The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

[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 dead

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.

Maybe Reiserfs have had to be stopped somehow

Cool 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..