Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
    You know, theres a little saying, and it goes like this: "absense of evidence, is not evidence of absense".
    That's great for an Intro to Logic course, but a trial has practical constraints. Jurors are asked to reach a conclusion, and in the real world they virtually never have ideal information. In this case, the jurors decided that the information was good enough to convict, which is pretty much their prerogative. You think they made the wrong call, but it was still their call to make (unless/until Reiser appeals).

    Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
    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..
    It sounds like you're arguing for an unrealistically stringent standard of proof. If evidence had to be that direct, perpetrators could easily avoid conviction for many crimes unless they did something phenomenally stupid. I don't think it's reasonable to expect investigation to turn up irrefutable evidence in most cases. I certainly don't think the case against Reiser was open-and-shut, but that's part of why we have jury trials.

    Comment


    • #92
      The Reiser Jury was RIGGED.

      From http://linuxhelp.150m.com

      A jury verdict in a criminal case is not really a single verdict. It's actually twelve individual verdicts. It is important that jurors realize that each of them is personally and individually responsible for the verdict; the majority doesn't rule.

      "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very personal standard; nobody can force someone else to agree that the doubts that she has are not reasonable.

      It is not acceptable for one juror to try to pressure or coerce another juror to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment, and it is not acceptable for one juror to submit to another juror's pressure to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment. "I was outvoted" and "I was under so much pressure" are not justifications for reaching the wrong decision.

      Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

      Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward. Defense attorney and legal analyst Michael Cardoza said (in an interview on Mornings on 2) that in his 34 years of practicing he's never seen it done that way. Cardoza said doing it Goodman's way avoids the possibility of having a juror say that he or she was forced into a verdict.

      So, Cardoza is saying that Goodman, in effect, stopped any of the jurors from saying that they felt they were forced into a verdict. Because Goodman did this, we can assume that there was at least one juror who felt pressured to come up with a verdict contrary to their true belief. This is yet another way in which the corrupt judge Goodman, influenced the trial outcome against the interests of Hans Reiser.

      According to the POLL from blog.wired.com gives the following results from a pool of 3,004 voters. The results were:

      63% NOT GUILTY. The prosecution did not prove its case (intelligent people)

      14% Guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution proved Reiser's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the total nutcases).

      13% Guilty of second degree murder.

      8% Guilty of manslaughter.

      In the Reiser case we have 12 members of a jury who supposedly reached twelve individual verdicts. We will assume that the jury has been randomly chosen from a public similar to that polled, as it should have been. Then we have:

      The probability that the first jurist will conclude first degree murder is
      = 0.14 = (0.14)^1
      = ONE in 7.

      The probability that the first 2 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
      = (0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^2
      = 0.0196
      = ONE in 51.

      The probability that the first 3 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
      = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^3
      = 0.002744
      = ONE in 364

      The probability that the first 4 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
      = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^4
      = 0.000384
      = ONE in 2,603

      The probability that the first 5 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
      = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^5
      = 0.00005
      = ONE in 18,593

      Continuing we arrive at:

      The probability that all 12 jurists will conclude first degree murder is
      = (0.14)^12 = 0.00000000006
      = ONE in 16,666,666,666
      = ONE in 17 BILLION.


      One in 17 billion. NOW THAT IS A RIGGED JURY.

      So our assumption that the jury was similar to that of the general polled public, is clearly false.

      That is, the JURY WAS RIGGED.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Jade
        [completely unnecessary copy/paste of an entire page instead of a link]
        So basically, the whole argument rests on the assumption that an informal web poll (on a Wired blog, no less) is representative of the general public? Pull the other one.

        Comment


        • #94
          ex-cyber:
          all im asking is that they HAVE PROOF, not: "hey!!!! she divorced him! lets blame him for her disappearance^H^H^Hmurdor!!!!". I dont care if you or USA thinks its the jurors prerogative to do this, its wrong.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
            ex-cyber:
            all im asking is that they HAVE PROOF, not: "hey!!!! she divorced him! lets blame him for her disappearance^H^H^Hmurdor!!!!". I dont care if you or USA thinks its the jurors prerogative to do this, its wrong.
            If you think that's what went on at the trial, I don't know what to tell you.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
              If you think that's what went on at the trial, I don't know what to tell you.
              No. It was much worse than that. The judge, the defence and the prosecution (and police) all conspired to convict Reiser.

              Comment


              • #97
                Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

                Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward.


                ::: Speaking as an ex-juror on a different murder trial .. uh, you are polled BEFORE, not after the verdict is read. Since the verdict has not been read, there is actually less pressure to tell the judge whether the verdict is your choice or not.

                Sorry, you are misinformed about a lot of things.
                Last edited by manoa; 05-17-2008, 09:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by manoa View Post
                  Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand.

                  Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward.


                  ::: Speaking as an ex-juror on a different murder trial .. uh, you are polled BEFORE, not after the verdict is read. Since the verdict has not been read, there is actually less pressure to tell the judge whether the verdict is your choice or not.

                  Sorry, you are misinformed about a lot of things.
                  "McGowan noted that the judge polled the jury before the verdict was read. Usually, it's done afterward. Cardoza said in his 34 years of practicing he's never seen it done that way."

                  From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=26081

                  Defense attorney and legal analyst Michael Cardoza was being interviewed by Ross McGowan on "Mornings on 2."

                  Sorry, manoa, you seem misinformed about a lot of things.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Jade View Post
                    No. It was much worse than that. The judge, the defence and the prosecution (and police) all conspired to convict Reiser.
                    Actually,... there are small indications that Reiser himself may be part of the conspiracy. These indicate that he is willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for a lot of money.

                    Who knows? But this sort of thing has certainly happened before.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jade View Post
                      Actually,... there are small indications that Reiser himself may be part of the conspiracy. These indicate that he is willing to spend some time in prison in exchange for a lot of money.

                      Who knows? But this sort of thing has certainly happened before.
                      So no one has any violent disagreement with this statement?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jade View Post
                        So no one has any violent disagreement with this statement?
                        Well... Maybe no one cares...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lenrek View Post
                          Well... Maybe no one cares...
                          You seem to.....

                          Comment


                          • The sentencing of a clearly innocent man will occur June 9.

                            Comment


                            • Maybe you did not get that he is not innocent because he knows where his wife is - or at least her dead body...

                              Comment


                              • Yep, I've read that, too. When he knows where his wife is... then he can't be innocent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X