Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 179

Thread: The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

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


    [41] "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] "Who offered to financially help you out?" "CBS." "Did CBS actually pay you?" "Yes." "How much money?" "$20,000."
    [43] But as that was happening, another officer saw the defendant running up windy Snake Boulevard toward his house, Guerrero said.
    [44] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] From 1990-91, Nina Reiser attended Lincoln School in Providence, R.I., her mother said. She was 16 at the time.
    [50] 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] 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] 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] It appeared that Nina Reiser used her American passport to enter the U.S. on July 23, 2006, Levicoff said,..
    [54] 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] "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] 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] The Hans Reiser Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Join the current DISCUSSION of the trial, at:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=25076

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

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

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Trying to catch edged's attention:

    Quote Originally Posted by edged View Post
    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."

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    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.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    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.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth View Post
    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?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    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.

  10. #60

    Default This whole thing is surreal... this nonsense can be called a murder trial?

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •