006-09-05, 2:00 PM: Reiser's mother, Beverly Palmer, and Mark McGothigan, return from the Burning Man festival in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. McGothigan, describes Palmer, as his best friend.

Tue 2006-09-05, 2:30 PM: Doren, turns up at the Joaquin Miller school to pick up the children from day care, but does not have permission for this and leaves without them. She tells school employees that "Nina is out of town." On Jan. 2, 2007, a teacher at the day care program, Natalie Potter, testifies that Nina's daughter, Niorline, was with Doren and that Doren made the remark "for the benefit of the child."

So, we are to believe that Doren, who is worried sick about her missing friend Nina, does not ask Niorline if she has seen her mother recently, or otherwise knows where she is. Doreen appears to be absolutely certain that Niorline does not know. How is this? Is this because Doreen already knows where Nina is?

Apparently, Potter does not ask either children if they know where their mother is. It should be emphasized that, as far as we know, the children attend a whole day of day care, without worrying about their mom. In all, it is clear that the daughter and probably the son, have no idea their mother is missing.

[Jade]

Tue 2006-09-05, 5:00 PM: Reiser, arrives at the Joaquin Miller school and sets up a meeting to discuss the program's enrollment policies. He speaks with Natalie Potter. Although Potter knows that Nina is missing, she neither tells Reiser this, nor asks Reiser if he knows where Nina is. Reiser states that he is not there to pick up the children and he gives his permission for Doren to pick them up, which she does a few minutes later, at about 5:15 PM. Reiser is at the school for about 10 minutes.

Tue 2006-09-05: At an unknown time, but supposedly after Nina does not pick up the children from day care, Ellen Doren files a missing-persons report.

At an unknown time, police conduct a phone interview with Reiser. Later, much of the press, repeatedly claim, "they have not been able to reach Hans Reiser since their investigation began." The police interview probably occurs before Doren calls.

At an unknown time, Doren phones Hans. She tells him she has the children and asks if he knows where Nina is, mentioning that Nina was last seen at his home. (It is not know why Doren has not called Reiser earlier.) This implicit accusation was noted by Reiser, who said, "I need to talk to my lawyer." This may be the first time that Reiser hears that Nina is missing.

Reiser drives his mother's, Honda Civic, to McGothigan's house near Mills College in Oakland to pick up his mom. Reiser spends about an hour at McGothigan's home. Reiser explains he is using the Honda Civic, as he is having trouble getting the CRX to start. He does not tell his mother, that Nina is missing, till the next day.

Tue 2006-09-05, 10:00-11:00 PM: A neighbor, Jack Stabb, sees Hans "spraying water off of something in the driveway for half-an-hour." Stabb, states he did not have direct vision of the driveway and could not say for sure whether a car was being washed. He also mentioned that the next morning, the driveway was filthy and covered with pine needles.

The most likely explanation for this, is that Reiser was cleaning his mother's 2003 Honda Civic, after her return from the Burning Man trip earlier in the day. You know, cleaning off the mud and pine needles and such.

Stabb also said, "Reiser, meanwhile, was 'dressed for winter,' wearing what looked like a hooded hunting jacket."

Reiser was probably wearing a raincoat. This is not unusual when cleaning up with a hose and spraying around a lot of water.

Beverly Palmer, also owns a banged-up 1988 Honda CRX Si hatchback that Reiser had the use of. This car is often referred to as Reiser's car.

Hans mentions that he has been having trouble starting his car. On either Sept. 6, 7 or 8, Reiser borrows his mother's Honda Civic for a prolonged period, which leaves her stranded. She is forced to rent a car for her own use. Palmer, said she asked her son to return her Honda Civic, but Hans said he needed it, because the CRX wouldn't start. She assumed the battery was dead.

Wed 2006-09-06: Oakland PD (Police Department) ask Palmer if they could take a look around her house; she refuses.

Probably, Doren drops the children at day care and Reiser collects them from day care.

Around this time, Oakland PD subject Hans and his mother to three days of questioning. Hans later claims that he cooperates with the police until the point where he figures out that this was not a missing-persons investigation, but rather a murder one, and that he is their prime suspect (I have been unable to find a reference for this). Reiser tells an unnamed friend that the battery in his Honda CRX has died.

Thu 2006-09-07: Nina fails to show for a meeting to get fingerprinted and fill out paperwork needed for her new job, helping Russian immigrants maneuver the health-care system, at the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

Fri 2006-09-08: Child Protective Services takes the children from school. They are placed with a foster family. The foster family, just happens to be, that of Ellen Doren and her husband. In court, Dec. 12, 2007, Doren admits (in an obscured way) to being the children's foster parent. Reiser, immediately begins court action to get his children back.

Fri 2006-09-08, 7:20 PM: At Borders Books in Berkeley, Hans purchases two books on police murder investigations, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, by David Simon, and Masterpieces of Murder, by Jonathan Goodman. Apparently, to find out about police excesses in homicide investigation. It appears that Reiser fears he may be, about to be, framed for murder.

DuBois says that the books contain chapters on how corrupt police plant evidence and set up murder scenes. Attorney, Daniel Horowitz, later states, "He's an intelligent man. He's going to want to know what the police are up to. What's he supposed to be doing, reading comic books?"

Sat 2006-09-09: Oakland PD locate Nina's 2001 Honda Odyssey minivan on Fernwood Drive in the Thornhill neighbourhood just east of the CA-13 Warren Freeway. Her groceries are spilled in the the back seat, her purse is in the car, and her cellular telephone is in the purse with its battery detached. There are no signs of a struggle. We can assume, Hans' DNA was not found in the van. This location is about three miles from 6979 Exeter Drive and very close to the home of Ellen Doren, on Capricorn Avenue.

Police claim, that neighbors first spotted the minivan on Sept. 5, the same day the mother failed to pick up her children from school. By the time Chris Bunn testifies on Dec. 13, 2007, this has become, "it had been parked (there) for several days" or "it had been there for three, or four, days." Possibly, the van was not parked there on Sept 3 and 4. In fact, it is initially reported that, "Witnesses in the neighborhood told police the van was parked there on Sept 5."

Sun 2006-09-10: Hans visits a Kragen Auto Parts in San Lorenzo to buy shop towels (small, usually blue, towels used to wipe grease and oil from ones hands) and a bottle of Valvoline fuel dryer (this is used to get water out of a car's gas tank (we know Hans was having trouble starting the car and fuel dryer may indeed help)) and antifreeze. Forty five minutes later, he returns to buy a siphon pump.

Reiser calls his mother from the Fresh Choice restaurant in San Leandro. It appears she is very angry and demands the Honda Civic back. Hans tells her she can come and pick it up. She gets a friend (perhaps, McGothigan) to give her a ride to the restaurant and repossesses her car. After returning home, she applies a "club steering lock," and leaves the car parked in McGothigan's driveway.

Hans stays overnight at a Motel 6 in Fremont.

Mon 2006-09-11: Hans withdraws $130 in cash from Telco Credit Union. That night, he buys some clothing at Target, in Hayward.

At some point, Child Protective Services tells Beverly Palmer, that they would only consider giving her custody of the children, if Hans were to move out. The exact date is not known. It has been claimed that the reason for this demand, was that Reiser was the subject of a criminal investigation. The problem with this, is simply that it is false.

In fact, a few days later, Deputy Police Chief Howard Jordan would say "Reiser wasn't even considered a suspect,... as there's no evidence that a crime has been committed." So, not only was Hans not the subject of a criminal investigation, there was not even a criminal investigation.

Tue 2006-09-12, 7:20 PM: Hans is able to get the Honda CRX running again. He is given a traffic ticket while driving it in Redwood City. The Redwood City PD officer later recounts that the car still had its passenger-side front seat.

In court, Dec. 18, 2007, the issuing officer, Sgt. Eric Stasiak, confirmed that there was nothing unusual about the car, such as blood, that would have made him investigate further. He also said that the car was full of food wrappers and clothing. When asked, was the car "Sort of like it was lived in, almost?" Stasiak replies in agreement, "That's what it appeared to me."

Wed 2006-09-13: At least a dozen police officers, forensics experts and a cadaver dog, arrive at 7 a.m., to search 6979 Exeter Drive. No body or murder weapon are found. An agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also participates in the search.

According to filings in Alameda County Superior Court, a notice of settlement was filed by, Greg Silva, on Hans Reiser's behalf, to resolve a lawsuit filed against him by Sean Sturgeon.

Reiser makes an appearance in the Oakland family court, where he is trying to get back his children (from Child Protective Services).

Thu 2006-09-14: DuBois, says his client did not appear in court Thursday, because of the police's conduct at the house he currently shares with his mother. DuBois says Hans Reiser believes police lied to his mother in an effort to get her out of the house.

Reiser's mother, Beverly Palmer, appears in the family court. She does not comment on what happened in the closed proceeding but does say she saw her son Wednesday at his attorney's office. This comment implies that Reiser has already moved from his mother's house.

Police continue their search of 6979 Exeter Drive. They continue to watch Hans, but (later) say they keep losing sight of him, and believe him to be conducting counter-surveillance tactics. Later testimony, seems to indicate that Reiser was unaware of much of the police surveillance.

[Jade]

Fri 2006-09-15: Deputy Police Chief Howard Jordan said Reiser isn't considered a suspect at this point because police are still treating the situation as a missing persons case and there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. Police continue their search of 6979 Exeter Drive.

DuBois states, "I've called police several times during the week and offered to make my client (Reiser) available (to police) and they just blow it off." Police claim that Reiser is avoiding them.

Sat 2006-09-16: Hans sends an e-mail to the Russian employees of his company, Namesys: "As you'll probably hear, Nina has disappeared. As her ex-husband, as statistics show, I'm being investigated. I'll be difficult to reach at times."

At some unknown date, perhaps around this time, Child Protective Services tells Beverly Palmer that Reiser is sleeping in the Honda CRX. They claim that this makes him a poor candidate for getting custody of the children. It is not known who told Child Protective Services. One assumes, the police.

Sun 2006-09-17: Hans visits Manteca (about 50 miles east, in the Delta). He buys a $10 prepaid telephone card. He visits a self-storage facility. He rents a U-Haul truck, later driven to Oakland. Had the Honda CRX broken down again? Did Reiser transport it back to Oakland in the U-Haul truck? Later, he visits San Lorenzo Kragen Auto Parts to buy a 40-piece socket wrench set.

In response to Child Protective Services demand that Reiser move out of his mother's house, Reiser initially moves into the Honda CRX. His mother has stated that he slept in the front seat. One assumes, that he bought the 40-piece socket wrench set, to remove the front passenger seat, so that he could sleep lying down. Reiser claims that he viewed the self-storage facility, with an eye to living in it. Police say, he wanted to hide the CRX in it.

Mon 2006-09-18: Alameda County Family Court holds hearings about custody of the children. Oakland PD give secret testimony opposing Hans getting custody. Police said they couldn't share the evidence, not even with the commissioner. Saying that they have evidence that they cannot reveal, makes Reiser distrustful of, and angry with, police.

The police clearly lied, as we now know they had no evidence at all, at this time.

DuBois says, officers "testified (secret testimony) against him but now they want him to talk to them (about Nina)."

Family court judge, Nancy Lonsdale, issues a temporary ruling, ordering the children remain with the Ellen Doren and her husband (the foster family). A final ruling is expected, after another hearing on the 27th of September. Reiser is unhappy with Lonsdale's ruling and asks that the matter be reconsidered by another magistrate, Commissioner Rhonda Burgess. This request is apparently granted.

Hans is secretly trailed from the courtroom, in an operation involving 12 officers in numerous unmarked cars and a special surveillance aircraft. A later police affadvit says Hans with friend, Artem Mishin, driving him "appeared to be conducting counter-surveillance" by driving at varying speeds, turning down small residential streets and making abrupt stops.

Mishin later testifies that he had "no idea" at the time that Oakland police were secretly trailing them. "They did a good job," Mishin said. In court, Dec. 17, 2007, Mishin gives a number of innocent explanations for their behavior.

Hans has dinner with his friend in Albany, is dropped off at San Pablo and Ashby, in Berkeley, walks several blocks to Acton near Carlson, gets into his Honda CRX and drives to 2425 Monterey Boulevard, near the Montclair Golf Course (2477 Monterey Blvd).

What are we to make of the report by officer, Eugene Guerrero, that Reiser parked the Honda on Monterey Boulevard along Highway 13 and on four occasions, walked away from the car before returning and opening and closing the trunk?

Why does he not report that Reiser walked away from the car a fifth time, after closing the trunk. I suggest, it is because Reiser got into the car through the hatchback and closed it from within. He then slept in the car.

Records, consistently claim that the Honda CRX was seized the next morning. Records, also claim that the car was seized shortly after Reiser left the car. This is further evidence, that Reiser slept in the car overnight and that police witnessed this.

If Reiser left the vehicle the next morning after sleeping in it, what are we to make of the reports of him leaving the car, speaking to a taxi driver and then sprinting up Shepherd Canyon Road (initially reported as Snake Boulevard) that evening?

First, the entrance to Shepherd Canyon Road is about half a mile from where Reiser was parked. It is unclear how he gets to Shepherd Canyon Road (or Snake Boulevard) without being spotted.

Second, the police never got close enough to the person "sprinting up Shepherd Canyon Road," to catch him. Third, it was dark. So, the identity of this person, as Reiser, is quite suspect. Also, the taxi and sprinter incidents, may have been fabricated to draw unwanted police eyes away from seeing exactly what Reiser was about.

Fourth, the police felt it necessary to "buttress" their position with a witness who might, or might not, have seen Reiser running up Shepherd Canyon Road, on that night, or perhaps the night before, or perhaps the night after, or perhaps the night after that. Why did they bother with this worthless witness, Goli Fahid, at all?

Tue 2006-09-19, 10:30 AM: Police seize the Honda CRX. It is towed by A & B Auto.

Tue 2006-09-19: In a wire-tapped call, Hans asks his mother to meet him at the Mormon Temple (4770 Lincoln Ave, Oakland), saying, "I want to talk to you about something." A few things to note:

The Mormon Temple is about 3/4 of a mile from where his Honda CRX was parked.

According to police, Hans spent the night at his mother's residence. So, why is it necessary to phone his mother from the Mormon Temple and arrange a meeting there, in order to share what he has on his mind? Why didn't he just do this when he woke up?

Putting it slightly differently; Why would he walk (Hans no longer has transport) from his mother's house to the Mormon Temple, to make a call to his mother, asking her to meet him at the temple, so that he can speak to her?

On returning to his mother's residence, police surveillance of Reiser would have resumed. The police would have spotted him there and would have reported this. Since they have not done this, there is serious doubt that he was actually there that night.

So what really happened that day?

After, showering and having breakfast (perhaps at the golf club), Reiser returns to find the CRX has vanished. Perhaps, he reports it missing. At some point he walks the 3/4 of a mile to the Mormon Temple, from where he calls his mother to pick him up, have a chat and probably drive him elsewhere. The police are suspiciously silent about what happens this day.

Police search the Honda CRX.

The contents of the Honda CRX are reported to be: a spare tire, a jack, a sleeping bag stuffsack, black plastic trashbags, masking tape, shop towels, a socket set, two books, a camping tent, a map of Stockton, an atlas of Northern California, clothes, flyers from a rental storage place in Manteca, a U-Haul one-way Manteca-to-Oakland rental agreement, the traffic citation of Sept. 12, receipts (from Kragen, Target, etc.) and 4 seat bolts.

A sleeping bag stuffsack, a camping tent, but no sleeping bag? It is now well established that Reiser had been sleeping in the Honda CRX, yet not a single press report mentions a sleeping bag in the vehicle. Not a single report, made public by the court, mentions a sleeping bag in the vehicle. Do you really think it likely that there was no sleeping bag in the vehicle, or do you think that press and police have deliberately failed to mention this?

Tue 2006-09-19: Doren announces, that if the judge makes a final ruling that the children should stay with the foster family, she "would like to be considered" for having custody of them at some point in the future. An interesting thing to say, considering she already has the children.

Wed 2006-09-20: Nina fails to show for her Sept. 20 bankruptcy filing appointment. She owes nearly $83,000 on her credit cards; $8,000 on her personal cards and $75,000 on cards held jointly with Hans Reiser. Declaring Chapter 7 bankruptcy would dump $75,000 of her credit-card debt onto Hans. Nina's court filings attested to $62,740 in assets, including $7,000 in a bank account and a $3,500 account with her landlord.

Nina was also to sit, Step 1, of the United States Medical Licensing Examination, this day. This is the first of three major medical exams needed to become licensed as a doctor in the United States. Nina was taking classes at the Berkeley Kaplan Center which prepares students for the exam. Although, enrolled at the Kaplan Center since 2002, Nina is still to complete Step 1. On Sept. 3, with the exam just 17 days away, Nina still had 15 classes paid for, but unused. It is unclear, whether Nina was seriously pursuing completion of Medical Licensing Examination.

Thu 2006-09-21: Oakland police tail Hans and his mother to a Budget Rent-a-Car in Hayward, where either she, or Reiser, rents a car for his use.

[Jade]

Sat 2006-09-23: Hans calls his mother at her Exeter home. Oakland PD record the call and later, play it in court. DuBois claims that the call was recorded illegally.

In the call, Hans accuses Nina of continually embezzling money from Namesys, Inc., even as the business was going bankrupt. He says of Nina, "she really was nuts," she "looks for every possible way she can screw me" and that she invented fake medical problems for Rory "because she hated me and Rory was a proxy for me." He recalls an occasion when Nina had kicked him and called police in an effort to get him arrested. Hans claims that the responding officers had intended to arrest Nina, but that he'd talked them out of it, "a mistake I've paid for heavily." The call concludes:

Palmer: "All these things that she did, she still didn't deserve whatever it is that's happened to her. Don't you think?"
Hans: "I think my children shouldn't be endangered by her. All I ever wanted was to be nice to her, give her an opportunity to come to the United States."
Palmer: "Still, Nina didn't deserve whatever it is that happened to her."
Hans: "And neither did I, and neither did Rory."
Palmer: "Well hopefully we'll somehow get through all this."
Hans: "I love you a lot."
Palmer: "Good. Bye-bye."

Reiser makes three separate cash withdrawals, of $1000 each, from his credit union in San Leandro, Hayward and Fremont.

Sun 2006-09-24: Reiser withdraws more cash from three ATMs in Truckee. Hans goes gambling?

Mon 2006-09-25: DuBois states that Reiser has moved out of his house in an attempt to make it easier for his mother to get custody.

Oakland PD tapes an interview with Reiser's 6 year old son, Rory.

On, Nov. 14, 2007, this tape is played to the court and a few quotes from Rory are reported by the press. These are compared with statements from Ryan Gill's probable-cause affadavit, which also quotes from the same interview. These are then compared with a typical press fabrication (not the worst by any means).

Rory's Testimony: they came upstairs after he heard his parents "talking loudly" (previously reported as, "talking at a medium volume").
Probable-cause affadavit: The children heard their parents "possibly involved in an argument."
Press fabrication: he was downstairs playing with his sister while his parents argued upstairs.

Rory's Testimony: "My dad told us not to come into the kitchen" and "Mom told me to go downstairs."
Probable-cause affadavit: Reiser said "not to come back upstairs, not even to the kitchen area."
Press fabrication: Reiser told his son to go downstairs and "not to come back upstairs, not even to the kitchen area."

