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]
>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.
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.