So Hans Reiser was convicted of murder

[halik]

linkiee

You'd think that if you're savvy enough to rid of the body, you come up with a better answers to the obvious questions that will be asked. Sleeping in the car ? dumbass...

 

[ravana]

Reiser

and yeah, his defense was quite stupid.
Must've sucked to be his lawyer.

 

[PokerGuy]

There's one word that quite accurately describes his unbelievable stories and answer: hubris. He thought he could get away with it, but the jury obviously didn't buy a word he said. Enjoy that cell for the next 25 years pal.

The irony is that if he had just kept his mouth shut and not testified in the case, he could very possibly have walked, as the prosecution had no body and very little physical evidence that a crime even took place.

 

[Baked]

Not very smart now, is he?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: ravana
Reiser

and yeah, his defense was quite stupid.
Must've sucked to be his lawyer.

Didn't I read that he for the most part defended himself?

 

[Chiropteran]

Sounds like he did it, obviously lying to cover something up but this one part was interesting:

Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.).

WHOA. So she cheated on Reiser with a multi-murderer. Why didn't the defense focus on this, and suggest that Sturgeon could have killed her? Is he locked away in jail as his alibi? Still seems like an important detail, the defense could have used it to suggest that Nina has a history of involving herself with murderers, maybe she found another one who killed her.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Sounds like he did it, obviously lying to cover something up but this one part was interesting:

Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.).

WHOA. So she cheated on Reiser with a multi-murderer. Why didn't the defense focus on this, and suggest that Sturgeon could have killed her? Is he locked away in jail as his alibi? Still seems like an important detail, the defense could have used it to suggest that Nina has a history of involving herself with murderers, maybe she found another one who killed her.

But, why confess to 8 murders and deny that one? Seems odd that you would say "I murdered 8 people, but not 9" if he actually did murder 9.

 

[nakedfrog]

I dunno. Knowing the type of geek you have to be to come up with a file system, I think he could be telling the truth.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I dunno. Knowing the type of geek you have to be to come up with a file system, I think he could be telling the truth.

The problem with this case is that there was (essentially) no physical evidence linking him to the crime nor was there any evidence of a crime in the first place! Regardless of the testimony it is a rather bad precedent to convict someone on that.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I dunno. Knowing the type of geek you have to be to come up with a file system, I think he could be telling the truth.

The problem with this case is that there was (essentially) no physical evidence linking him to the crime nor was there any evidence of a crime in the first place! Regardless of the testimony it is a rather bad precedent to convict someone on that.

Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Man, I'd hate to be accused much less convicted of murdger.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

There have been plenty of convictions in the past without a body. It's a pretty hard sell for the prosecutor, but if they have enough things to point to you that any reasonable person will have no doubt you did it, then you can get convicted.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Sounds like he did it, obviously lying to cover something up but this one part was interesting:

Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.).

WHOA. So she cheated on Reiser with a multi-murderer. Why didn't the defense focus on this, and suggest that Sturgeon could have killed her? Is he locked away in jail as his alibi? Still seems like an important detail, the defense could have used it to suggest that Nina has a history of involving herself with murderers, maybe she found another one who killed her.

But, why confess to 8 murders and deny that one? Seems odd that you would say "I murdered 8 people, but not 9" if he actually did murder 9.

Who says he was questioned about Nina's murder? Maybe he would confess to it if asked.

 

[JS80]

For a supposed smart person this guy is really dumb

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I dunno. Knowing the type of geek you have to be to come up with a file system, I think he could be telling the truth.

The problem with this case is that there was (essentially) no physical evidence linking him to the crime nor was there any evidence of a crime in the first place! Regardless of the testimony it is a rather bad precedent to convict someone on that.

Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

I am not sure it really matters what happens in appeals. The precedent that the person can be convicted based on this has already been set. Appeals (from my understanding) are generally done on some minor point, not the overall case.

Sadly this parallels the shift in arrests in the United States. It used to be that if you were arrested for something you were almost guaranteed to be convicted because arrests did not take place unless the officers knew a crime had taken place. Now the philosophy is more or less "arrest them and let the courts sort it out while ruining that individual's life."