When Rory repeats his original claims from the police interview, at a hearing on Dec. 11, 2006, and later, at his father's trial, in Nov. 2007, the police, the prosecution and the press, all claim that he is contradicting himself and is thus an unreliable witness. Of course, in reality, by sticking to his original testimony, Rory is only contradicting the press fabrications.

The claim that Rory testified that he saw his mother drive away, appears to be a total fabrication. The claim suddenly appears, in many publications, around, Mar 9, 2007. This is three months after the statement was supposedly made. No record of this statement can be found before Mar 9. We are meant to believe that for three months, no one thinks it necessary to report, or even comment on, this case-busting statement. This claim is fabricated in order to discredit Rory's testimony.

Rory's Testimony: Nina "gave him a hug" near the front door, with Hans standing only "two feet" away and she left
Press fabrication: he saw his mother leave the house that day, get into her minivan and drive away

It is worth emphasizing, that this interview was played in court, Nov. 14, 2007 and no mention was made of Rory stating that he saw his mother drive away. We can safely assume that Rory never said any such thing. It is also worth emphasizing, that no mention was made of Rory stating that he heard his parents arguing upstairs. He has never said that they were. In fact, on Dec. 11, 2006, Rory testified that he did not hear his parents arguing that day. He said, the only argument (between his parents) he remembered was "a couple weeks before" his mother disappeared.

When the DA Greg Dolge asked directly, "Did you hear any kind of argument upstairs?" Rory replied, "No."

Once the tapes are played in court, Nov. 14, 2007, these previously important "contradictions," are quietly forgotten. This is because it becomes clear that the boy did not contradict himself on these issues. However, new "contradictions" are found to replace them and these are reported instead. The press, then talks about Rory's conflicting testimony, and offers a, "for instance,... [the new contradictions],..." in order not to have to mention the original "contradictions" and expose the fact that they are not contradictions at all.

And, even the new "contradictions," are not actually contradictions. They are mistakes. Claiming he went to school the day after his mother disappeared, is a mistake that many newspapers made when reporting this case (see above). Saying Nina dropped him off at school on Tue. Sept 5, is also simply a mistake, not a contradiction. Many people make mistakes when they report their past activities. It is the court's duty to establish whether these are simply mistakes, or if they are his belief.

So what really happened that day?

In court, Nov. 13, 2007, Rory testifies to arriving at 6979 Exeter Drive with Nina, eating macaroni and (Parmesan) cheese fixed by his father, then heading downstairs to play computer games. In the police interview, Rory says he was downstairs playing computer games and that he came back upstairs after hearing his parents "talking at a medium volume," in the living room.

Rory also states that, "Dad was a bit louder than normal" when he spoke with Nina. Once upstairs, Hans told Rory "not to come into the kitchen" and Nina told him "to go (back) downstairs." Asked by police officers what his parents were talking about, Rory said, "I wanted to find out but I couldn't understand. There were too many big words."

One assumes that he obeyed Nina and went back downstairs. Later, Rory comes back upstairs and says goodbye to Nina. He states that Nina "gave him a hug" near the front door, with Hans standing only "two feet" away and that, after she left, he and Hans went downstairs where he played video games with Hans. That night, he slept in Hans' bed (with Hans?).

The daughter, Niorline, was also present, but her part has been ignored.

Wed 2006-09-27: Reiser buys a phonecard in Roseville. Nina fails to show up for her first day of work, at her new job. Cheryl Hicks, an attorney for Hans Reiser, appears in Alameda County Superior Court to help gain custody of his two children.

Thu 2006-09-28: Reiser attends a child custody hearing in Alameda County Superior Court. The judge rules that the children should remain with Ellen Doren and her husband. When confronted by reporters outside the courthouse, Reiser sprints away. He runs to a nearby county building, where he visits his children and gives his son a telescope for his birthday. Oakland PD follow him and later that night, detain him for a DNA sample. He is checked for cuts, scratches or bruises. None are found.

Mon 2006-10-09, evening: Oakland PD and FBI criminologists search 6979 Exeter Drive a second time, and remove (what looks to reporters like) a door and a piece of carpet.

Tue 2006-10-10, 11 AM: Oakland PD arrest Han Reiser, at McGothigan's home on Simson Street in Oakland, on suspicion of murder. He has with him his passport and $8,960 in cash. Reiser's attorney, DuBois, complains that police are not allowing him to see his client.

DuBois states that he would not have been so surprised by an arrest six months from now, "but I am surprised they did it now." He said it's rare for someone accused of murder to be tried on only circumstantial evidence and pointed out that even with the cloud of suspicion hanging over him, Hans Reiser stayed in the area and was always willing to talk to police, if they had asked.

The image of Reiser as "conducting counter-surveillance tactics" and being "unwilling to talk to police," appears to have been, at least partially, fabricated, to cast Reiser as a man with a guilty conscience.

[Jade]

Wed 2006-10-11: Oakland PD announce that Forensics has found both Hans' and Nina's blood on a sleeping bag stuffsack, that was in the Honda CRX and on a pillar, at 6979 Exeter Drive. Most reports mention trace amounts of blood, or small spots of blood on the stuffsack. However, a 1 inch by 3 inch blood stain is also reported. They also found two books on police murder investigations, shop towels, masking tape, and a roll of large black trash bags, some of which had been used. The CRX is missing its front passenger seat. Police say that the floorboard underneath the front seat area's carpeting had been "saturated with water".

We are to believe, that the traces of Nina's blood on the sleeping bag stuffsack and on the pillar, are "evidence" that Nina has been stabbed, or slashed, to death. Therefore, the traces of Hans' blood on the sleeping bag stuffsack and on the pillar, must be "evidence" that Hans has also been stabbed, or slashed, to death. However, no cuts, scratches, or even bruises, were found on Hans Reiser. Clearly, something is wrong here.

The problem is, that the blood traces do not imply recent cuts, or scratches. In fact, the blood traces may have been left on the pillar and stuffsack, some months, even years, before. Forensics, does not tell you how long ago the blood was deposited. Palmer, testified that Hans and Nina had often stayed over at her home and that they had slept in sleeping bags. The blood was probably deposited then.

Much, has been made of the floorboard underneath the carpeting being "saturated with water". It is not even clear what the steel floorboard, being "saturated with water," means. Does it mean that the carpet was in a puddle of water? Why use should convoluted language? Why not just say, the carpet was very wet?

How reasonable is it to believe that Reiser was worried enough about blood stains to remove the passenger seat, but not worried enough about blood stains, to remove the seat, until, at minimum, nine days after Nina disappeared.

How reasonable is it to believe, that Reiser was worried enough about blood stains to wash the seat area, but not worried enough about blood stains, to wash the seat area, until, some two weeks after Nina disappeared.

How reasonable is it to believe, that Reiser removed the seat and washed the seat area, to remove blood evidence, at about the time he planned to use the car as cheap accommodation, rather than to assume that he removed the seat so that he could sleep lying down and washed the seat area, because he preferred not to live in yesterdays fast food scraps.

Also, washing the seat area without removing and chemically treating the carpet, will still leave traces of blood in the carpet. It is extremely difficult to remove all evidence of blood, especially from carpet. So, the fact that forensics did not find any trace of blood in the carpet, means there never was any.

The fact that the sleeping bag stuffsack was found in the Honda CRX, does not necessarily imply it was in the car at the time of Nina's disappearance. In fact, from what we now know, it is unlikely that it was. Reiser, probably placed the sleeping bag in the car, when he needed it to sleep in.

It is often asked, "What happened to the missing car seat?" Reiser claims, that he threw it away (into a dumpster). As, the car has been described as a banged-up, worthless heap of trash (In court, Dec. 13, 2007, Jack Stabb, called it a "piece of shit."), this is not as unreasonable as some claim.

Thu 2006-10-12: Judge Trina Thompson Stanley formally arraigns (accuses) Hans of one count of (I infer) second-degree murder, based on Oakland PD Officer Ryan Gill's probable-cause affadavit. Hans delays entering a plea until a subsequent court appearance. He's remanded to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin.

He is held in solitary confinement without bail.

So, who pushed for solitary confinement, without bail, on the basis of "evidence," that attorney Daniel Horowitz describes as, trace, weak and inaccurate.

Oct 12, 2006: "There's not a lot of forensic evidence at all. Whatever they got is trace," he said.

Oct 12, 2006: Investigators are "leaking sensational information that may not even be accurate."

Oct 23, 2006: The prosecution's case is weak. "Here's the statement of probable cause, and I've read it, and their case is much weaker than they've said it is," Horowitz said.

So, who pushed for solitary confinement, without bail, on the basis of "evidence," that two months later will be called, "utterly unconvincing," by the judge Julie Conger.

Dec 11, 2006: Judge Julie Conger comments that she found Oakland PD's theory utterly unconvincing on account of its placements and timings of people not matching what had been established in court.

But, disregarding her own publicly stated conclusion, she orders the trial to proceed anyway.

Sat 2006-12-02: Volunteers search the Oakland hills looking for Nina's body. Several more such searches are conducted in the months that follow.

Mon 2006-12-11: Judge Julie Conger starts hearings to determine whether there is sufficient cause to bring the murder charge to trial, in light of the absence of a body or murder weapon, or whether the charge should be dismissed. Police produce the blood forensic evidence, a 40-piece socket wrench set and receipt from Kragen Auto Parts, and four seat bolts that might have come from the CRX.

Oakland PD forensics expert, Shannon Cavness, testifies that blood traces tested as that of a male, and also that of a female. The female blood traces on the stuffsack and pillar both contain DNA that matches Nina's blood. However, defence attorney William DuBois gets Cavness to admit that police have no idea how old the blood drops are.

Hans' mother, Beverly Palmer, testifies that Hans thinks Nina is a thief, a liar, is very neurotic and a bad parent, who doesn't give the children enough attention. DuBois asked Palmer, if she had recently called her son "an inconsiderate slob" and told him to move out from her home. Palmer laughed and said yes, adding that her son then made an effort to clean the house and their cars.

Rory, testifies that Hans told him on the morning of Sept. 5, that he would pick him up from school. The prosecution claims that this was before anyone knew of Nina Reiser's disappearance and is thus evidence of Hans' guilt. DuBois says the child simply got his days mixed up. He notes that on the day in question, Rory states that he and his sister were picked up by Oakland police after school, but this actually happened three days later, on Sept. 8.

Rory testifies that his parents sometimes argued, but more often, would just "talk" and that the only argument he really remembers was "a couple weeks before" his mother disappeared. When asked, "Did you hear any kind of argument upstairs?" Rory replies, "No."

Rory, testifies that he hadn't heard his parents arguing and that his mother walked out the door. The boy, essentially repeats his original testimony, given on Sept. 25, 2006, concerning events at Exeter Drive and is accused of contradicting himself. In reality, he only contradicts points fabricated by the media.

Rory's testimony, indicates that Reiser was at home, with his two children, at the time prosecutors allege that he killed Nina.

Alameda County prosecutor, Greg Dolge, has the press and public barred from future testimony by Rory Reiser.

Tue 2006-12-12: The hearing continues.

Wed 2006-12-13: Reiser repeatedly laughs in court as prosecutors present the circumstantial evidence they hope will convict him.

Tue 2006-12-19: The hearing resumes.

Thu 2006-12-21: Hans announces that he intends to sell Namesys, Inc., to help fund his legal defence.

Fri 2006-12-22: Alameda County Juvenile Court permits Nina's mother, Irina Sharanova, to take the two children to Russia, temporarily for the holidays, on the condition that they be returned to their foster home on Sun 2007-01-14, prior to further hearings scheduled for Wed 2007-01-17, to clear up Rory's supposedly conflicting prior testimony. Sharanova will ignore the courts demand that the children be returned by Sun 2007-01-14.

Once Sharanova has the children in Russia, she surreptitiously starts Russian-court proceedings in St. Petersberg to get permanent legal custody. Can she really do this? Is it really possible for a Russian court to decide the fate of American citizens, whose only legal connection to Russia, is that their mother has managed to obtain Russian citizenship for them?

Thu 2006-12-28: Reiser, pleads not guilty to murder. Hans Reiser's second attorney, Daniel Horowitz, withdraws from the case. Horowitz, is apparently too outspoken for this trial. DuBois says that Reiser "can't afford Mr. Horowitz at this time." He also claims that it was Reiser's decision to push for a speedy hearing. DuBois says he agrees with this decision.

Tue 2007-01-02: Judge Conger's hearings, on the quality of the circumstantial evidence, continue.

[Jade]

Tue 2007-01-16: Rory Reiser is due to continue his tesimony in a closed courtroom. However, Irina Sharanova does not return the Reiser children as previously agreed. This apparently makes her guilty of two counts of child abduction.

Reiser does not attend this days hearing, due to traffic problems.

Prosecutor Greg Dolge reveals that Nina had previously gotten Niorlene and Rory both Russian citizenship, the latter against express orders of the divorce court. Nina, like her mother, Irina Sharanova, ignores court orders that she does not like. Judge Conger deferred her final decision about the trial to a final hearing date, Fri 2007-02-23.

Dolge reveals (per a message from Irina Sharanova) that the children have been kept in Russia against Judge Conger's orders, and may never be returned, as Sharanova has them seeing a therapist who recommends keeping them there.

No one in the U.S. court system, or press, complains about a Russian therapist, over-ruling a United States judge.

Apparently, Rory Reiser's testimony is so damaging to the prosecution, that barring the press and public is not enough. Now, the boy himself, is to be physically kept from testifying.

In Nov. 2007, when the prosecution will have use of the boy, they bring him back from Russia to make a staged court appearance. As soon as the prosecution is finished with the boy, he is spirited back to Russia, so he will be unavailable, if needed for further testimony. The boy is spirited away, just days before he is due to appear in the Juvenile Court. Thus, for a third time, in direct violation of a court ordered appearance, the grandmother will have prevented the boy from testifying. No action is taken.

In court, Nov. 15, 2007, Rory testifies, "My grandmother say that Hans killed her." So, in court, it is revealed that Sharanova has influenced a court witness, her grandson. Again, no action is taken. We are talking, several serious offenses by the boys grandmother, Irina Sharanova, yet not a single charge eventuates.

Imagine, what would have happened, if, before Nina's disappearance, Hans Reiser had abducted his children to Russia and kept them there, preventing them from attending multiple court-ordered appearances.

Thu 2007-01-18: Judge Conger ignores the issue of child abduction and drops the court order for Rory's appearance.

Fri 2007-01-19: DuBois speculates that "Maybe she (Nina) was planning to take the kids to Russia and leave her husband (Hans) here in jail." This may have been the plan, but if she now tries to reunite with her children, they will realize that all have been conned and will most probably grow to hate her. At this point, one way, or another, Nina has most likely lost her children, forever. In court, Nov. 27, 2007, Nina's divorce attorney, Shelley Gordon, testifies that Nina asked her, "whether she could move to Russia with the children."

Wed 2007-01-24: Rory Reiser fails to appear at a family court hearing on Jan. 24. For a second time, Irina Sharanova, keeps the boy from a court appearance, in clear violation of a court order. No action is taken.

Thu 2007-02-22: Court-scheduling conflicts cause a delay to Fri 2007-03-09.

Fri 2007-03-09: Judge Conger comments that she found Oakland PD's theory utterly unconvincing on account of its placements and timings of people not matching what had been established in court, but orders the trial proceed anyway.

She notes, in particular, that Rory's more-recent testimony of record completely contradicts the police case. However, she observes that, even if Hans Reiser isn't responsible for his wife's murder, his "strongly suspicious activities" and "the totality of the circumstances" suggest he may know who killed her. Oh, really?

DuBois, is visibly angered by the judge's decision, calling it "the easy way out." Outside court, he says, "The judge had to push the envelope of speculation in order to reach the decision she did."

Fri 2007-03-23: Hans pleads not guilty to murder. Alameda Superior Court judge C. Don Clay denies bail, and remands Hans back to jail. Initial court date (jury selection) is set for Mon 2007-05-07, at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street near 12th/Oak Streets, Oakland, with actual trial estimated to start two weeks later. Hans asserts (declines to waive) his right to a speedy trial, which per California law means trial within 60 days. He also doesn't contest the no-bail decree, to avoid further delays. Deputy District Attorney Paul Hora was assigned as prosecutor.

Mon 2007-04-23: Nina's ex-boyfriend Sean Sturgeon confesses to prior commission of eight unrelated murders (and possibly nine, if that victim didn't survive). His confession, is essentially ignored by all parties, except the press. A red Sturgeon (herring).

Judge Clay orders (via sealed order) attorneys to say nothing more in public about Sturgeon's confession. A later pretrial ruling by the trial judge summarily bans any mention of Sturgeon's confession at Hans' trial. Sturgeon's confession, may be a technical ploy, to keep discussion of this character from the court. Calling him as a character reference, might be fun.

Mon 2007-05-07: Hans appears briefly at a pretrial hearing before judge Clay. When the judge asks Reiser if he would waive time to accommodate the busy schedule of his lawyer, William DuBois, who currently is involved in a murder case in Hayward, Reiser reluctantly says, "I guess so."

The trial is further delayed to Tue 2007-05-29. Another delay of about 3 weeks.

The court system, appears quite happy that Reiser rot in prison.

Tue 2007-05-29: Reschedule to Mon 2007-06-11.

Another delay of about 2 weeks.

Mon 2007-06-11: Judge Larry Goodman is assigned to the trial. Reiser, has claimed his right to a speedy trial. Jury selection must begin within 10 court days. This days hearing, reveals that jail authorities have refused, for reasons never specified, to forward most of Hans Reiser's letters to his children. On Nov. 14, 2007, Reiser's son will complain, in court, that he never received letters back from his dad. No one explains why.

DuBois says Reiser "has tears in his eyes" whenever his children are discussed and is upset that authorities refuse to forward most of his letters to his children. Referring to Goodman, DuBois says, Reiser "likes the judge because he puts him at ease." But, as we already know, Reiser is an extremely poor judge of character.

Tue 2007-06-12: Goodman and DuBois delay the trial by many more months, by convincing Reiser to waive his right to a speedy trial. This is one of many instances where DuBois appears to be working against his client. Jury selection will now start Tue 2007-08-28 after the judge takes his three week vacation.

Another delay by Goodman. Goodman, and perhaps DuBois, seem to be using any excuse to delay the trial.

Goodman delays the trial by a further month, by opting for an elaborate "big spin" jury selection procedure that will pick from three groups of 100 potential jurors each. It is extremely unusual to have such a jury selection, outside of a death penalty case. It is now estimated that the trial will begin, late Sept to early Oct. The "big spin" jury selection, provides prosecutors with an opportunity to select a particularly biased jury (in the name of eliminating bias, of course).

Thu 2007-06-14: A hearing on prosecutor Paul Hora's motion, to impose a gag order barring attorneys from speaking to the news media, is held. Hora wants to stitch-up Reiser with as little interference from the public, as possible. Goodman agrees to a limited gag order, instead of a complete gag order. Apparently, the judge is not interested in the public having too close a look, either.

Sat 2007-08-18: Volunteers from the Contra Costa and Alameda County sheriff's departments, search the hills and valleys in Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve, Roberts Regional Recreation Area, Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve and parts of Redwood Regional Park, for signs of Nina Reiser. Nothing is found.

