Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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..."

    Would really like to hear his "excuse."

    Comment


    • #47
      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.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Jade View Post
        "...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.

        Comment


        • #49
          (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.

          Comment


          • #50
            References:

            [1] Nina Reiser's best friend, Ellen Doren, lives on Capricorn.
            [2] "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] 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] At the police station, they photographed his body for signs of scratches or bruises. None were found.
            [5] "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] Hans was taken to the PD, had his picture taken ... and examined. No scratches or bruises were found on his body.
            [7] And DNA testing cannot determine the age of blood stains.
            [8] Cavness acknowledged.., that DNA testing can't confirm when bloodstains are deposited.
            [9] 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] 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] Instead, Porter said, Nina Reiser's friend, Ellen Doren, came to get the children in the middle of the afternoon.
            [12] Ellen Doren, came to the school at about 2:30 p.m.
            [13] But at about 5 p.m. that day,.. Hans Reiser showed up at Adventure Time,..
            [14] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Sanchez was in an airplane surveilling Hans Reiser on Sept. 18, 2006, assisting ground surveillance units.
            [24] 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] 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] "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] Before his arrest, Child Protective Services, the mom testified, said he could not live in the Oakland hills house with his children.
            [28] 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] Du Bois says Hans' mother Beverly has testified that, after Nina disappeared, Hans was sleeping in the CRX's front seat.
            [30] "Were you aware that Hans was living in his car?" DuBois asked the mother. "Yes."
            [31] The defendant said he removed the seat to make room for him to sleep.
            [32] Reiser's defense attorney, William DuBois, has said that Reiser removed the front seat because he began to sleep in the car,..
            [33] 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] 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]"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] 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] I thought it was kind of strange. ... 'What are you doing, washing the driveway?'"
            [38] To support his change of heart, Du Bois asked Grant if he knew the book includes a chapter about police planting evidence.
            [39] 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] His lawyer said the books contain chapters on how police plant evidence and set up murder scenes.

            Continued below.

            Comment


            • #51
              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.

              Comment


              • #52
                Join the current DISCUSSION of the trial, at:

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

                Comment


                • #53
                  Hey,.. you are allowed to discuss the trial here too.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Trying to catch edged's attention:

                    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."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X