 

[AreaCode7O7]

I think it's likely he did it, but I found it odd to read the articles where a juror said that a key factor in convicting him was the fact that he showed no sympathy for his missing wife. That isn't evidence, that's emotional response. He was getting divorced from her and, if he didn't kill her, she's seriously screwed him over. Why would he show sympathy? Convict based on evidence alone, like the stuff they found with his car.

 

[JulesMaximus]

BTW-Those courtroom drawings of the trial are creepy looking.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Sounds like he did it, obviously lying to cover something up but this one part was interesting:

Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.).

WHOA. So she cheated on Reiser with a multi-murderer. Why didn't the defense focus on this, and suggest that Sturgeon could have killed her? Is he locked away in jail as his alibi? Still seems like an important detail, the defense could have used it to suggest that Nina has a history of involving herself with murderers, maybe she found another one who killed her.

But, why confess to 8 murders and deny that one? Seems odd that you would say "I murdered 8 people, but not 9" if he actually did murder 9.

Apparently neither the police nor the judge were convinced that the guy actually killed 8 people... They found his claims to be without substance.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

There have been plenty of convictions in the past without a body. It's a pretty hard sell for the prosecutor, but if they have enough things to point to you that any reasonable person will have no doubt you did it, then you can get convicted.

plenty just like this one... http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...neration.ap/index.html

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

There have been plenty of convictions in the past without a body. It's a pretty hard sell for the prosecutor, but if they have enough things to point to you that any reasonable person will have no doubt you did it, then you can get convicted.

Well not only that, but if it was impossible to convict someone without a body, all a murderer would have to do would be to cremate the body, sift the remains for anything that didn't fully burn (teeth), then get rid of those somehow (thermite, hammer, chemicals...).

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I think it's likely he did it, but I found it odd to read the articles where a juror said that a key factor in convicting him was the fact that he showed no sympathy for his missing wife. That isn't evidence, that's emotional response. He was getting divorced from her and, if he didn't kill her, she's seriously screwed him over. Why would he show sympathy? Convict based on evidence alone, like the stuff they found with his car.

Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize that they are the ones that determine your fate.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yes, I'll be curious to see how it pans out in the long run. I assume it will go to appeals.

There have been plenty of convictions in the past without a body. It's a pretty hard sell for the prosecutor, but if they have enough things to point to you that any reasonable person will have no doubt you did it, then you can get convicted.

Well not only that, but if it was impossible to convict someone without a body, all a murderer would have to do would be to cremate the body, sift the remains for anything that didn't fully burn (teeth), then get rid of those somehow (thermite, hammer, chemicals...).

It sounds like you've put an awful lot of thought into this...
*calls the FBI*

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: ravana
Reiser

and yeah, his defense was quite stupid.
Must've sucked to be his lawyer.

Didn't I read that he for the most part defended himself?

OpenSource legal defense?

 

[Saint Michael]

He married a Russian with a hankering for US citizenship... DUMBASS!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Sounds like he did it, obviously lying to cover something up but this one part was interesting:

Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.).

WHOA. So she cheated on Reiser with a multi-murderer. Why didn't the defense focus on this, and suggest that Sturgeon could have killed her? Is he locked away in jail as his alibi? Still seems like an important detail, the defense could have used it to suggest that Nina has a history of involving herself with murderers, maybe she found another one who killed her.

But, why confess to 8 murders and deny that one? Seems odd that you would say "I murdered 8 people, but not 9" if he actually did murder 9.

Who says he was questioned about Nina's murder? Maybe he would confess to it if asked.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/reiser

Nonetheless, he vigorously denied killing Nina Reiser. "I've never been a threat to Nina Reiser," Sturgeon said. "I will take a lie-detector test. I will take whatever passes for truth serum these days." He also indicated that the evidence pointed to Hans Reiser's guilt. "I will not take credit for what another has done," he said. "Let Hans take a lie-detector test about Nina."