Thu 2007-10-25: Jury selection finishes: 12 jurors (5 women, 7 men) plus 4 alternates.

Opening statements are rescheduled from Mon 2007-10-29 to Mon 2007-11-05.

Another delay of a week.

It is revealed that Juvenile Court officials refused repeated requests, by prosecutor Hora, for the file of the custody case involving the Reisers' children, until Tuesday, Dec. 6, after Goodman finally told them to comply. DuBois and Hora, claim the weeks delay is to give attorneys time to assess 400 pages of documents, including around 70 letters between Hans and his children, with comments on the custody case. The press and DuBois, claim the delay is also due to potential prejudicial information in an upcoming national television show about Reiser's case.

Fri 2007-11-02, 4:30 PM: Judge Goodman holds a closed hearing with Reiser and his attorneys, DuBois and Richard Tamor, excluding prosecutor Hora and reporters. Before one of the defense motions was discussed, Reiser complains, "I haven't seen the motion." Apparently, DuBois and Tamor hadn't shown it to him. Reiser is granted a 15-minute delay to read it. There are indications that Reiser is seeking to fire his lawyers.

Fri 2007-11-02: ABC televise their 20/20 program covering the Reiser case.

[Jade]

Mon 2007-11-05: Opening statements are delayed by a day. Judge Goodman, attorneys, and Hans confer. It is speculated that the delay, among other things, is due to Hans insisting on testifying, and is so arguing with DuBois. Statements to the press, like, "we don't know how he will come across because of his intellect," indicate DuBois is trying to prevent Reiser from testifying. Reiser, needs to realize, that DuBois is not on his side.

If Reiser has a clue, then he will certainly testify.

Tue 2007-11-06: First of Hora's three days of opening statements. Says, Nina would never have abandoned her children, ergo must be dead. This totally perverse "logic," is typical of Hora's case. Says, circumstantial evidence will prove Hans killed her out of rage over the child-custody verdict. But on that fateful day, overcome with rage, Hans, ever the gentleman, offers Nina a last meal of macaroni and (Parmesan) cheese, which he cooks for her and the children.

Wed 2007-11-07: Hora continues opening statements and mentions that Rory Reiser will indeed testify. Says that Hans, having once worked as a carpenter, might have killed Nina by bludgeoned her to death with a hammer. It's fast, it's quiet and it's deadly, he says. (Well, not really. But he claims something just as preposterous.) He claims Hans has coached some of Rory's testimony, and that Rory's forthcoming testimony will reveal his having heard some strange noises the night of Nina's disappearance and observed odd behaviour from his father, including carrying something large to the basement.

The "strange noises" bit, never eventuates and the "carrying something large (supposedly Nina) to the basement" bit, as DuBois has pointed out, is ridiculous. The children were sleeping in Hans room in the "basement," the road exit and cars were on the first level, so why would Hans carry Nina's body away from transportation and to his children?

Thu 2007-11-08: Prosecutor Paul Hora concludes his opening statement in the traditional fashion, by recapping the prosecution's planned circumstantial case, which (absent a body or murder weapon) rests on some peculiar activity of Hans' after Nina's disappearance, his alleged murder motive in his outrage over the Family Court's child-custody judgement, his lack of concern over his missing estranged wife's well-being and reasons why Nina would not have been expected to abandon her children by faking her own death.

Hora also plays a 10-minute recording of a telephone conversation (see above), a few weeks after Nina's disappearance, between Hans and his mother, in which Hans complains about the child-custody loss and declines to express any concern about Nina's fate.

Judge Goodman denies defence's motion for mistrial on grounds of illegal wiretapping.

Sun 2007-11-11: Rory Reiser, his grandmother, Irina Sharanova and an unnamed "social worker" arrive from Russia.

Mon 2007-11-12: Around this date, Rory gives another taped interview to "authorities."

Tue 2007-11-13 to Thu 2007-11-15: Rory Reiser gives testimony.

The prosecution, via Irina Sharanova, has been keeping Rory Reiser in Russia, to stop him telling anymore about what happened the day Nina disappeared. This trial, would look too much like the stitch up it is, if Rory does not testify. Hence, they have the various Russian "social agencies" working with the boy, look for ways to discredit his testimony. They decide to run with the "Nina in the bag" story. A story that is clearly false and will have jurors doubting the boys credibility. The prosecution returns him from Russia for a staged court appearance. So that he will not be available for further testimony, they fly him back to Russia immediately after the performance.

Rory has a Russian "social worker" sitting beside him as he gives his testimony.

Throughout his previous testimony, Rory called his mother Nina and his father Hans. In his latest testimony, Rory still calls his mother Nina, but now he calls his father Papa. This is due to the coaching the lad received while in Russia. In Russia, children do not call their parents by their first names.

The prosecutor shows a picture that Rory drew of a stick figure holding a ball. Rory says the stick figure is Hans and the ball is a bag he believes contains Nina curled up in a ball. Rory testifies he was with three Russian "social workers" when he drew the picture of his father with the bag. When he was done, he testifies that they said, "Good."

The prosecution chooses to present Rory's story and picture, as it undermines the boys credibility. The children were sleeping in Hans room in the "basement," the road exit and cars were on the first level, so why would Hans carry Nina's body away from transportation and to where his children were sleeping? There are also easily spotted physical problems associated with having a dead Nina folded into a ball. Thus, the story is quickly seen to be false and the boys credibility undermined.

The fact that the boy doesn't even "remember" this "event," till many months after Nina's disappearance, somehow, doesn't disqualify it as "evidence."

In case any of the jurors still believe the boys previous testimony, the prosecution keep creating contradictions, where there are none.

Rory testifies he could not recall what happened after his mother announced she was leaving.

"Do you remember what happened (when your mom left)?" prosecutor Hora asks.

"I don't remember (what mom did)," the boy replied.

"What's the next thing you remember happening?" Hora asks.

"Nothing (about mom)," the boy answers.

Previously Rory has claimed that Nina had given him a hug and said goodbye. He had then gone downstairs (with his sister and Hans) to play computer games and she had left. The current testimony does not contradict this.

Hora asks: "Usually, if your mom dropped you off at Hans' house, you would give her a hug and say goodbye?"

"Yes," the boy replies.

"On the day you last saw your mom at Hans' house, what happened?"

"The same," the boy answers.

No matter how many times the boy says essentially the same thing, he is accused of making contradictory claims.

"When you came to court last year and were asked questions and gave answers ,... did you tell the truth?"

Pause. "Do you remember what you said?"

"No."

"Do you remember what you said in court that was different or the same?" Hora asks.

"The same."

No matter how many times the boy says essentially the same thing, he is accused of making contradictory claims.

"You remember you saw your mom go up into the street?" DuBois asks.

"Yes."

Prosecutor Hora: "Do you remember whether your mom even left after she gave you a hug?"

The boy: "No." Pause. "She left."

"How do you know?"

"What can she do?" the boy answers.

"What do you mean by that?"

"No one stays in a house if they say goodbye," the boy says.

"Do you remember your mom saying goodbye?

"Yes."

"So you think if she said goodbye, she must have left?"

"Yes."

No matter how many times the boy says essentially the same thing, he is accused of making contradictory claims.

The boy also says his Russian grandmother showed him stories about his father's case on the internet, and that she had asked him not to tell anybody that they were discussing his father. When asked, "Your grandma showed you things on the internet and showed you things that (said what) Hans did was bad?" Rory answers, "Yes."

The boy testifies he stopped loving his father after he moved in with his grandparents. When asked whether his grandmother, Irina Sharanova, said his father killed his mother. Rory answered,...

"My grandmother say that Hans killed her."

Rory says he hasn't seen his mother for more than a year, hasn't talked on the phone with her or got any letters from her.

Jurors spend much of these 3 days listening to tapes of the boy being interviewed by police, mental health workers and the DA.

Thu 2007-11-15: After the jury leaves, Reiser obtains permission to talk directly to the judge. He states that he has some questions to ask Rory. He also voices some questions about child protective services in the United States and Russia, expressing particular concern, that his son might be improperly spirited back to Russia, now that his testimony is over. Which provokes this reply,...

"I've put up with your paranoia just about enough," adding that his court is not part of any elaborate conspiracies with the family court. "You're not just trying your attorney's patience, you're also starting to try my patience as well."

"Can I appoint myself co-counsel?" Reiser asks. "No, you cannot appoint yourself co-counsel," Goodman replies. He continues, "You can have whatever paranoid delusions you want." But the court won't have any of that, he says, describing himself as simply a "lowly trial judge doing a criminal trial," with no jurisdiction over the juvenile court system or any international issues with regard to the boy.

Reiser is right. The judge is being disingenuous.

Fri 2007-11-16: Irina Sharanova, who does not have legal custody of the children, abducts them to Russia, so that Rory will be unavailable for further testimony.

Thu 2007-12-04: Reiser asks the judge if he can attend the Juvenile Court hearing (due to start this day) concerning custody of his children. "The bottom line is, Mr. Reiser, you're not going to the hearing," Goodman said.

[Jade]

Rory Reiser fails to appear in Juvenile Court. For a third time, Irina Sharanova, prevents the boy from testifying. Each time, in clear violation of a court ordered appearance. Juvenile Court Judge Stephen Pulido is reportedly unhappy that the boy fails to appear in his court, but again, no action is taken.

One wonders what would have happened, if, before Nina's disappearance, Hans Reiser had abducted his children to Russia and kept them there, preventing them from attending multiple court-ordered appearances.

Wed 2007-12-12: DuBois tells Doren, that Rory said, he saw his mom leave and drive away after Nina dropped him off. The judge nearly finds DuBois in contempt. As noted above, the boy has never claimed that his mother drove away. Knowing full well, that it is false, DuBois adopts this media fabrication, contrary to his client's interest. But then, in reality, DuBois is not on Reiser's side.

Some details about the trial:

René C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse
1225 Fallon St., Oakland, CA, 94612
Case Type: Criminal
Case Number: 154825
Name: Reiser, Hans Thomas
Date: 05-Nov-2007
Time: 10:00:00
Department Number: 009

Based on http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2007-November/003477.html

with additional information and ideas from:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/category?blogid=37&cat=1428

This is a link to a street map of the area (http://linux.50webs.org/politics/map-small.gif) with various spots of interest marked:

6979 Exeter Drive: Home of Hans Reiser and his mother, Beverly Palmer.
Capricorn Avenue: Home of Ellen Doren.
Fernwood Drive: Nina's Honda Odyssey minivan is found here.
Snake Rd: Police initially claim Hans Reiser runs up this road.
Shepherd Canyon Road: Police later claim Hans Reiser runs up this road.
2425 Monterey Blvd: Hans Reiser parks his car here Sept. 18, 2006.
2477 Monterey Blvd: Montclair Golf Course.
4770 Lincoln Ave: Mormon Temple.

Placement of locations is given by maps.yahoo.com.

[Jade]

Any thoughts?

[StringCheesian]

I read most of it, yet I still feel I'd need more info to come to any real conclusion.

The stuff the prosecution is doing with the son really does sound fishy when you put it that way.

[mcgreg]

I've read most of it too. Although I didn't understand all of it since English isn't my native language, I believe I've understood enough.

As far as I understand his son is just 9 years old, and he was even younger when all that happened. I wouldn't put to much into words of children being that young. Besides that, the more time passes, the less he will remenber what happened really but get more and even more easily suggestible to what other people will tell him. So, either believe what he said as the beginning or forget it.

There are things I dont really understand.. why is he treated like a murderer even though there are still no *real* proofes he did it?
Seriously I wouldn't be even surprised if the women would suddenly show up. Though it wouldn't explain why should would disappear like that. I just hope anybody will find proofs what happened.

Personally I dont want to believe he did it. It wouldn't be worth it. Nobody can be such naive to believe he can kill somebody without anybody noticing it, especially not somebody who seems to be quite intelligent.

[Moronix]

Proof? If there was proof this would already be over since the beginning. What they do have is arguably strong evidence. The blood, the books about murder investigations he had, and other circumstantial evidence like his estranged relationship with her. That's obviously not proof, but this is where the prosecution gets it's strength.

[Silent Storm]

The whole case is filled with dark spots, incosistent information and begs for more, clear and true information.

For example, ReiserFS's refusal to adoption has nothing for this case. Yes, the mailing lists about the issues somehow used to show "Hans" as a violent person but again the whole post array (about the timeline) smells fishy and looks like a disinformation package which tries to show Hans as the murder.

(How he can put Nina in a freezer which is middle of the house without children seeing and if freezer is not in the middle of stg, how children ask Hans why the freezer is ringing? Tell me.)

I'm no way defending Hans or Nina here but if you overload a person like that it'll probably explode in a destructive manner. The whole story reads like:
"Hans Reiser was a good mannered guy who loved a girl who stabbed him from back, stabbed so badly that he gone mad but we don't know what happened after."

So the result: I don't believe Hans has killed Nina.

As a "human" and "hardcore linux porgrammer", I personally am bored from "Your lovely programmer Hans is a violent killer" meme.

Edit: Clarification added.

[Jade]

Their are some Collections of Press Reports:

sfgate.com Blog Reports on the Hans Reiser Trial (from 2007-11-05 to 2008-02-10) at:

http://linux.50webs.org/politics/press-sfgate-blog.htm
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/press-sfgate-blog.htm

sfgate.com Reports on the Hans Reiser Trial (from 2006-09-12 to 2008-02-10) at:

http://linux.50webs.org/politics/press-sfgate.htm
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/press-sfgate.htm

blog.wired.com Reports on the Hans Reiser Trial (from 2007-11-05 to 2008-02-10) at:

http://linux.50webs.org/politics/press-wired-blog.htm
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/press-wired-blog.htm

For example, the sfgate.com Blog collection contains the articles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24157
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24077
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24048
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23960
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23881
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23844
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23811
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23780
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23672
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23640
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23535
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23502
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23455
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23420
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22833
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22814
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22785
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22670
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22632
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22600
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22518
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22486
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22453
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22427
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22332
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22301
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22267
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22256
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21972
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21930
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21901
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21774
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21742
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21713
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=21674

[Jade]

StringCheesian said: "The stuff the prosecution is doing with the son really does sound fishy when you put it that way."

Ain't that the truth.

mcgreg said: "There are things I dont really understand.. why is he treated like a murderer even though there are still no *real* proofs he did it?"

I reckon it is a "stitch up."

Silent Storm said: "For example, ReiserFS's refusal to adoption has nothing for this case."

I am NOT so sure about that.

[Jade]

The whole case is filled with dark spots, inconsistent information and begs for more, clear and true information.
Which particular bits did you find inconsistent?

[Jade]

(How he can put Nina in a freezer which is middle of the house without children seeing and if freezer is not in the middle of stg, how children ask Hans why the freezer is ringing? Tell me.)
This comment is meant as sarcasm. To point out how ridiculous the situation is. To point out that Hans must be innocent. There is no time for him to kill Nina and dispose of the body. The prosecution truly has no case.

[Compxpert]

This comment is meant as sarcasm. To point out how ridiculous the situation is. To point out that Hans must be innocent. There is no time for him to kill Nina and dispose of the body. The prosecution truly has no case.
On top of that they have no body or weapon only some blood which is probably old.

[Jade]

On top of that they have no body or weapon only some blood which is probably old.
Yesterday, on the first day of the Hans Reiser trial, Deputy DA Paul Hora had told the jury that he must prove at least two things to them beyond reasonable doubt. They are (1) Nina Reiser is dead; and (2) Hans Reiser killed her.

Any chance of proving these two things, beyond reasonable doubt?

Absolutely, no chance.

[Compxpert]

What's the point of putting him on trial. Declare him as not guilty and if at a later time they can find evidence that points to him and that Nina is dead then they can put him back on trial. What they are doing right now is a waste of Hans' time and everyone else's.

[mcgreg]

Well, not only that... if he really is unguilty, then they are holding him in prison for no reason since several months. Now, how do you want to return the lost free time to him?

[Compxpert]

Well, not only that... if he really is unguilty, then they are holding him in prison for no reason since several months. Now, how do you want to return the lost free time to him?

If I were Hans I'd sue for that lost time.

[Jade]

Have a look at the thread on the Reiser case:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24399

The off-topic comment about Hitler near the end, is DEFINITELY worth a read.

[StringCheesian]

The off-topic comment about Hitler near the end, is DEFINITELY worth a read.
You took a few minutes of my life and I want them back.

Sounded like just another nutcase and/or troll to me.

[Jade]

Sounded like just another nutcase and/or troll to me.
I don't know. I reckon everything that the article says is correct (apart perhaps from the speculation that Hitler was a Jew).

Point out any bits that are factually wrong.

----------------------

Hitler was a Jew, working for the Jews.

Having the Jew Hitler run Nazi Germany had many advantages:

1) Hitler ordered the tank divisions to sit on their hands while Dunkirk was evacuated. 360,000 men were allowed to escape. (But all their tanks and equipment was lost. Much of the British airforce was also lost.)

2) Although, Britain was open and defenseless, the Jew Hitler refused to attack.

3) The Jew Hitler refused to even feign an attack on Britain to draw the British navy to the channel, were it could be obliterated by aircraft.

4) The Jew Hitler attacks Germany's ally, the Soviet Union. Why attack your ally?

He does this after refusing to clean up Britain first, setting up the dreaded two-front war.

5) The Jew Hitler (against the advice of all his generals) single-handedly saves Moscow by ordering army group "Center" to stop its advance on Moscow. Hitler was willing to accept any loss, to save Moscow. Once Moscow fell, the war in the East was over.

6) The Jew Hitler tells the Soviets an attack will occur at Kursk. The Jew Hitler delays the attack for more than four months, until the Soviets have built defensive lines eight deep. The Soviets concentrate 1,300,000 soldiers with 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, including 6,000 76mm anti-tank guns, and 2,400 aircraft in and around Kursk. An attack anywhere other than Kursk would be fatal for the Soviets, but the Soviets seem to know that the attack will come only at Kursk.

7) The Jew Hitler orders German troops attack the most heavily defended lines ever constructed (at Kursk).

8) The Jew Hitler is amazed by the supermen of the elite SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte, who, in the south, break through all eight defensive lines and take on the Soviet reserve tank battalions.

9) Less than two weeks into the offensive, worried that the Liebstandarte might win the battle for the Germans, the Jew Hitler strips this elite group of their tanks and ships them to Northern Italy, where they sit on their hands for some months before returning to the eastern front. The pretext of the Sicily invasion was used.

10) The Jew Hitler declares war on the U.S., even though he was no more obliged to declare war on the U.S. than Japan was obliged to declare war on the Soviet Union, which Germany had been fighting since June 1941. Japan never declared war on the Soviet Union.

11) The Jew Hitler refuses to give the order to use the 12,000 tons of weaponized nerve gas (Sarin and Tabun) stored on the Eastern front, even though it would have won the war against the Soviets.

12) The Jew Hitler refuses total mobilization of the German people, even though the munitions factories cried out for manpower and all his enemies had recruited woman into the work force. The Jew Hitler never bothered to use half the potential German labor force. Even though Goebbels called for total mobilization early in the war, Hitler was able to prevent this until it was too late.

And do you think (the Jew) Roosevelt would have forced the Japanese into the very destructive Pacific war, if he hadn't been certain Hitler would declare war on the United States?

How was Roosevelt so sure Hitler would declare war on the United States?

What if Hitler had just said, "Piss off, Roosevelt. Enjoy your little war against Japan."

Then Roosevelt would have ended up just fighting the Japanese without being able to drag the United States into direct participation in the European war.

[StringCheesian]

I don't know. I reckon everything that the article says is correct (apart perhaps from the speculation that Hitler was a Jew).

Point out any bits that are factually wrong.

I'll admit I know very little about the factual details of WW2. However, the speculation that Hitler was a Jew strikes me as a crazy conspiracy theory, and as such I consider the entire comment suspect. If I learn about WW2 it will be from a more credible source.

[Compxpert]

I don't know. I reckon everything that the article says is correct (apart perhaps from the speculation that Hitler was a Jew).

Point out any bits that are factually wrong.

----------------------

Hitler was a Jew, working for the Jews.

Having the Jew Hitler run Nazi Germany had many advantages:

1) Hitler ordered the tank divisions to sit on their hands while Dunkirk was evacuated. 360,000 men were allowed to escape. (But all their tanks and equipment was lost. Much of the British airforce was also lost.)

2) Although, Britain was open and defenseless, the Jew Hitler refused to attack.

3) The Jew Hitler refused to even feign an attack on Britain to draw the British navy to the channel, were it could be obliterated by aircraft.

4) The Jew Hitler attacks Germany's ally, the Soviet Union. Why attack your ally?

He does this after refusing to clean up Britain first, setting up the dreaded two-front war.

5) The Jew Hitler (against the advice of all his generals) single-handedly saves Moscow by ordering army group "Center" to stop its advance on Moscow. Hitler was willing to accept any loss, to save Moscow. Once Moscow fell, the war in the East was over.

6) The Jew Hitler tells the Soviets an attack will occur at Kursk. The Jew Hitler delays the attack for more than four months, until the Soviets have built defensive lines eight deep. The Soviets concentrate 1,300,000 soldiers with 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, including 6,000 76mm anti-tank guns, and 2,400 aircraft in and around Kursk. An attack anywhere other than Kursk would be fatal for the Soviets, but the Soviets seem to know that the attack will come only at Kursk.

7) The Jew Hitler orders German troops attack the most heavily defended lines ever constructed (at Kursk).

8) The Jew Hitler is amazed by the supermen of the elite SS Panzer Korps Liebstandarte, who, in the south, break through all eight defensive lines and take on the Soviet reserve tank battalions.

9) Less than two weeks into the offensive, worried that the Liebstandarte might win the battle for the Germans, the Jew Hitler strips this elite group of their tanks and ships them to Northern Italy, where they sit on their hands for some months before returning to the eastern front. The pretext of the Sicily invasion was used.

10) The Jew Hitler declares war on the U.S., even though he was no more obliged to declare war on the U.S. than Japan was obliged to declare war on the Soviet Union, which Germany had been fighting since June 1941. Japan never declared war on the Soviet Union.

11) The Jew Hitler refuses to give the order to use the 12,000 tons of weaponized nerve gas (Sarin and Tabun) stored on the Eastern front, even though it would have won the war against the Soviets.

12) The Jew Hitler refuses total mobilization of the German people, even though the munitions factories cried out for manpower and all his enemies had recruited woman into the work force. The Jew Hitler never bothered to use half the potential German labor force. Even though Goebbels called for total mobilization early in the war, Hitler was able to prevent this until it was too late.

And do you think (the Jew) Roosevelt would have forced the Japanese into the very destructive Pacific war, if he hadn't been certain Hitler would declare war on the United States?

How was Roosevelt so sure Hitler would declare war on the United States?

What if Hitler had just said, "Piss off, Roosevelt. Enjoy your little war against Japan."

Then Roosevelt would have ended up just fighting the Japanese without being able to drag the United States into direct participation in the European war.

Probably a troll Hitler wasn't truly a jew but had jewish blood in his family.

[Jade]

Actually, is there somewhere else to discuss this?

This thread should really be about Hans Reiser's Trial.

[Jade]

If I were Hans I'd sue for that lost time.
This is the U.S. we taking about.

Hans should be able to sue for $100,000,000 perhaps more.

[Jade]

What's the point of putting him on trial. Declare him as not guilty and if at a later time they can find evidence that points to him and that Nina is dead then they can put him back on trial. What they are doing right now is a waste of Hans' time and everyone else's.
That is how it should have been done. However, that is NOT how it was done.

[Lykos]

I don't think they are able to proof reisers guilty.
So they should let him go now. They kept him until now because of strong indications, that was right, but they didn't find more, they should let him go.
I don't really believe he's guilty, but it doesn't really matter!
He clearly is a genius. And his filesystem is probably the best ever. But every peace of open software needs backup from developers and community.
I will test his filesystem for my own.
That will show me if it's stable.
Because it's stability that matters, not performance.

[Jade]

Notes From The First Two Days
Of The Hans Reiser Trial.

Copied from:

http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/first-two-days.htm
http://linux.50webs.org/politics/first-two-days.htm

What happened in court, Wed. Nov. 7, 2007.

On the first day of the Hans Reiser trial, Deputy DA Paul Hora had told the jury that he must prove at least two things to them beyond reasonable doubt. They are (1) Nina Reiser is dead; and (2) Hans Reiser killed her. This morning, Hora continued his opening statement by trying to do exactly that.

(1) That Nina is dead:

Hora took the jury through what Nina did on Sunday, Sept 3, 2006, the day she disappeared, with receipts at the Berkeley Bowl (a grocery store), the store's time-stamped videotape, and the two last cell phone calls she made. Both calls were to Hans Reiser's Exeter Drive residence (owned by his mother, Beverly). Since each call lasted only seconds, Hora surmised that Nina's purpose for the first call was to inform Hans Reiser that she was running late (she was supposed to meet with him at the Exeter house at 2pm); her second and last call was at 2:04pm, telling him that she was on her way with their 2 kids. That call was the last call she ever made, and the last call that was ever made from her cell phone. If each call lasted only seconds, it is possible/likely that neither call was answered. Would Hora imply the calls were answered, when in fact, they weren't? Yes, he definitely would.

On Sept. 9, six days after she disappeared, her cell phone was found inside her minivan parked on a quiet residential street 3 miles (or 8 minutes' drive) from Hans Reiser's Exeter house. Ignored, is the fact that her van was abandoned a mere quarter of a mile from the house of her friend, Ellen Doren, on Capricorn Avenue.[1] Click here (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/map-small.gif) for a street map of the area. Inside the car were the following:


An envelope with a rent check, dated Sept. 1, to her landlord;
Bags of groceries containing fruits, veggies, alphabet crackers, sour cream, cookies, eggs, a carton of milk (gone sour), cheese, and oatmeal;
Books on parenting, self-improvement, and how to be a good doctor;
Her handbag containing her cell phone (with the battery removed); a wallet with $94.07 in cash, the Berkeley Bowl receipts, credit cards, pictures of her kids, and her driver's license.

But there were no car keys. There were no signs of struggle inside the van (no blood) or signs of a robbery (all her possessions were there).

Hora reasoned to the jury that it makes no sense that Nina left the Exeter house that afternoon and, instead of driving 5.3 miles (15 mins.) to her home so that she could put her groceries in the fridge, she instead drove 3 miles to park her car on that residential street, remove the battery from her cell phone, then left her car with all the groceries inside. All initial reports state that Nina planned to go to the Berkeley Bowl after dropping the kids off with Hans.[2] Hora's logical conclusion is that Nina did not put the minivan there. Hora is lying by ommission. He knows damn well that the van was abandoned close to Ellen Doren's home. Hora, just doesn't want the jury finding out about this. And, interestingly, neither does the trial judge, Larry Goodman.[3]

Hora then showed some photos of the living room of the Exeter house. Inside the living room, near the front door, is a wooden floor-to-ceiling pole. When the police finally searched the Exeter house on September 13-14, they found blood on the pole 45.5 inches from the floor, comprised of one bloody spot and two blood smears.

DNA tests on the stains found a major donor (female) and a minor donor (male). The major donor is a perfect match of Nina's DNA, obtained from her underwear, razor, and contact lens case. The DNA from the minor donor matched Hans Reiser's DNA, obtained on Sept. 28 from a swatch from his gums.

We are to believe, that the traces of Nina's blood on the pillar, are "evidence" that Nina has been stabbed, or slashed, to death. Therefore, the traces of Hans' blood on the pillar, must be "evidence" that Hans has also been stabbed, or slashed, to death. However, no cuts, scratches, or even bruises, were found on Hans Reiser.[4,5,6] Clearly, something is wrong here.

The problem is, that the blood traces do not imply recent cuts, or scratches. In fact, the blood traces may have been left on the pillar, some months, even years, before. Forensics, does not tell you how long ago the blood was deposited.[7,8] Palmer testified that the blood on the pillar had been there before Nina disappeared.[9]

Hora conceded that science cannot tell us WHEN the blood stains were left, but he asked the jury to use our "common sense" as to how Nina could have left her blood stains on that wooden pole. If the jury was to use "common sense," they would see that Hora is simply a liar. Forensics, cannot tell him whether or not the blood stains have been there for years, yet Hora "knows" they are from Sept. 3.

(2) Having made his case that Nina did not "disappear" but had died, DA Paul Hora next tried to show that it was Hans Reiser who killed her. Having made his case!?!? Oh really? Chuckle. Let me summarize his case: Lady disappears, lady has not been seen for a year, therefore, lady is dead. He ignores the possibility that she may be deliberately laying low, in order to have Hans convicted of her murder. To do that, Hora turned to Hans Reiser's "incriminating and suspicious" behavior immediately following Nina's disappearance.

Continued below.

[Jade]

His behaviors include the following:

(a) Hans Reiser never reported to the police that Nina had disappeared. Instead, it was Nina's friend Ellen who reported her as a missing person on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2 days after Nina had disappeared.

There had been a disagreement over who was supposed to have the kids that weekend and it was decided to split it up. Hans was to have the children until Tuesday morning, when he would take them to school. Nina was to pick them up after school.[10] Hans Reiser had no way of knowing Nina had disappeared until Sept. 5, 2 days after her disappearance. So, it seems more than a little unfair, to expect him to report her disappearance before he knew about it.

However, Ellen Doren knew about Nina's disappearance on Sept. 3 and did not report it to police until around 9 pm Sept. 5, more than 2 days after her disappearance. So Doren, is actually guilty of what Reiser was accused of (but not guilty of), namely, not reporting Nina's disappearance for two days. This was incriminating for Hans Reiser, so must also point the finger at Doren, as a possible killer.

Even more telling is that Doren does not phone Hans, or visit his house, to find out if Nina might be with him and the children, or to see if she has picked up the children and gone elsewhere. Remember, Nina was going to Ellen Doren's place. How do we know that she didn't arrive and Doren killed her there (perhaps accidently)? How do we know that Doren wasn't the last person to see Nina alive?

(b) When Oakland PD came to Ellen's house at around 9 pm, Sept. 5, to take down her missing person report, Ellen called Hans Reiser's cell phone at 9:21 pm and spoke to him for 6 mins. She told him that she had picked up his and Nina's two kids from school that afternoon at 5:30 because Nina is missing, and that the two children are with her (Ellen). She asks Hans Reiser if that's ok with him. He says "uh uh."

There is a huge lie of ommission here. At 2:30 pm, Doren had turned up at the school to pick up the children from day care, but did not have permission, so she left without them.[11,12] At about 5:00 pm, Hans Reiser dropped by the school to set up a meeting to discuss the day care's enrollment policies.[13] He speaks with Natalie Potter. Potter tells him that Doren wishes to pick up the children. Reiser gives his permission for her to do so, which she does a few minutes later, at 5:15 pm.[14]

Interestingly, although Potter knows that Nina is missing, she neither tells Reiser this, nor asks Reiser if he knows where Nina is. Potter, like Doren, doesn't bother to ask the children if they know where their mother is. It is also known that Hans attempts to call Nina at 5:04 pm.[15] This timing places him at the school, with Potter. Potter never mentions this call in testimony.


Ellen then says that she knows Nina had gone to his house on Sunday, Sept. 3. Hans Reiser replies: "I need to talk with my attorney."

There is another huge lie of ommission here. On Sept. 5, Oakland police conducted a phone interview with Reiser.[16,17] The only time this can have occurred is before Doren calls at 9:21 pm. So, Reiser's reply has to be put in the context of having just spoken to police, presumedly, about Nina's disappearance.

Ellen then says: "I have a police officer here and he would like to talk to you." Hans Reiser hangs up, without asking about his kids and how they are.

The words chosen here, carefully misrepresent the facts. Earlier, Reiser had given Doren his permission to pick up the children. Doren has just stated that they are still with her and she asks if this is all right. He replies, yes. What more does he need to ask Doren concerning the children? Anyway, Reiser has just found out that Nina is missing. He hasn't had time to plan how to answer Doren's questions.

When Doren turned up at the school to pick up the children, she told school employees that Nina was out of town. Potter testifies that Nina's daughter, Niorline, was with Doren and that Doren made the remark "for the benefit of the child."[18] So, we are to believe that Doren, who is worried sick about her missing friend Nina, does not bother to ask Niorline (or Rory) if she has seen her mother recently, or otherwise, knows where she is.

(c) Hans Reiser's car (a Honda CRX that is actually registered to his mother, Beverly) was missing for days. He told Beverly that the CRX had a dead battery. So he drove (monopolized) Beverly's car (a Honda hybrid), until she finally succeeded in repossessing the hybrid from him on Sept. 10, 2006.[19] Instead of driving the hybrid, Beverly parked it at her boyfriend's house, with a "club" on the steering wheel. She then drove a rental car instead.

Palmer most probably hired the rental car before Hans relinquished the Honda Civic hybrid. Since renting a car by the week is discounted, she probably had time left on the deal and continued to drive it after getting her Honda Civic back. Later, police seized her Honda Civic and she rented a second car.[20]

All of which is suggestive of a less-than-ideal mother-son relationship!

However, on Sept. 21, 2006, Palmer took Hans to Budget Rent-a-Car in Hayward and rented a car for his use.[21]

The police finally located Hans Reiser's Honda CRX 15 days after the car had gone missing, on Sept. 18, via an elaborate cat-and-mouse surveillance-chase of Hans Reiser by 11 police officers in multiple cars and a helicopter.

Hans had initiated litigation to regain custody of his children. He was secretly trailed from the Alameda County Family Court, in an operation involving 11 or 12 officers in numerous unmarked cars and a special surveillance aircraft.[22,23] A later police affadvit states that Hans with friend, Artem Mishin, driving him "appeared to be conducting counter-surveillance" by driving at varying speeds, turning down small residential streets and making abrupt stops.[24]

Mishin later testifies that he had "no idea" at the time that Oakland police were secretly trailing them. "They did a good job," Mishin said. In court, Dec. 17, 2007, Mishin gives a number of innocent explanations for the behavior.[25]

When Hans Reiser (unknowingly) led the police to his Honda CRX parked on a residential street, the police saw that the car's front passenger seat was missing.

Child Protective Services had told Beverly Palmer, that they would only consider giving her custody of the children, if Hans were to move out of her house.[26,27] In response to Child Protective Services demand, Reiser moves into the Honda CRX. Reiser was still attempting to pay wages at his business, Namesys, and used the car as cheap accommodation. Later, Child Protective Services tells Beverly Palmer that Reiser is sleeping in the Honda CRX. They claim that this makes him a poor candidate for getting custody of the children.[28] Palmer testified that he initially slept in the front seat.[29,30] He took out the passenger seat so he could lie down and sleep more comfortably.[31,32]

(d) Hans Reiser's other suspicious behaviors:

(i) On Sept. 5, just 2 days after Nina's disappearance, at about 11pm Hans Reiser's neighbor Jack Stab saw him hosing down something in his driveway, for about a half hour. Although it was "hot as hell" that night, Hans Reiser was wearing a winter coat.

Jack Stabb, sees Hans "spraying water off of something in the driveway for half-an-hour."[33] In court, Stabb states he did not have direct vision of the driveway and could not say for sure whether a car was being washed.[34] He also mentioned that the next morning, the driveway was filthy and covered with pine needles.[35]

The most likely explanation for this, is that Reiser was cleaning his mother's 2003 Honda Civic, after her return from the Burning Man trip at 2:00 pm that day.[36] You know, cleaning off the mud and pine needles and such.

Stabb also said, "Reiser, meanwhile, was 'dressed for winter,' wearing what looked like a hooded hunting jacket."[35]

Reiser was probably wearing a raincoat. This is not unusual when cleaning up with a hose and spraying around a lot of water.

Jack Stabb is probably lying here. In court, he relates his interest in events by saying, "I thought it was kind of strange... 'What are you doing, washing the driveway?'"[37] He notes the time. The next morning, he even investigates the driveway and reports it to be "filthy and covered with pine needles." So, on the one hand, Jack Stabb finds this event rather intriguing and worth further investigation. On the other hand, he isn't even interested enough to look through another window to see what Hans is actually doing.

(ii) On Sept. 8, five days after Nina's disappearance, Hans Reiser purchased two books from Barnes and Noble, titled "Masterpieces of Murder" and "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets."

It is claimed that Reiser buys the books to find out about police excesses in homicide investigation.[38,39] It appears that Reiser fears he may be framed for murder. DuBois says that the books contain chapters on how corrupt police plant evidence and set up murder scenes.[40] Attorney, Daniel Horowitz, states, "He's an intelligent man. He's going to want to know what the police are up to. What's he supposed to be doing, reading comic books?"[41]

(iii) On Sept. 10, he bought a roll of shop towels and a bottle of Valvoline fuel dryer and antifreeze (to get water out of a car's gas tank) from Kragen Auto Supply.

Continued below.

[Jade]

Shop towels are small hand towels. They are usually blue and are used to wipe grease and oil from ones hands. Reiser was having trouble starting the CRX. Water in the fuel will cause a car to have trouble starting. The Valvoline fuel dryer, removes the water from the fuel, which may solve the problem.

(iv) On Sept. 17, he bought a 40-piece socket set from Kragen.

He bought the 40-piece socket wrench set, to remove the front passenger seat, so that he could sleep lying down.

All the above purchases were paid with cash. DA Hora also pointed out that Hans Reiser has a black belt in judo, and that one of judo skills is the art of choking (someone), done in a fast and quiet way.

This is like the DA saying, having once worked as a carpenter, Reiser may have killed Nina by bludgeoned her to death with a hammer. It's fast, it's quiet and it's deadly.

Court was adjourned at 4pm, to resume Thursday morning at 9:45. It is expected that the DA will take another hour tomorrow to finish his opening statement. Then it will be the Defense's opening statement.

What happened in court, Thu. Nov. 8, 2007.

On the morning of Nov. 8, prosecutor Paul Hora resumed his Opening Statement by continuing his two-pronged approach. Recall that, to get a conviction from the jury, Hora has to accomplish two things:

(1) Prove that Nina is dead, not "missing"; and
(2) Prove that Hans killed her.

Hora's task is made doubly difficult because, as he admits, this is a purely circumstantial evidence case: There is no dead body, no murder weapon found, and no witness(es).

(1) Nina is dead:

Yes, Nina could be dead. She may have died at Ellen Doren's house. Then again, she could be deliberately laying low, in order to have Hans convicted of her murder. She may be conspiring with her family to milk the situation for all that they can. Her mother, Irina Sharanova, has already received $20,000 from CBS.[42]

* Hora describes the efforts taken by Nina's then-boyfriend, Anthony, to look for her. He repeatedly called her; drove by her house; drove around Oakland; distributed missing person flyers; and put up 18 "$15,000 Reward" missing-person billboards. He also went to Nina's home (he has a key), but found nothing out of the ordinary. Her black cat was there. Anthony looked at Nina's computer (he has her password) and looked through her e-mail and Internet browsing history.

* Next, Hora describes police efforts to search for Nina. They went to her home and took many pictures. Every room in her home appeared neat and orderly. On the kitchen table, two sets of glasses and spoons were laid out. On the refrigerator was a calendar on which Nina had written her kids' breakfasts and lunches. In the kitchen sink were two plants in small pots, as if Nina had left them there to drain after having just watered them. On the wall over her bed in her bedroom was the large photo-portrait of Nina holding baby Rory which DA Hora has displayed in the courtroom.

* Evidence found by the police pointing to Nina's death:

Her Russian and American passports, found in her home.
INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) has no record of Nina having left the United States.
No results from the National Missing Person database.
No activity in Nina's financial accounts (bank, credit cards) after her last transaction at Berkeley Bowl on Sept. 3, the day of her disappearance.
No cell phone activity after her last call to Hans at his Exeter home on Sept. 3.
Nina missed some very important dates, including appointments to be finger-printed for and to begin her new job with the SF Dept of Public Health.

(2) Hans killed Nina:

* Hora spent most of the morning on this. He began by noting important similarities between the locations of Nina's Odyssey minivan (found 6 days after her disappearance) and Hans' supposedly-missing Honda CRX. Both cars were found 2.5 to 3 miles from Hans's Exeter house. Both cars were parked on quiet residential streets near Highway 13. (In effect, Hora is suggesting that the same person, Hans, had hidden the two cars because the same modus operandi was employed.)

Important similarities? Chuckle. Isn't this guy, Hora, just something else?

* When Hans (unknowingly) led the police to his CRX on the night of Sept. 18, the police took photos of the car, put a GPS devise on it, then left the car where it was parked. The next morning, the car had not been moved. At 10:30am, the police had it towed to the crime lab and found the following:

Police claim that they spotted Hans running up Shepherd Canyon Road (all initial reports say Snake Boulevard) toward his home, which he shares with his mother, and is some two to three miles away.[43] If police actually believed their own claim, then there was almost no chance that Reiser would return to the Honda CRX that night. So, they may as well tow the vehicle there and then.

However, police placed a GPS devise on the car and left it parked where it was. Why did the police do this?

The next day, in a wire-tapped call, Hans asks his mother to meet him at the Mormon Temple (4770 Lincoln Ave, Oakland), saying, "I want to talk to you about something."[44] The Mormon Temple is about 3/4 of a mile from where his Honda CRX was parked.

So, why is it necessary to phone his mother from the Mormon Temple and arrange a meeting there, in order to share what he has on his mind? Why didn't he just do this in the morning, when he was at home with his mother.

Putting it slightly differently; Why would he walk from the house which he shared with his mother, to the Mormon Temple, in order to call his mother at the house he had just left, and ask her to meet him at the temple, so that he could speak to her?

Why did the police do this? The answer appears to be, because Hans slept in the car overnight and that police witnessed this. The reports of Hans running up Shepherd Canyon Road/Snake Boulevard were probably fabricated, by certain police, to draw unwanted police eyes away from seeing exactly what Reiser was about. For more on this, see [57].

-- The front passenger seat was gone, leaving four holes in the floor where the seat bolts would have been;

We are told that there was standing water in the car's front passenger seat. We are told that there were four holes in the floor where the seat bolts would have been. Why didn't the "standing water" drain through the holes? Are we being lied to yet again?

-- In the rear hatchback area (to which Hans was observed the previous evening to have repeatedly rummaged around in) were a spare tire, jack, a sleeping bag stuffsack, black plastic trashbags, and a socket set (that Hans bought the previous day, Sept. 17, from Kragen). Found in other areas of the car were: the two books on murder which Hans bought from Barnes and Noble; a camping tent; a map of Stockton; an atlas of Northern California; clothes; flyers from a rental storage place in Manteca; an U-Haul one-way Manteca-to-Oakland rental agreement; receipts (from Kragen, Target, etc.); a ratchet, socket, and adapter (all from the socket set); and 4 seat bolts. Hora then showed a photo showing how the bolt fits perfectly into one of the holes in the car's floor beneath the missing passenger seat.

A sleeping bag stuffsack, a camping tent, but no sleeping bag? Until Jan. 22, 2008, not a single press report mentions a sleeping bag in the vehicle. Not a single report, made public by the court, mentions a sleeping bag in the vehicle. Do you really think it likely that there was no sleeping bag in the vehicle, or do you think that the press, the courts and the police have all deliberately failed to mention this? After Jan. 22, 2008, the fact that there was a sleeping bag in the vehicle, was commonly acknowledged.

Food and drinks, reading material and toiletry items were also found in the vehicle.[45] Before Jan. 22, 2008, there was no mention of any of these items which indicate Hans was living in the vehicle.

-- DNA tests on stains found on the sleeping bag stuffsack show that one stain from a female donor is an exact match of Nina's DNA. The second stain was from a male donor, which is an exact match of Hans' DNA.

We are to believe, that the traces of Nina's blood on the sleeping bag stuffsack, are "evidence" that Nina has been stabbed, or slashed, to death. Therefore, the traces of Hans' blood on the sleeping bag stuffsack, must be "evidence" that Hans has also been stabbed, or slashed, to death. However, no cuts, scratches, or even bruises, were found on Hans Reiser.[4,5,6] Clearly, something is wrong here.

The problem is, that the blood traces do not imply recent cuts, or scratches. In fact, the blood traces may have been left on the stuffsack, some months, even years, before. Forensics, does not tell you how long ago the blood was deposited.

Palmer, testified that Hans and Nina had often stayed over at her home and that they had slept in sleeping bags.[46] The blood was possibly deposited on the stuffsack then. Hans has testified that while married to Nina, they used the sleeping bag itself, as a comforter on their bed, and that they had sex on it.[47]

-- After all the stuff in the car was removed, there was a dark wet (but rustless) area on the car floor. Ordinarily, persistent wetness would lead to rusting. However, weather records for the month of September 2006 show that Northern California had been without rain and dry. All of which suggests that the wet area in Hans' car floor was recent. Though recent, it was VERY wet: the water soaked through the car mat to the floor board.

Continued below.

[Jade]

There is no evidence Hans washed the Honda CRX, at all. We only know is that there was (supposedly) standing water in front passenger seat area. Hans could have simply spilt a bottle of mineral water there. After all, he was living in the car and needed a drink from time to time.

-- Finally, the car's battery is 3 years old, with a "Sept '03" date. Recall that, to explain why he wasn't driving the CRX, Hans had told his mother on Sept. 5 (2006) that his car's battery was dead. But on Sept 12, Hans was driving the CRX in Redwood City when a cop gave him a traffic citation (for not yielding to a bus). There was also nothing wrong with the car battery on Sept. 18. (In other words, DA Hora is suggesting that Hans lied to his mom about the CRX being inoperative due to a dead battery.)

The implication here is clearly wrong. It is possible to run a car with no battery at all. By push starting it, for example. It is common that a car with a near dead battery, after being started with jumper leads, will run all day (even with stopping and starting the motor). It is also common, that that same car, will not start the next morning.

* On Sept. 23, Hans made 3 separate cash withdrawals, of $1000 each, from his credit union in 3 cities (San Leandro, Hayward, Fremont).

There was a withdrawal limit of $1000 at each of the credit unions.[48]

* That evening, 20 days after Nina had disappeared, Hans called his mother in her Exeter home. By this time, Oakland PD had the phone tapped. DA Hora then plays the audiotape of the phonecall, in which Hans portrays himself as the reasonable party and victim in the divorce. He had wanted a mediator, but not Nina. Nina has Munchausen-by-proxy syndrome, concocting imagined illnesses for their son, Rory. Both Rory and Hans were her proxy. "By finding him (Rory) borderline autistic, that was her way of degrading me." "Rory said he wanted to live only with me and I think that's because he understands his mother, who wants him to be sick... on some deep conflicted level."

Hans also says Nina is profligate and a liar: "She would do things like she would buy this really fancy laptop... but we got her in (divorce) deposition on that one... prove she was lying. She stole stuff... money. At the time that I was asking my guys (employees of Hans' company, Namesys) to take pay cut... she was spending money like crazy" to inflate the baseline for her future spousal support. "She was doing that while the company was going bankrupt. She concealed money, don't know how much, before and after the divorce. She hates me and calls the police, she knows that she's a woman, but in this case it didn't work. The police wanted to arrest her, but I wouldn't let them -- I wasn't bruised... If your wife hits you and hits you during the divorce, you should have police arrest her. But I didn't. Being decent was a mistake I paid for heavily. Rory would be better if she had gone to jail... She just abused me, she looks for every possible way to screw me -- and did it. The fact that I was a good and generous husband seems to be a weakness to her."

Hans' mother, Beverly: "Hans, as bad as this all is, it's still bad what happened to her. She didn't deserve whatever that happened to her, whatever she did, done."

Hans: "I don't think my children should be endangered by her. That's all I ever wanted was unite with her and give her an opportunity to come to the U.S., to have some children."

Beverly: "She still didn't deserve what happened to her."
Hans: "Yeah, and neither did I, and neither did Rory."
Beverly: "Hopefully we'll somehow get through this."
Hans: "It's just that...the whole court system made it so much worse than it had to. Just so much worse."
Beverly: "Well, that's true."
Hans: "These lawyers systematically drain me of what I have... used it to make money." Referring to Nina's divorce attorney Shelley Gordon, Hans says "she had the nerve to tell me I deserve it."

The phonecall ends with Hans promising he'll e-mail her (which suggests that Hans wasn't living in the Exeter home (he was living in his car)), and Beverly reminding him of an upcoming appointment to see his children (by this time they were in foster care). Hans concludes the phonecall, "Byebye, I love you. I love you a lot."

* On Sept. 24, Hans withdraws yet more cash from 3 ATMs in Truckee. He also buys a phonecard in Roseville on Sept. 27.

* By Sept. 28, police had sufficient evidence for a search warrant. Hans was taken to the PD, had his picture taken (looking much heavier, 20 lbs?, (40 lbs) than he appears today in the courtroom), and examined. No scratches or bruises were found on his body. Inside his fannypack were the following:


$8,960 in cash.
Hans' U.S. passport.
Borders' and Barnes and Noble Rewards Cards.
Receipts.
A cellphone, with its battery removed (but the battery is in the fannypack). Hora asks rhetorically: "How many people drive around with the battery removed from the cellphone, or with the passenger seat removed?"
A typed (unlikely, probably printed) three-page statement titled "Statement by Hans Reiser," in which Hans accuses Nina of making up lies about herself (that she has post-traumatic disorder) and about Rory's illnesses. Hans rails against Nina being awarded sole custody of Rory; says his children in Nina's care are sleeping poorly on a plastic mattress. "I may be a danger in the worldview of some, but I'm no danger to my children."

* The police released Hans that evening (Sept. 28) and began a 24-hour surveillance. On the morning of October 10, the police arrested Hans Reiser for the murder of Nina.

With this, Hora ends his Opening Statement, reminding the jury again that they must evaluate each piece of evidence and ask what it means. "Think about all the circumstances surrounding Nina's disappearance and Hans' behaviors. There's really one simple explanation, and that's that (pointing at Hans) this man killed her. I ask you to return a verdict of 'guilty' of murder, homicide."

Actually, there is another simple explanation, and that is that the police, Hora, etc, are trying to frame Hans Reiser for a murder that he never committed and probably, never happened.

Defense attorney William Du Bois' opening statements.

After the lunch break, court resumes at 2pm with the Opening Statement of Hans' defense attorney, William Du Bois.

Du Bois is medium-height, 60-something, with greying hair, a slight belly paunch, glasses, and overall avuncular looking. He is certainly not the kind of slick, preening, media-hogging defense lawyers whom we have seen so much of late. He also clearly is a seasoned attorney: he gave a bravura performance, without reading from notes, and was quite funny at times. That being said, I find at least one of his tactics to be underhanded and objectionable (more on this later).

Put in a nut shell, Du Bois's charge is to induce reasonable doubt in at least ONE juror about the prosecution's contention that Nina is dead, and that it was Hans who killed her. To do that, it appears that Du Bois has adopted a three-pronged strategy of: (1) We don't really know what happened to Nina; (2) Hans is innocent of murder; and (3) Prosecution cannot be trusted.

(1) We don't really know what happened to Nina:

What Defense must do is to introduce doubt about almost everything concerning this case, chief of which is the Prosecution's portrayal of Nina as a good mother who fell victim to her heartless estranged husband. In fact, just about everything the Prosecution has said about Nina is untrue because it is simply the fictitious public image that Nina concocted and projected - "she attends carefully to her public image" - as much a lie as that lovely photo portrait of Nina holding baby Rory, that is displayed in the courtroom. According to Du Bois, the true Nina is a master manipulator who uses men, is secretive, unfaithful, and weaves "a pattern of deception."

Actually, all the defense has to do is show that the police only had one suspect, Hans, from the beginning and tried to slant everything against Hans. The police tried everything short of faking physical evidence. The police ignored other potential killers, like Ellen Doren.

To begin with, the way Hans and Nina met was seedy (not Du Bois's word, but implied). They had met when Hans answered Nina's personal ad in "European Connections," a dating-service (Du Bois dubs it "mail order bride") magazine published in Atlanta, USA. Du Bois then projects on the screen a page from the mag's June 1998 issue: There are 13 photos of various women, at least one of whom appears to be naked. Next, Du Bois shows us the page with Nina's ad and photo, in which Nina5279 is described as "24, 5' 3", 106 lbs, a university student, fluent in English and German, seeking a nice man with many interests" who is interested in a relationship. It is here that the real Nina "is better portrayed." Du Bois makes note of how she described herself as a university student, not the "doctor" that the Prosecution claims. "She's never been a doctor," although she did have "a medical background beyond Biology I."

Du Bois makes note of how she described herself as a university student, not the "doctor" that the Prosecution claims. "She's never been a doctor," although she did have "a medical background beyond Biology I." That's interesting.

Continued below.

[banaantje12]

Yep I have...:

WOW!

[joshuapurcell]

Why do you think Reiser is not guilty? Why would people want him in prison and would go to such great lengths to have that happen (framing him for his wife's murder)?

[Jade]

Why do you think Reiser is not guilty? Why would people want him in prison and would go to such great lengths to have that happen (framing him for his wife's murder)?
My guess is that it has something to do with shutting down Reiser4.

There was a pre-existing conspiracy to close down Reiser4.

Speaking of Reiser4:

REISER4 HOWTOS.

Some Amazing Filesystem Benchmarks. Which Filesystem is Best?
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

Compiling yourself a 2.6.23 Kernel (with Reiser4 support). (2.6.24 Kernel Patch)
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/compile-kernel.htm

Installing your favorite Linux Distro on Reiser4.
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/install-on-reiser4.htm

Installing GRUB on a Reiser4 Partition.
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/grub-reiser4.htm

[conholster]

My guess is that it has something to do with shutting down Reiser4.


Why would anyone want to shutdown Reiser4? Its not like filesystems is a big business like operating systems.

Great "article"! I have always thought Hans is innocent. Wondering if he'll continue with reiserfs/4 when he's freed?

[StringCheesian]

So, it appears that certain kernel developers are deliberately crippling Reiser4. Or, perhaps, Hans Reiser and the Namesys developers are just much better coders, and the kernel developers adjustments, have just made good code, bad. Certainly, many people have been lying about the qualities and abilities of the Reiser4 filesystem, and such active sabotage, by a few developers, is the most likely explanation.
No, it's probably due to what some people call bit rot. You see, a patch's impact on performance is not a huge priority when said patch is an urgent security or crash fix. Therefore, reiser4 is going to degrade over time until most of the people with commit access really care about keeping it fast or until it has somebody constantly re-optimizing it to compensate.

Malice is not the only explanation. Apathy fits just fine. Try not to be so quick to jump to conspiracy theory.

[joshuapurcell]

No, it's probably due to what some people call bit rot. You see, a patch's impact on performance is not a huge priority when said patch is an urgent security or crash fix. Therefore, reiser4 is going to degrade over time until most of the people with commit access really care about keeping it fast or until it has somebody constantly re-optimizing it to compensate.

Malice is not the only explanation. Apathy fits just fine. Try not to be so quick to jump to conspiracy theory.

My point exactly. I don't understand why there has to be some huge hidden conspiracy behind Hans Reiser and the reiser filesystem. Jade, why do you believe there is this conspiracy? You've obviously spent alot of time following all this (if you've spent half has much time as you have making posts about it in this forum then that's alot), so where is the conspiracy? Who are the culprits? What is there motive? Why Hans Reiser?

[zappa86]

One of the articles you linked Jade mentioned that Redhat tried to sabotage parts of the kernel. Do you know how this conclusion was reached?

[edged]

Its not like filesystems is a big business like operating systems.

Actually they are. Examples would be in data mining, data warehousing, long-term data storage, specialized applications etc.

When you get into what most people would consider "extreme circumstances" in data storage requirements, it becomes a very serious topic.

Just look at who the main sponsors for Resier3 were...

[edged]

Thanks for the links, you should probably also put a link to the original this is based on (the Wired Blog).

Remember that in the country this takes place (the murder trial), it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't even matter what the jury itself thinks of the person's character or "acting strangely" (atleast it's not supposed to) - what matters is what you can prove.

Guilt must be proven, a person is innocent until proven guilty in the USA. There has been a lot of conjecture and circumstantial evidence, which does not mean proof at all.

As to the "kernel saboteurs", uhhmmmm. I have been a user of reiserfs3 for years and never noticed all these "issues" that people all of a sudden came up with (after Reiser was arrested). In fact I never was affected by any sort of corruption or whatnot - in 6+ years of using the filesystem (since 2.4.0)!

ResierFS v4 is something I've wanted to try for a while, but it seems as if everytime I've gone to just do it that I've been "blocked" by one thing or another (boot CD lacks support, kernel patch is broken, developer kernel has bugs, etc.).

The problem was not that I couldn't just use a NameSys patch on my own kernel (I used my own kernel anyway), and do a double install to get the main install up on v4, the issue was that the last time I looked the last patch I could find to be easily hacked to use a recent kernel (one I wanted) did not support compression. That is the sole reason for me wanting to migrate from v3 to v4, is the realtime compression (not for space increase, but for performance increase).

What I can say from my experience personally is this: there were several reiserfs v4 patches in a certain kernel developer's tree that were not immediately apparant to be broken... but they were/are. An unnecessary kludge was introduced for no reason what-so-ever, which was the cause of the corruption. This developer is a very "big-name" person, and I will not tell you of whom I speak (this is not about flames, and I don't know why he did it i.e. a mistake or misunderstanding or what). Needless to say however, a lot of people use his patches for bleeding-edge features, mainly because he is supposed to be "dependable" and "official". So of course, eventually it was noticed - this few lines of code that was unecessarily introduced causing the coruption, and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer. Then he proceeded to do a rewrite and what appeared as "cover his tracks".

Anyhow that is what happened. Make of it what you will, but it surely was NOT bitrot or anything so simple...

If you want to look at conspiracy theories, look at who the biggest sponsor was originally. There's your answer right there, and probably what they'd do to "get rid" of the filesystem (have the inventor locked away) :p

BTW I've never understood the obsession about ext2 and ext3. ext2 was the worst filesystem I've used since the old days of UFS, and the only filesystems I've personally had explode were both ext2/ext3.

I think I'll go install onto v4 now and do whatever necessary to get it done (if that means reintegrating compression back into the latest version then so be it). I want to do some benchmarks and stress-testing ;)

[Jade]

As to the "kernel saboteurs", uhhmmmm....

What I can say from my experience personally is this: there were several reiserfs v4 patches in a certain kernel developer's tree that were not immediately apparant to be broken... but they were/are. An unnecessary kludge was introduced for no reason what-so-ever, which was the cause of the corruption. This developer is a very "big-name" person, and I will not tell you of whom I speak (this is not about flames, and I don't know why he did it i.e. a mistake or misunderstanding or what). Needless to say however, a lot of people use his patches for bleeding-edge features, mainly because he is supposed to be "dependable" and "official". So of course, eventually it was noticed - this few lines of code that was unecessarily introduced causing the coruption, and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer. Then he proceeded to do a rewrite and what appeared as "cover his tracks".
"...and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer..."

Would really like to hear his "excuse."

[Jade]

Notes From The First Two Days
Of The Hans Reiser Trial.
Continued from above.

It turns out that Nina wasn't the first person "of such ilk" whom Hans had met through the magazine. The first was Eleana, "more attractive than Nina," whom Hans "sent back" to Russia because she wasn't interested in having children. When Hans met Nina5279, they "hit it off" and Hans tells Nina all about Eleana, which led to Nina "putting into effect" her personal "five-year plan." (By "five-year plan," Du Bois is alluding to the former Soviet Union's penchant for formulating Five-Year Plans for the country's economic development. This was necessitated by the Soviet economy being a command economy of central planning, instead of a market economy based on supply and demand.)

Nina is unlikely to have had any fixed "Five-Year Plan." It seems she wanted to emigrate to the U.S. Her two years at high school in Providence, Rhode Island,[49,50] may have sold her on this idea. She probably would have been happy if the marriage with Hans had worked out, but it didn't. She waited until she had citizenship (May, 2004) to divorce him (filed May, 2004). On May 15, 2004, their fifth-year anniversary, Nina kicked him out of their house and told him she had arranged for him to live with his mother.[51]

True to her "five-year plan," Nina became pregnant within two months after meeting Hans. She was 5-months pregnant when they married. The wedding itself "is slightly less than bizarre, but close" because Sean Sturgeon (one of Hans' best friends who later became Nina's lover) showed up "in drag as the maid-of-honor." And so the marriage began "a marriage that begins in relative happiness and ends in vitriolic divorce," in which Nina "wasn't that much interested in Hans" but "tolerated him" because "that was part of her 5-year Plan."

Throughout their marriage - and after - Nina would make periodic trips back to Russia. After she separated from Hans in 2004, she went back for 3 months; just before she "went missing," she had been in Russia for 3 weeks.

Setting things up for her disappearance? She took Rory with her on this trip and (in defiance of a court order) arranged Russian citizenship for him.[52] She returns to the United States on July 23, 2006.[53]

"Not much is known about what Nina was doing in Russia." This much we do know "her father still works in a resort of the former KGB," the notorious secret police of the former Soviet Union, now renamed FSB (Federal Security Bureau). Du Bois darkly hints, "What Nina's connections with the KGB we don't know because we can't subpoena their records." But we must ask why someone from such a successful family and background was so desperate to get out of Russia as to advertise in "European Connections"?

It was in the latter part of their marriage while Hans was working for the U.S. Department of Justice, that Nina "took up with" Sean Sturgeon, "a sadomasochist" who had the word "rage" "carved, not tattooed, on his arm." Sean Sturgeon was also a druggie. But he was generous with Nina, providing her $8500 a month, which was why Nina could wear "designer clothes," such as the designer T-shirts she wears, "and lived a high life." Ultimately, after one-and-a-half years, Nina terminated the relationship. Her next boyfriend was Anthony who, like Sean, is "also a financially successful man" - all this "while Nina and Hans were fighting over their divorce and custody."

Nina began her three year extramarital sexual affair with Sturgeon, in the summer of 2001, shortly after the birth of her daughter, Niorlene.[54]

But Nina could not even be true to Anthony. After she went missing, Anthony had gone to her home and looked at her computer's Internet browsing history, hoping to find clues as to her whereabouts. As late as September 2, the day before she disappeared, she was "combing through Craig's List for new male liaisons." And she was doing this - downloading ads of "males with children" who want "liaisons with females with kids" - in the 45 minutes when Anthony left her home to run an errand! Du Bois then projects onto the screen pictures attached to a sample of the personal ads on Craig's List. The photos are dark and murky looking, but they appear pornographic. Some display genitals; one is of a female giving a man a BJ. Du Bois apologizes about the photos, but he is being disingenuous because he lets the photos linger on the screen. (This is where I think Du Bois crosses the line - he clearly is trying to taint the jury's image of Nina with these porno pics, although Nina does not appear in any of them.)

It is in her computer that "the true Nina" is found, says Du Bois. The photo-portrait of the lovely Madonna Nina is the image that she wants the world to have. "That's why she hung it over her bed." "This is the pattern of deception common in Nina's life." Du Bois then intimates rather ominously and archly, "Maybe she was seeing one of those (Craig's List) guys and something happened to her."

(2) Hans is innocent of murder:

Any defense attorney who has an unlikable person for a client has his work cut out of him. William Du Bois knows this. So he wisely chooses, as the second prong in his defense strategy, to admit this reality.

Right from the beginning of his Opening Statement, Du Bois says to the jury, "I can tell you from the beginning that Hans Reiser is an odd person. He is extremely intelligent if we mean by that" the kind of intelligence measured by IQ tests. He "may not be genius, but he's certainly one of the smartest people I've ever met."

In other words, Hans Reiser is the stereotypic geek. He invented the ReiserFS open-source filing system for computers, "the best in the world," which he "pretty much donated to Linux Operating System." Hans' invention became "a free system that anyone in the world can use free," which earned him much "applause from the community of geeks."

But although Hans may have a high IQ, he lacks emotional intelligence. Unlike Nina who is "a world class people's skills individual," Hans "is devoid of social skills" and "difficult to communicate with." Worse still, he is "irascible, self-centered," a "megalomaniac" who "has an inflated image of himself, almost as much as Nina's projected image of herself."

It is his egomania that explains that phone call he made to his mother Beverly on Sept. 23 in which he complained about Nina inventing illnesses and disorders about their son. Du Bois explains, "Hans is such an egomaniac, so self-centered and self-consumed" that "he doesn't even listen to people," including his mom. "The only thing that's important to Hans is what he thinks is important."

Hans also "is a lot paranoiac," even in the best circumstances as when he gives lectures to fellow "computer geeks who worship him." To Hans, "there's no such thing as a simple idea." Being paranoiac, he "asks what it means, what's the implications." Du Bois then refers to a TV show called "Big Bang Theory" and says that it "describes Hans perfectly." His paranoia and plain oddness mean that "no matter what Hans does, it's suspicious." In fact, Du Bois tells the jury that "I think you'll find that Hans ALWAYS acts suspiciously."

For example, the Prosecution has noted that on Sept. 5, 2 days after Nina's disappearance, Hans called her cell phone but left no message. Du Bois explains that Hans never leaves phone messages for Nina because in the early days of their divorce, his messages were "used against him." Then there is Hans' seemingly suspicious response to Nina's best friend Ellen's phone call that evening. Ellen said that she knows Nina had gone to his house on Sunday, Sept. 3. Hans' response was "I need to talk with my attorney." Du Bois explains that Hans knows Ellen doesn't like him, because she is Nina's best friend. So when Ellen says that she knows Nina had gone to Hans' house and that Hans was the last person to see her, Hans thought Ellen was "up to something." When he said, "I need to talk with my attorney," he meant his divorce attorney.

This "explanation" seems to be designed to hide the fact that Oakland police had just conducted a phone interview with Reiser and thus his "I need to talk with my attorney." is perfectly understandable.[16,17]

Then there are the two books on murder he purchased at Barnes and Noble on Sept. 8, 5 days after Nina's disappearance. Du Bois explains that the day before, Sept. 7, Hans "walked into" Du Bois's office where he was told that the police always regards the husband as the prime suspect in missing wife cases. So Hans decided to inform himself on police "excesses" in homicide investigation by buying the books. Nor is there anything sinister about Hans paying cash for his purchases. Hans wasn't trying to hide anything by paying with cash because he keeps all his receipts!

As for the counter-surveillance moves that Hans made vis-a-vis the police following him-driving fast, then slowly; exiting and quickly reentering the highway-Du Bois explains that, due to his business involvement in Russia, Hans "is convinced that he's being followed by the Russian mafia and the FSB (i.e., the KGB)."

His paranoia also explains his strange behavior concerning the Honda CRX. Du Bois says Hans' mother Beverly has testified that, after Nina disappeared, Hans was sleeping in the CRX's front seat. That was why he removed the passenger seat - for more room. He also "experimented with trying to live in a storage locker," which explains the flyers from the Manteca storage facility.

Continued below.

[Jade]

"...and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer..."

Would really like to hear his "excuse."
edged -- Honest. I really would like to hear his answer.

[Jade]

(3) Prosecution cannot be trusted:

The third prong in the Defense's strategy is to introduce in the jurors skepticism about the Prosecution. Du Bois tries to do that by saying the following:

* DA Paul Hora has told the jury that Hans has a black belt in judo and that one of the skills in judo is "the art of strangling." Du Bois, very logically, asks if Hans indeed is this "master strangler," why was there no (significant amount of) blood in the Exeter residence? Those bloody smears on the wooden post in the living room "were left there for a long time." The stains (on the stuffsack) are not even "evident" except under the "special light" used by the forensic experts. (The blood on the pillar was quite visible.)

* It is precisely because there's no (significant amount of) blood, that explains why the police did not find any cuts, bruises, or scratches on Hans when they detained him on Sept. 28. Given that, how did his DNA get onto the pole and the sleeping bag stuffsack? Actually, his and Nina's DNA could well be because when they first married, they lived in the Exeter house and slept in the sleeping bag for a year.

* Nor is Hora credible in his account of the police chase on Sept. 18, specifically the account by one police officer of Hans "sprinting uphill" toward the Exeter house. Pointing to the defendant, Du Bois reminds the jury of the image of Hans captured by Barnes and Noble's security camera. "He was fat" - too fat to "sprint" up Shepherd Canyon. "You'd have to be in marathon shape to do that."

The police account of Sept. 18, is partially fabricated.[57]

* Then there is the matter of Hans' cell phone when the police detained and searched him on Sept. 28. Hora has said that the battery was removed from the cell phone - just as the battery was removed from Nina's cell phone when her car was found 6 days after her disappearance. Unlike Nina's cell phone, which was photographed by the police, clearly showing that its battery had been removed, Du Bois warns the jury that "you won't see a picture of his (Han's) cell phone with the battery out. Instead, the court saw "only a picture of his phone." Du Bois then outright accuses Prosecution of lying: "that's an attempt to make this case fit 'the glass slipper'."

The prosecution is more than willing to lie about any aspect of the case, if they feel they can get away with it.

Removing the battery of a cellphone stops it being tracked. However, turning it off, does the same. Jody Citizen, of Verizon Wireless, testified that you can't be located when the phone is turned off.[55] All the interest in batteries being removed from cellphones, revolves around the mistaken idea, that turning it off, is not sufficient to prevent it being traced. Apparently, this mistaken idea is due to Nina.[56] Isn't it strange that this mistaken idea, should feature so prominently in the case. It is almost like Nina is directing the action.

* Du Bois also argues that, contrary to what Prosecution claims, there is a witness. In Hora's Opening Statement, which Du Bois amiably but archly contends should more accurately be called an opening "argument," Hora has spent "so much time" telling the jury that they must not lend stock to any testimony by Hans and Nina's son Rory because his young age makes him unreliable as a witness (Rory was 6 when Nina disappeared; (He was 25 days from being 7.) he is now 8). Hora has said that Rory gave erroneous and conflicting accounts of that critical day. But Du Bois maintains that, despite the efforts of the police and child protective services to "get Rory to say something against his father," Rory actually testified "clearly and unequivocally" in the Preliminary Hearings that he saw his mother leave the Exeter house that day. More than that, Rory was precise. He said that, as she was leaving, Nina "gave him a hug" near the front door, with Hans standing "two feet" away. After she left, Hans and Rory went downstairs. Rory played computer games, while Hans was nearby in the same room. That night, the boy slept in Hans' bed.

In other words, Du Bois is saying that not only did Hans not kill Nina in the Exeter house because their son saw her leaving ("no amount of judo training can project through a wooden front door to the outside"), Hans also had no opportunity to kill her AFTER she left. Between 2:30 pm (when Nina left Exeter) and 6 pm (when Ellen reported Nina to be missing), Hans was downstairs in the same room with Rory. That is why the Prosecution wants the jury to dismiss the boy as "unreliable" This is when Du Bois makes the startling announcement that Rory will testify next Tuesday.

Of course, there was another witness to events that day, Niorline (then aged 5). The defense has not called Niorline.

Court will resume Tuesday, November 13, at 9:45 am.

Continued below.

[Jade]

References:

[1] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698) Nina Reiser's best friend, Ellen Doren, lives on Capricorn.
[2] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/12/BAGSPL3LIP1.DTL) "She was planning to go shopping at Berkeley Bowl that afternoon," said Anthony Zografos, her boyfriend. "Then she was going to go to her friend's."
[3] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698) Judge Larry Goodman,... may have caught it, because the jurist put his head in his hand and stared directly at the defense attorney, as if waiting to see whether Du Bois would go any further with the whole Capricorn thing. He didn't.
[4] (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser?currentPage=all) At the police station, they photographed his body for signs of scratches or bruises. None were found.
[5] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/oakland-califor.html) "Other than those acne or a scratch, you didn't find any other marks that indicate a struggle that day?" defense attorney William DuBois asked Grant, who was under cross examination. "Correct sir." ... He later added that "There were some small marks, but nothing of significance."
[6] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/#NoScratchesBruises) Hans was taken to the PD, had his picture taken ... and examined. No scratches or bruises were found on his body.
[7] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/scientist-now-n.html) And DNA testing cannot determine the age of blood stains.
[8] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/21/BAG29N3O5N1.DTL) Cavness acknowledged.., that DNA testing can't confirm when bloodstains are deposited.
[9] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/reisers-mom-def.html) Under cross examination from DuBois, she recalled that when she returned home from the Burning Man festival the weekend Nina went missing, a wood pillar in the house with smudges on it looked the same as it did when she left.
[10] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/sfgate-blog-Dec3.htm) She said that her son told her that he and Nina had a disagreement over who was supposed to have the kids that weekend and that they "decided to share them and split it up."
[11] (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070103/ai_n17091375) Instead, Porter said, Nina Reiser's friend, Ellen Doren, came to get the children in the middle of the afternoon.
[12] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698) Ellen Doren, came to the school at about 2:30 p.m.
[13] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698) But at about 5 p.m. that day,.. Hans Reiser showed up at Adventure Time,..
[14] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22698) Doren picked up the children at 5:15 p.m. after the after-school program got Hans Reiser's permission for her to do so.
[15] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BAOFUTA27.DTL) At 5:04 p.m. that day, an eight-second call was made on his (Hans Reiser's) cell phone to Nina Reiser's cell phone, the phone records showed.
[16] (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15532627.htm) Jordan said police spoke to Hans Reiser by phone on Sept. 5, two days after Nina Reiser was last seen. Jordan described the conversation as "an interview, not an interrogation."
[17] (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4563722) Jordan said police spoke to Hans Reiser by phone on Sept. 5, two days after Nina Reiser was last seen. This was later changed to: Oakland police talked to Hans Reiser on Sept. 5, two days after Nina Reiser was last seen alive, but haven't talked to him since then.
[18] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/03/BAG16NC1611.DTL) On cross-examination, Potter said that when Doren arrived, she told school employees that Nina Reiser, 31, was out of town. But the missing woman's daughter was with Doren at the time, and Doren made the remark "for the benefit of the child," Potter said.
[19] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/sfgate-blog-Dec3.htm) On Sept. 10, 2006, a week after Nina disappeared, Hans called her from the Fresh Choice restaurant at the Bayfair Mall in San Leandro,.. She testified that she took the hybrid and parked it outside a friend's house in Oakland.
[20] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/sfgate-blog-Dec3.htm) She then rented a car and used it for about a week. Police later seized her hybrid. She then rented a second car from a different rental-car company.
[21] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22453) Oakland police tailed Hans and his mother as they went to a Budget Rent-a-Car in Hayward on Sept. 21, according to testimony. "Do you know why Hans was renting a car there?" Hora asked. "Well, I assume it's because the police had the CRX and he needed a car," Palmer said.
[22] (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/alameda_county/montclair/16246517.htm) Officer Guerrero testified that on Sept. 18, he and a team of surveillance officers, including one in an airplane, trailed Hans Reiser, 42, as he was driven by a male companion to several locations.
[23] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23502) Sanchez was in an airplane surveilling Hans Reiser on Sept. 18, 2006, assisting ground surveillance units.
[24] (http://www.nbc11.com/news/10528868/detail.html) According to a probable cause statement in the case, Hans Reiser and a male friend "appeared to be conducting counter surveillance" to avoid police by driving at varying speeds, turning down small quiet residential streets and making abrupt stops.
[25] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22785) Mishin testified that he had "no idea" at the time that Oakland police were secretly watching them. "They did a good job," Mishin said.
[26] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22453) "Did (Child Protective Services) say to you that they wouldn't let you have the children at the house if Hans was there?" Du Bois asked. "That's true," Palmer replied. Du Bois asked if it was after that CPS call that Hans said he was living in the car, and Palmer said, "That's right."
[27] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/reisers-mom-def.html) Before his arrest, Child Protective Services, the mom testified, said he could not live in the Oakland hills house with his children.
[28] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/sfgate-blog-Dec3.htm) Palmer said she doesn't remember where her son stayed in the few days after Nina disappeared. She said she was told Hans was sleeping in the CRX by Child Protective Services. That made him a poor candidate for getting custody of the children, officials told her. Palmer said she never saw her son sleeping in the CRX.
[29] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/#SleepingInTheCRX) Du Bois says Hans' mother Beverly has testified that, after Nina disappeared, Hans was sleeping in the CRX's front seat.
[30] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/reisers-mom-def.html) "Were you aware that Hans was living in his car?" DuBois asked the mother. "Yes."
[31] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/05/BA6OTO01T.DTL) The defendant said he removed the seat to make room for him to sleep.
[32] (http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_7751962) Reiser's defense attorney, William DuBois, has said that Reiser removed the front seat because he began to sleep in the car,..
[33] (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4558883) But other neighbors say they saw him spraying water off of something in the driveway for half-an-hour shortly after Nina went missing.
[34] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/witnesses-hans.html) Stabb, however, said he did not have direct vision of the driveway, and could not say for sure whether a car was being washed.
[35] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/witnesses-hans.html)"Even in the distance," Stabb said, "I could see he was dressed for winter ... a hunting jacket or something. I thought, Jesus." The next morning, Stabb said, the driveway was still filthy and covered with pine needles.
[36] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22600) McGothigan said he and Palmer,.. had attended the Burning Man festival in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. The two returned from the festival about 2 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006,..
[37] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/witnesses-hans.html) I thought it was kind of strange. ... 'What are you doing, washing the driveway?'"
[38] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/03/BAG16NC1611.DTL) To support his change of heart, Du Bois asked Grant if he knew the book includes a chapter about police planting evidence.
[39] (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070103/ai_n17091375) Yet, as Hans Reiser's attorney William DuBois pointed out, the books also discuss how police plant evidence to ensure victory in a case and, in the case of "Homicide," paints police department homicide units in an unfavorable light.
[40] (http://cbs13.com/local/Oakland.Murder.Case.2.475388.html) His lawyer said the books contain chapters on how police plant evidence and set up murder scenes.

Continued below.

[Jade]

Notes From The First Two Days
Of The Hans Reiser Trial.
Continued from above.

[41] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/12/state/n164036D62.DTL) "He's an intelligent man. He's going to want to know what the police were up to," he said. "What's he supposed to be doing, reading comic books?"
[42] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cbs-paying-nina.html) "Who offered to financially help you out?" "CBS." "Did CBS actually pay you?" "Yes." "How much money?" "$20,000."
[43] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/13/BAGORMUUN238.DTL) But as that was happening, another officer saw the defendant running up windy Snake Boulevard toward his house, Guerrero said.
[44] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22453) In another wire-tapped call Sept. 19, 2006 Hans asks her to pick him up at the Mormon Temple in the Oakland hills because "I want to talk to you about something."
[45] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=23672) Even so, Cavness confirmed to Tamor that the Honda contained food and drinks -- albeit with both full and empty containers -- as well as toiletry items, a sleeping bag and reading material.
[46] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/reisers-mom-def.html) Regarding the blood on the sleeping bag, Palmer testified that her son and daughter in law slept at her Oakland hills house often. "Did they ever use a sleeping bag when they slept there?" "I think so," Palmer replied.
[47] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/liveblog-hans-r.html) He says he had two identical sleeping bags, and he used them on camping trips and as a comforter on his bed while he was married to Nina. "Did you ever have sex on them?" DuBois asks. "Yes." "More than once?" DuBois continues. "Yes."
[48] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/hans-reiser-in.html) The day before the three Truckee ATM withdrawals, Reiser went inside three Bay Area Patelco branches and withdrew $1,000 three times, Morasch testified. He said the California-based credit union limits its members to $1,000 in cash withdrawals per day, per branch.
[49] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24157) From 1990-91, Nina Reiser attended Lincoln School in Providence, R.I., her mother said. She was 16 at the time.
[50] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/sfgate-blog-Dec3.htm) Palmer said she met Nina at the airport when she arrived in the United States from Russia. She told Hora she had a vague memory of Nina attending high school in Rhode Island.
[51] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24741) Reiser said that on May 15, 2004, their fifth-year anniversary, Nina kicked him out of the house they lived in on Jordan Street near 35th Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland.
[52] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/18/BAGT7NKU5518.DTL) Nina Reiser obtained Russian citizenship for her daughter two years ago and did the same for her son in July, two months before she disappeared, Du Bois said,..
[53] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24505) It appeared that Nina Reiser used her American passport to enter the U.S. on July 23, 2006, Levicoff said,..
[54] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=22453) Palmer said the couple grew apart when Nina began having an extramarital affair with Hans' best friend soon after the couple's daughter was born in May 2001.
[55] (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/nina-reisers-la.html) "And you can be located when they are making a call, is that correct?" DuBois asked Caniglia. "Yes." "But when the phone is turned off, you can't locate them, is that right?" "True."
[56] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=24769) Turning back to the cell phone and what he said Nina had recommended, he said, "I think the idea was that the police could trace my cell phone and merely turning it off wasn't enough."
[57] (http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/ReiserTrialSummaryAnalysis.htm) The Hans Reiser Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

[Jade]

Join the current DISCUSSION of the trial, at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25076

[Jade]

Hey,.. you are allowed to discuss the trial here too.

[Jade]

Trying to catch edged's attention:


As to the "kernel saboteurs", uhhmmmm....

What I can say from my experience personally is this: there were several reiserfs v4 patches in a certain kernel developer's tree that were not immediately apparant to be broken... but they were/are. An unnecessary kludge was introduced for no reason what-so-ever, which was the cause of the corruption. This developer is a very "big-name" person, and I will not tell you of whom I speak (this is not about flames, and I don't know why he did it i.e. a mistake or misunderstanding or what). Needless to say however, a lot of people use his patches for bleeding-edge features, mainly because he is supposed to be "dependable" and "official". So of course, eventually it was noticed - this few lines of code that was unecessarily introduced causing the coruption, and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer. Then he proceeded to do a rewrite and what appeared as "cover his tracks".
"...and when asked he gave the most unbelievable answer..."

I would really, really like to hear his "excuse."

[d2kx]

Hey,.. you are allowed to discuss the trial here too.

It is great that you take the time to keep us updated, but for me it's as simple as:

As long as he's not proven to be guilty, he's innocent.

[Jade]

As long as he's not proven to be guilty, he's innocent.
I'd go along with that.

However, he may be found guilty, when in fact he is not.

[Sleuth]

Why did Ellen not call Hans to inquire about Nina when Nina failed to show for their supper date on Sun Sep3. Ellen had been told by Nina that morning that Nina was going to drop the kids at Hans' house, run some errands, and then go to Ellens' house.

Nor did Ellen call Hans on Monday nor all day Tuesday.

Defense counsel also asked Ellen the same question. Ellen's "explanation"?

She did not know Hans'cell phone number

nor was there anyone around who might have told her the number. Apparently she did not ask Antony on Monday if he had Hans' number

The record shows that Antony cruised around on Monday and Tuesday looking for Nina's van and Hans' car. (He even drove by Sean Sturgeon's house looking for Nina's van. ) Antony did not call Hans either.

Antony and Ellen get together on Tues eve around 7PM and together put the kids to bed. They discuss what to do. Still no calls to Hans.

Finally, after 9PM, they decide to make a MP report. Officer Gill responds. Ellen tells him the kids are with her and she will take them to school next AM (Wed AM). Gill wants to make sure Hans is aware of that plan, noting that its Hans' kids, after all . He tells Ellen she must call Hans.

Miracle of miracles. Ellen is able to just that. How did she suddenly acquire Hans' cell phone number in order to make her first call to Hans? Could it be Ellen knew the number all along and deliberately refrained from calling Hans UNTIL Officer Gill insisted?

Ellen also testified she had no negative attitude to Hans at the time. But even if she had, would not her frantic worry about her best friend trump her diffidence as to Hans?

As it was, she and/or Officer Gill tell Hans he was the last person to see Nina. Which Ellen knew, of course. at 6:30PM on Sep3.

[Jade]

She did not know Hans'cell phone number

nor was there anyone around who might have told her the number. Apparently she did not ask Antony on Monday if he had Hans' number

Miracle of miracles. Ellen is able to just that. How did she suddenly acquire Hans' cell phone number in order to make her first call to Hans? Could it be Ellen knew the number all along and deliberately refrained from calling Hans UNTIL Officer Gill insisted?
As to how Doren came up with the cell-phone number,... it may (or may not) have come from the police officer Gill.

About Ellen Doren's suspicious behavior:

(a) Nina last known destination that day, was Ellen Doren's place. We have only Doren's word, that Nina never turned up. Maybe, one of Doren's kids might be able to verify that Nina did not turn up, but they are probably too little.

(b) Doren did not phone Hans Sunday evening (Sept 3), or visit his house, to find out if Nina might be with him and the children, or to see if she has picked up the children and gone elsewhere.

(c) Doren did not phone Hans Monday (Sept 4), or visit his house, to find out if Nina might be with him and the children, or to see if she has picked up the children and gone elsewhere.

(d) Doren did not phone Hans Tuesday (Sept 5), or visit his house, to find out if Nina might be with him and the children, or to see if she has picked up the children and gone elsewhere, until 9:21 p.m. that evening.

(e) Doren did not phone Hans and ask him to pick up the children from school, because Nina appeared to be missing.

(f) Doren did not phone the school to see if a teacher could surreptitiously ascertain whether the children know where Nina is. The teacher could simply ask, "Have you seen your mom recently?"

(g) Doren went to Adventure Time to pick up the Reiser kids at about 2:30 p.m. Sept 5. She did not have permission, so leaves without them. Why does she do this? Why does Doren feel it is her responsibility to pick up the kids. In the usual course of events this would now be Hans' responsibility. Why does Doren need to steal Hans' kids, anyway. What is motivating her?

(h) Doren tells Adventure Time employees that Nina is out of town. It is stated she does this "for the benefit of the child (the daughter Niorline)" who was with her. Why does Doren think the child will be upset by asking her if she has seen her mom recently?

(i) Doren doesn't ask the children if they know where their mother is. Why not? We are supposed to believe that Doren, who is "worried sick" about her missing friend Nina, does not bother to ask the Reiser kids if they have seen there mother recently, or otherwise, know where she is.

(j) After obtaining permission, Doren picks up the Reiser kids from Adventure Time around 5:30 p.m. Why does she want to pickup the kids. This should now be Hans responsibility.

(k) Doren appears to have lied about her various calls to Nina Reiser's cell phone. Doren said she kept waiting and calling. And then at 9 p.m., she left another message on Nina Reiser's phone. This time, it didn't ring and ring and instead went straight to voice mail. However, a Verizon employee testified that Doren's first call went straight to voice mail.

(l) Doren took more than two days to report to police that Nina had disappeared (from 6 p.m. Sept 3 to about 9 p.m. Sept 5).

(m) Nina's vehicle was found about a quarter mile from Doren's place (and about 3 miles from Hans' place).

(n) On Sept. 21, Doren gets custody of Reiser's kids. Why does Doren insist on getting custody of Reiser's kids? Why does she even apply for custody?

[Sleuth]

As to how Doren came up with the cell-phone number,... it may (or may not) have come from the police officer Gill.
I suppose it's possible Officer Gill, as a MP officer, is able to obtain a cell phone number for any given person. But neither Ellen nor Antony mention that Gill obtained Hans' number in their account of what transpired Tues night just before they finally call Hans. Ellen simply says that Gill told her to call Hans and she did so.

But its still hard to believe that Ellen had no way to contact Hans from 6:30PM Sun to 9PM Tuesday. She had been told earlier that day that the school was going to call Hans to get his permission for Ellen to pickup the kids at 5PM Tues. So why didn't Ellen ask them for Hans' number, or ask them to ask Hans to call her when THEY called Hans.

[CaptainAmerica]

I've been following this pathetic excuse for a trial for a while now, and it just continues to amaze me.

Now I've read some of this Jay Gaskill guy's blog on the matter. And this guy is a qualified lawyer and former public defender...?!? I pity his former clients. This is his "scorecard", blogged a while ago and updated recently:

----------
>Hans hated Nina and wanted her out of the way: Proved.
>Nina disappeared under sinister circumstances: Proved.
>If Nina could come back she would: Proved.
>Hans threatened Nina: Blocked [Pending – Hard Drive may reopen]
>Nina’s blood was left behind in sinister places: Proved [Blood evidence is still solid, but some circumstantial doubt was added]
>Hans destroyed key evidence: Proved.
>No one else is a plausible suspect: Open [Sean Sturgeon is the wild card here.]
>Hans has an alibi: Not Proved.
>Hans has lied about important matters: Proved.
>Hans behaved evasively when under suspicion: Proved.
>The only reasonable explanation is that Hans murdered Nina. ??? Still Open
------------

This is how you go about proving someone is a murderer is it?
Some of those items in the scorecard are just so ridiculous I am flabbergasted.

So its been proved that Hans behaved evasively when under suspicion.. SO WHAT! Being under suspicion of murdering your wife is not nice. Its gonna put any reasonable innocent person on the defensive, and of course they will behave evasively. That doesn't prove a thing.

>Hans hated Nina and wanted her out of the way: Proved.
Rubbish, it is easy to be very angry with someone and very upset with what they're doing, without hating them. There is a difference.

Nina disappeared in sinister circumstances? Absolute rubbish. The circumstances before her disappearance were sad. Not sinister. Only in hindsight can they be distorted into being "sinister". Washing a car and hosing down a driveway is "sinister" is it? If that's the case, the police can solve every missing persons case in the whole united states by convicting the missing person's spouse or neighbour or best friend... for having the gall to give their car a quick wash...

Hans destroyed key evidence? How do we know that for example, the car seat, was "key evidence"? Its been destroyed... the prosecution just WANTS people to believe it was key evidence, but, maybe it wasnt. Maybe it was just a dirty seat, which would have proved nothing. So, it has not been proved that Hans destroyed key evidence at all...

Gaskill says its been proved that Hans has lied about important matters... but, I mean, matters important to whom?? We all know Hans has unusual views on what is important and what is not. Just because some feeble scrap of far-fetched circumstantial supposition is important to the prosecution's case does not mean it was important to Hans before Nina's disappearance. Just because the prosecution say something is important now, to them - does not make it important, before Nina's disappearance, to Hans.

>Nina’s blood was left behind in sinister places: Proved [Blood evidence is still solid, but some circumstantial doubt was added]
Wrong, Nina's home is now a sinister place is it?

Jay Gaskill's statement:
">Hans threatened Nina: Blocked [Pending – Hard Drive may reopen]"
- that is SO biased! it seems wherever the prosecution can exaggerate and distort things enough to give a vague semblance or suggestion of "proof" for something which doesnt help Hans, Gaskell swallows it hook like and sinker. But when they utterly fail to prove something Gaskill says the question is blocked, or pending new evidence. Why doesnt he admit that this is NOT PROVED. He is sooo biased. Its simple. Proved, not Proved. In Gaskill's scorecard, he should be more upfront and admit that the two available options in his scorecard are: "Proved" and "Still waiting for some vague and feeble supposition which we can pass off as proof". And thats bullshit. This is a trial, not a JFK conspiracy-theory documentary done by the astrology channel. The options are proved and NOT PROVED, for God's sake.


Finally, we come to the most amazing elements of this scorecard. Gaskill says:

>No one else is a plausible suspect: Open [Sean Sturgeon is the wild card here.]

Am I missing something here? Is Gaskill being paid by the prosecutors office? Does he think we are all brain-damaged idiots??!?!he's saying noone else is a plausible suspect... OPEN???? Once again, the correct answer is NOT PROVED. OF COURSE there are other plausible suspects. he says Sturgeon is a "wild card".. a F$*#$& "wild card"!?!?!!!!! No, he's not a wild card for Gods sake, hes a PLAUSIBLE SUSPECT!!!! Why can't people admit this?!?! Sturgeon, who was Nina's boyfriend at the time - has already confessed to being a multiple-murderer himself!!!! And he's supposedly not a plausible suspect? Why? The only possible explanation is because the police were too lazy and stupid to investigate him, and because people like Gaskill are too biased to admit that this is a massive blunder by the police.

It is totally obvious now that there ARE other plausible suspects besides Hans. It wan't obvious back when the police first started railroading Hans into this mess. Back then, he was the only obvious suspect.

All this appalling "scorecard" of incompetence proves, is that poor Hans is a perfect victim for a frame-up or as a patsy so it looks like the police got the right man. But nothing in the scorecard even if all the answers did go against Hans, even comes close to proving Hans Reiser is a murderer. Sure, it would make him look like he could be one, but, it wouldn't prove he is one.

People who end up being murdered are, very often, the sort of people who make multiple enemies. And when Nina's boyfriend is a confessed multiple-murderer... how many more enemies does she need to end up dead?

It is the most absolutely stupid and utterly absurd mistake - to instantly seize on the most obvious suspect, look at a vague array of circumstances, conclude he had motive and opportunity, and then pronounce him guilty. So what if he had motive and opportunity, there may have been half a dozen other people who had more motive and more opportunity. Being the most obvious suspect, does not make Hans guilty.

And finally:
>The only reasonable explanation is that Hans murdered Nina. ??? Still Open

Eh?? Again... the only reasonable answer to that question is... NO. Of course there are other reasonable explanations. Perhaps we will never know all the details, because of the failure of the police to investigate anyone except Hans. There are so many holes in the prosecution's case, any reasonable person could drive a truckload of reasonable explanations through it, in their sleep.

This is my scorecard:
>Hans hated Nina and wanted her out of the way: Not Proved.
>Nina disappeared under sinister circumstances: Not Proved.
>If Nina could come back she would: Not even close to being proved.
>Hans threatened Nina: Not proved
>Nina’s blood was left behind in sinister places: Ridiculous question
>Hans destroyed key evidence: not Proved.
>There ARE other plausible suspects: Proved
>Hans has an alibi: Not Proved, so what.
>Hans has lied about important matters: Not Proved.
>Hans behaved evasively when under suspicion: Proved, but so what.
>The only reasonable explanation is that Hans murdered Nina. ??? NOT PROVED

[Jade]

I've been following this pathetic excuse for a trial for a while now, and it just continues to amaze me.

Now I've read some of this Jay Gaskill guy's blog on the matter. And this guy is a qualified lawyer and former public defender...?!? I pity his former clients. This is his "scorecard", blogged a while ago and updated recently:

Gaskill may seem like a senile old man, but he is just one of a team whose job it is to stitch up Hans Reiser.

>Hans hated Nina and wanted her out of the way: Proved.

If Gaskill were halfway honest he would have stated this:

>Hans hated Nina and wanted to kill here (to get her out of the way): NOT PROVED.

But Gaskill is not halfway honest, so he conflates "wants her out" with "kills her."

By the way, Nina started screwing Hans best friend about May 2001. She destroyed his life long friendship with Sturgeon. If Hans didn't kill her during her 3 year affair with Sturgeon, then he never would.

>Nina disappeared under sinister circumstances: Proved.

Sinister!?!?!? What were the sinister circumstances? Does he mean an ongoing divorce and related court action. Does he mean the sinister action of Hans looking after the kids on the day she disappeared.

Once more, Gaskill, being as dishonest as he is, wants you to see sinister circumstances, through the careful use of words.

Gaskill is trying to make circumstances appear sinister, even though they were not.

>If Nina could come back she would: Proved.

A total lie by Gaskill. If she is hiding out in Russia, by definition, she would not come back. Gaskill often resorts to telling lies, when it suits.

>Hans threatened Nina: Blocked [Pending - Hard Drive may reopen]

Big deal.

>Nina's blood was left behind in sinister places: Proved [Blood evidence is still solid, but some circumstantial doubt was added]

Gaskill is using words again to lie to you. Blood was found on a sleeping bag stuff-sack, on a post and a number of other places in the house. These places are not sinister.

The blood evidence is so poor, that the prosecution gave up on it and now claims that Hans chocked Nina with some judo hold. Gaskill does not mention this fact.

>Hans destroyed key evidence: Proved.

Hans tossed some car parts as he rearranged the car to sleep in. It is very questionable as to whether this was key evidence.

>No one else is a plausible suspect: Open [Sean Sturgeon is the wild card here.]

Ellen Doren actions are totally suspect. More so than those of Hans.

Ellen Doren should be on trial for murder.

>Hans has an alibi: Not Proved.

Hans has two witnesses who have provided alibis. Both son Rory and daughter Niorline have given multiple interviews to police and social workers concerning events. Gaskill deliberately ignores all this. Another example of him lying to you. If either Niorline or Rory had said anything implicating Hans, we would have read it in foot high letters in the controlled press.

>Hans has lied about important matters: Proved.

I think Hans has admitted to providing incorrect information concerning his habit of removing batteries from cellphones (this is totally unimportant anyway as turning a cellphone off, achieves the same effect as removing the battery).

>Hans behaved evasively when under suspicion: Proved.

Let's see how Ellen Doren reacts as her trial for murder begins.

>The only reasonable explanation is that Hans murdered Nina. ??? Still Open

More crap from Gaskill. There are many reasonable explanations that have been deliberately ignored by mouthpieces like Gaskill, the court system, etc.

[CaptainAmerica]

All the prosecution has is a bunch of circumstantial oddities, none of which prove a thing, and, none of which even combine well in order to form a sequence.

If Hans did kill Nina, he'd almost certainly have strangled her. Prosecution has mentioned his judo skills - he wouldn't have resorted to stabbing Nina messily to death when he could easily, silently, and cleanly strangle her.

Strangulation victims don't bleed. So old blood on a pillar is irrelevant. Even stabbing victims don't bleed after they're dead. So also Hans hosing down driveway is not sinister at all - as its very unlikely blood would have ended up on his driveway.

Blood on the pillar is downstairs.

So if Hans' poor nightmare-having kid did see Hans bringing Nina down the stairs, then, that means Hans killed Nina downstairs leaving blood on the pillar, then carried her blood-dripping body upstairs (without leaving any blood on stairs etc), and then, later, brought her downstairs wrapped in sleeping bag while his kid was watching (really smart...). Then the corpse bled through the sleeping bag all over the driveway, and then Hans propped the corpse up in the passenger seat, while the corpse bled all over that, and then he somehow miraculously disposed of her body. Of course, he kept the sleeping bag which he must've known had Nina's blood on it. He didnt dispose of that, did he. He brought the sleeping bag back home, so the police could find it and use it as evidence against him.

What a joke... How can the prosecution expect us to believe a ridiculous story like that? Accordign to the proscution, that day at Hans' house was something like the comedy movie Weekend at Bernie's.

Out of the pile of circumstantial "evidence" you can't put any of them together to form any consistent and reasonable outline of any crime. They're all just a jumble of unrelated circumstances being looked at individually and judged as suspicious, in hindsight, by extremely biased police and prosecution. Then, because there are a number of these unusual circumstances, the prosecution says that proves Hans is guilty, when they can't even join any of these circumstances together to form a logical sequence of events. If you try to string them together and get them to mean something, they just start to contradict each other. They make sense as isolated individual oddities or eccentricites etc, but they don't make sense as part of any logical sequence of events involving murder.

If the events are looked at in an unbiased way, all they do is paint a picture of an over-worked, over-stressed, financially crumbling, under-appreciated eccentric genius whose marriage is gone, and whose business is struggling, and who is doing his best to cope and do whats best for his kids - while his wife has been off committing adultery with a confessed multiple-murderer and associating with related scum and riff-raff.

This is a really really weak case against Hans... they have no real evidence at all. There is no way he can be convicted. He can be pitied, he can be bankrupted even further by the damage to his reputation and his business, he can be socially and financially ruined. But he can't be convicted of murder.

Police HAVE to do better than this in making a case against someone. This is the USA, a country with all the technology the police could ever want. Police have to do better than this before they lock someone up for the rest of his life and throw away the key.

Anyway, I will shutup now, I've had my say. I'm sure in the end the jury will see it the same way and give a not guilty verdict.

[CaptainAmerica]

Re Jade's post above... agreed :)

Keep up the good work, I don't have time to follow this trial every day.

Its good to be able to come to this thread and read what has been happening from someone who doesn't just swallow every piece of nonsense the prosecution and others want us to believe.

[Jade]

Its good to be able to come to this thread and read what has been happening from someone who doesn't just swallow every piece of nonsense the prosecution and others want us to believe.
You are one of a rare breed.

I am continually amazed that the great majority of folk accept the medias lies, even blatantly obvious lies.

I am also amazed by the huge number of those involved in lying to the public.

[Jade]

There is apparently another timeline at:

http://free.elixhosting.com/hansreisertrial/timeline.html

The site seems to be down at the moment.

[Sleuth]

There is apparently another timeline at:

http://free.elixhosting.com/hansreisertrial/timeline.html

The site seems to be down at the moment.
You can find it at http://hansreisertrial.247mb.com/timeline.html

[Jade]

You can find it at http://hansreisertrial.247mb.com/timeline.html
Thanks for that.

It is very biased against Hans (mainly by ommission and the use of easily forged e-mails (Hans claimed that some of the e-mails were forged and the judge laughed at him)).

But it is worth a look.

[Jade]

There's lots of discussion at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25770

Sign up with sfgate.com and have your say.

[Jade]

Last day at the trial:

Join the discussion at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878

Sign up with sfgate.com and have your say.

[zappa86]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reiser-guilty-o.html

[Jade]

From todays blog @ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=26050

According to the POLL from
.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reader-poll-did.html
.
The probability that:
.
1) a member of public thinks: Not Guilty = 0.63 (63%)
.
2) a member of public thinks: first degree murder = 0.14 (14%)
.
Since all jurists fell into the atypical 14% case we have that:
.
The probability that the first jurist is a typical member of the public
= 0.14
.
The probability that the first 2 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)(0.14) = 0.0196
.
The probability that the first 3 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = 0.00312816
.
The probability that the first 4 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = 0.0005
.
The probability that the first 5 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = 0.00008
.
The probability that all 12 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)^12 = 0.00000000006
= ONE in 16,666,666,666
= ONE in 17 BILLION.
.
One in 17 billion. NOW THAT IS A RIGGED JURY.

[DF5JT]

According to the POLL from
.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reader-poll-did.html

[...]

The probability that all 12 jurists are typical members of the public
= (0.14)^12 = 0.00000000006
= ONE in 16,666,666,666
= ONE in 17 BILLION.
.
One in 17 billion. NOW THAT IS A RIGGED JURY.

A poll taken from wired of all places is anything but representative and certainly a far cry away from a poll taken among people who have never heard of Linux and ReiserFS.

I call you "conclusion" preposterous.

[Jade]

The Reiser Jury was RIGGED.

From http://linuxhelp.150m.com/politics/rigged-jury.htm

Not much point having this twice on the same page.

[deanjo]

So our assumption that the jury was similar to that of the general polled public, is clearly false..

Your assumption is flawed for many reasons.

- polls by nature are misleading by simply the wording of them which results in biased results
- people that vote on polls are rarely fully informed of the complete events and often make their decisions from one articles POV
- people that read Wired are not your typical "off the street" person
- conspiracy theories always bring out the nutjobs
- small sample size in a concentrated demographic skews real world statistics
- I'd also be willing to bet that none of the voters were present first hand at the trial but relied on sensationalized reporting.

[DF5JT]

The Reiser Jury was RIGGED.

A poll taken from wired of all places is anything but representative and certainly a far cry away from a poll taken among people who have never heard of Linux and ReiserFS.

I call you "conclusion" preposterous.

[deanjo]

A poll taken from wired of all places is anything but representative and certainly a far cry away from a poll taken among people who have never heard of Linux and ReiserFS.

I call you "conclusion" preposterous.

Exactly, the only thing stacked was the poll.

[Redeeman]

A poll taken from wired of all places is anything but representative and certainly a far cry away from a poll taken among people who have never heard of Linux and ReiserFS.

I call you "conclusion" preposterous.
Its not really so hard to believe..

Not only has there been presented NO piece of hard evidence against him, they havent even established 100% that she is dead..

When you think about this, is it hard to believe that the chance that 12 randomly selected people will find the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is low?

[deanjo]

they havent even established 100% that she is dead..

They never have found Jimmy Hoffa either.

[Redeeman]

So you would trust yourself in the hands of such a jury, were you on trial for murdor and you were innocent?

[deanjo]

Having a dead body present has never been a requirement to have a conviction. Just like they never have to find stolen property to prove theft.

[Redeeman]

except that its not the same thing as theft at all.. with theft, you KNOW the person is missing it, who cares what happend to it? the thief isnt being convicted for destroying stolen stuff, but for stealing it..

Hans is being convicted for KILLING someone whom they do not have confirmed to be dead, and without any real hard evidence he really did it.

I ask you again, would you put your life in the hands of that jury, if you were innocent, and trialed for murdor?

[deanjo]

except that its not the same thing as theft at all.. with theft, you KNOW the person is missing it, who cares what happend to it? the thief isnt being convicted for destroying stolen stuff, but for stealing it..

Hans is being convicted for KILLING someone whom they do not have confirmed to be dead, and without any real hard evidence he really did it.

I ask you again, would you put your life in the hands of that jury, if you were innocent, and trialed for murdor?

Absolutely, I've seen trials first hand that had far less evidence on a murder case only to have the body show up 2 years after the verdict of guilty was passed. All based on the victims tooth being found in a parking lot.

[Redeeman]

and because the body eventually turns up, that prooves a specific person did something?

without REAL and HARD evidence that a person has done something, you can not in good concience convict him of it.

[deanjo]

and because the body eventually turns up, that prooves a specific person did something?

without REAL and HARD evidence that a person has done something, you can not in good concience convict him of it.

The bloody chain found in the back of his truck (which he used to drag the girl to death until there was next to nothing left), the tooth, the dna pulled off his jacket, history of abuse towards his wife (she was not the one killed), the testimony of his wife finding him burning his clothes from that night, his history of stalking women and men..... it goes on and on.

You don't need a body to convict.

[MamiyaOtaru]

When you think about this, is it hard to believe that the chance that 12 randomly selected people will find the person guilty beyond reasonable doubt, is low?
In a vacuum, maybe. But these twelve randomly selected people then proceeded to hear the same evidence and arguments presented over a course of weeks. After that, it is not unlikely at all that they would come to the same conclusion. Seriously, you are arguing against the jury system itself, as you could say that about any trial (and you'd be wrong).

Saying "what are the odds twelve random people will agree!" is not convincing. It's not the same thing as the odds of getting heads after twelve coin flips. It's not a game of chance. You are leaving out important information like "what are the odds that twelve random people will agree when presented with the same information?" It's like you are saying "what are the odds that all 458 people who have been into space agree that the earth is round?" Wow that must sound pretty unlikely to you huh? Well the odds are pretty damn high since they've seen the same evidence. Your argument is illogical.

without REAL and HARD evidence that a person has done something, you can not in good concience convict him of it.
What you are saying here is that if someone hides the body well enough (s)he should get away with it. This makes no sense either and the courts disagree with you. I think it's about time you dealt with the reality of this case.

[Jade]

In a vacuum, maybe. But these twelve randomly selected people then proceeded to hear the same evidence and arguments presented over a course of weeks.
WRONG. Nearly all the wired.com readers found out about the poll by reading David Kravets blog. So they had been following the trial and saw much the same evidence. Probably more.

After that, it is not unlikely at all that they would come to the same conclusion.
WRONG. 12 people who have been presented with EXACTLY the same evidence, or lack of it, will most often come to varying conclusions.

Seriously, you are arguing against the jury system itself, as you could say that about any trial (and you'd be wrong).
WRONG. No, you get hung juries all the time.

Saying "what are the odds twelve random people will agree!" is not convincing.
WRONG. We are not saying that. We are looking at the complete discrepancy between the decisions of two supposedly similar groups of people. Two groups who have put in some time to understand the case.

It's like you are saying "what are the odds that all 458 people who have been into space agree that the earth is round?
WRONG. It's like saying:

What are the odds that (the probability that all 458 people who have been into space agree that the earth is round) is wildly different from (the probability that 458 school teachers who have NEVER been into space agree that the earth is round)?

Reiser was framed. The JURY was RIGGED. Simple.

[Redeeman]

What you are saying here is that if someone hides the body well enough (s)he should get away with it. This makes no sense either and the courts disagree with you. I think it's about time you dealt with the reality of this case.
NO, dont you get it? i dont care if the body is hidden or never found, what i care about is knowing for sure the victim is dead, and knowing for sure WHO did it, or atleast knowing for sure if the ACCUSED did it.

[memo2005]

Maybe Reiserfs have had to be stopped somehow and one way to do that was to eliminate Hans from the project?

[Ex-Cyber]

i dont care if the body is hidden or never found, what i care about is knowing for sure the victim is deadHow do you propose that anyone know for sure if no identifiable remains are found? At some point it has to be acceptable to presume someone dead if there is no evidence that they're still alive.

Maybe Reiserfs have had to be stopped somehowCool as Reiser4 might be, I doubt that it was poised to pulverize any major governments or corporations into oblivion.

[Redeeman]

How do you propose that anyone know for sure if no identifiable remains are found? At some point it has to be acceptable to presume someone dead if there is no evidence that they're still alive.

You know, theres a little saying, and it goes like this: "absense of evidence, is not evidence of absense".

And how i propose anyone knows? well.. its called a freaking investigation, and not a witch hunt, isnt it? for instance, if they had a big juicy video of hans with a chainsaw or blender, totally destroying her, then i would call that EVIDENCE(you know, what traditionally is used in PROOVING things), and that evidence would pretty much proove guilt, even if the remains couldnt be found afterwards..

[Ex-Cyber]

You know, theres a little saying, and it goes like this: "absense of evidence, is not evidence of absense".That's great for an Intro to Logic course, but a trial has practical constraints. Jurors are asked to reach a conclusion, and in the real world they virtually never have ideal information. In this case, the jurors decided that the information was good enough to convict, which is pretty much their prerogative. You think they made the wrong call, but it was still their call to make (unless/until Reiser appeals).

And how i propose anyone knows? well.. its called a freaking investigation, and not a witch hunt, isnt it? for instance, if they had a big juicy video of hans with a chainsaw or blender, totally destroying her, then i would call that EVIDENCE(you know, what traditionally is used in PROOVING things), and that evidence would pretty much proove guilt, even if the remains couldnt be found afterwards..It sounds like you're arguing for an unrealistically stringent standard of proof. If evidence had to be that direct, perpetrators could easily avoid conviction for many crimes unless they did something phenomenally stupid. I don't think it's reasonable to expect investigation to turn up irrefutable evidence in most cases. I certainly don't think the case against Reiser was open-and-shut, but that's part of why we have jury trials.

[Jade]

The Reiser Jury was RIGGED.

From http://linuxhelp.150m.com

A jury verdict in a criminal case is not really a single verdict. It's actually twelve individual verdicts. It is important that jurors realize that each of them is personally and individually responsible for the verdict; the majority doesn't rule.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very personal standard; nobody can force someone else to agree that the doubts that she has are not reasonable.

It is not acceptable for one juror to try to pressure or coerce another juror to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment, and it is not acceptable for one juror to submit to another juror's pressure to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment. "I was outvoted" and "I was under so much pressure" are not justifications for reaching the wrong decision.

Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward. Defense attorney and legal analyst Michael Cardoza said (in an interview on Mornings on 2) that in his 34 years of practicing he's never seen it done that way. Cardoza said doing it Goodman's way avoids the possibility of having a juror say that he or she was forced into a verdict.

So, Cardoza is saying that Goodman, in effect, stopped any of the jurors from saying that they felt they were forced into a verdict. Because Goodman did this, we can assume that there was at least one juror who felt pressured to come up with a verdict contrary to their true belief. This is yet another way in which the corrupt judge Goodman, influenced the trial outcome against the interests of Hans Reiser.

According to the POLL from blog.wired.com (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reader-poll-did.html) gives the following results from a pool of 3,004 voters. The results were:

63% NOT GUILTY. The prosecution did not prove its case (intelligent people)

14% Guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution proved Reiser's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the total nutcases).

13% Guilty of second degree murder.

8% Guilty of manslaughter.

In the Reiser case we have 12 members of a jury who supposedly reached twelve individual verdicts. We will assume that the jury has been randomly chosen from a public similar to that polled, as it should have been. Then we have:

The probability that the first jurist will conclude first degree murder is
= 0.14 = (0.14)^1
= ONE in 7.

The probability that the first 2 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
= (0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^2
= 0.0196
= ONE in 51.

The probability that the first 3 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^3
= 0.002744
= ONE in 364

The probability that the first 4 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^4
= 0.000384
= ONE in 2,603

The probability that the first 5 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
= (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^5
= 0.00005
= ONE in 18,593

Continuing we arrive at:

The probability that all 12 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
= (0.14)^12 = 0.00000000006
= ONE in 16,666,666,666
= ONE in 17 BILLION.

One in 17 billion. NOW THAT IS A RIGGED JURY.

So our assumption that the jury was similar to that of the general polled public, is clearly false.

That is, the JURY WAS RIGGED.

[Ex-Cyber]

[completely unnecessary copy/paste of an entire page instead of a link]So basically, the whole argument rests on the assumption that an informal web poll (on a Wired blog, no less) is representative of the general public? Pull the other one.

[Redeeman]

ex-cyber:
all im asking is that they HAVE PROOF, not: "hey!!!! she divorced him! lets blame him for her disappearance^H^H^Hmurdor!!!!". I dont care if you or USA thinks its the jurors prerogative to do this, its wrong.

[Ex-Cyber]

ex-cyber:
all im asking is that they HAVE PROOF, not: "hey!!!! she divorced him! lets blame him for her disappearance^H^H^Hmurdor!!!!". I dont care if you or USA thinks its the jurors prerogative to do this, its wrong.If you think that's what went on at the trial, I don't know what to tell you.

[Jade]

If you think that's what went on at the trial, I don't know what to tell you.
No. It was much worse than that. The judge, the defence and the prosecution (and police) all conspired to convict Reiser.

[manoa]

Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward.


::: Speaking as an ex-juror on a different murder trial .. uh, you are polled BEFORE, not after the verdict is read. Since the verdict has not been read, there is actually less pressure to tell the judge whether the verdict is your choice or not.

Sorry, you are misinformed about a lot of things.

[Jade]

Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward.


::: Speaking as an ex-juror on a different murder trial .. uh, you are polled BEFORE, not after the verdict is read. Since the verdict has not been read, there is actually less pressure to tell the judge whether the verdict is your choice or not.

Sorry, you are misinformed about a lot of things.
"McGowan noted that the judge polled the jury before the verdict was read. Usually, it's done afterward. Cardoza said in his 34 years of practicing he's never seen it done that way."

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=26081

Defense attorney and legal analyst Michael Cardoza was being interviewed by Ross McGowan on "Mornings on 2."

Sorry, manoa, you seem misinformed about a lot of things.

[Jade]

No. It was much worse than that. The judge, the defence and the prosecution (and police) all conspired to convict Reiser.
Actually,... there are small indications that Reiser himself may be part of the conspiracy. These indicate that he is willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for a lot of money.

Who knows? But this sort of thing has certainly happened before.

[Jade]

Actually,... there are small indications that Reiser himself may be part of the conspiracy. These indicate that he is willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for a lot of money.

Who knows? But this sort of thing has certainly happened before.
So no one has any violent disagreement with this statement?