OSNews

Hans was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
If true that Nina is (hiding) in Russia, I hope she'll reappear soon.

Time will show I guess...

If that's what she did, it hardly explains his OWN actions after she vanished.

I'm sorry, but murder also doesn't explain his own actions. At least not for me.

A sudden casino tour at the time of her disappearance, two blood stains, ditching a seat out of your car and washing it's insides out can't be explained by murder? I'm not saying that it's a smoking gun but it's a very reasonable explanation there.

I'm sorry, but this behaviour sounds very silly to me, wether the protagonist murdered his wife before or not.

Some aspects of his odd behaviour even speak against him being the murderer, at least in my opinion.

That said I respect the conclusion drawn by the jury. It's just not that plain simple.


p.s.: About the blood stains... backread the coverage on Wired.. they are a _very_ weak evidence..

Edited 2008-04-30 16:08 UTC

Not so dumb to have created ReiserFS though

Not so dumb to have created ReiserFS though "

Um...Intelligence != "Smarts"

I imagine this was used to illustrate how close Nina and her children were, to aid in the argument that she wouldn't leave them willingly.

Still, I know a mother who does not live with her kid and she kisses him/her on the cheeks regularly and her kid says he thinks his mum is awesome. It's absolutely irrelevant what they showed in court. (Note I'm not disagreeing with you, but with the court process here.)

It is routine for defense lawyers to do exactly the same thing: picture a weeping old lady saying, "My boy would never do such a thing. I don't know why you people are pickin' on 'im. It's his friends that did it and set him up." &c.

There's a reason that lawyers don't have the best reputation in this country.

I was under the impression that prosecutors could not do this sort of thing until the sentencing phase of the trial, in which case it would be relevant to how heinous the crime is, and how long the perpetrator deserves to sit in jail. Apparently I was wrong.

You may have been right but there is always precedence ...

I don't see a reason to rename the filesystem. I'm not claiming not to be a flawed human plagued by emotional response (I think we all are that), but the filesystem is as much a part of Hans' legacy as the murder of his wife.
He, and Namesys, made it. If they want to rename it, okay, otherwise use it or don't.

What I hoping is that no FS-zelots from other camps use the ruling as flame-fodder. On the other hand, reiserfs(v3) is nearing obsolete I guess... and v4 isn't in linux so...


I think we'll want some time still for good ZFS in linux though. I highly doubt it'll come "native" to linux ever.

Edited 2008-04-29 10:31 UTC

We don't need ZFS. We'll have BTRFS within a few years :-)

Is there any news on a ZFS implementation for Linux? I thought there was some licensing issue and couldn't be implemented.

The ZFS license isn't compatible with Linux's GPL licence.

As I understand it, this only means ZFS support can't be written into the Linux kernel. However, ZFS support can run outside of the kernel using a bridge called FUSE.

Now lets think positive about this situation and ReiserFS. Simply give the man a computer in jail. Now he has all the time in the world to keep coding on ReiserFS. No excuses! :-)

Edited 2008-04-29 11:58 UTC

Does them give in the great nation them inmates a connection onto the internets? otherwise, he'll be facing himself wit some mightly hacking to get his Code past them prison bars.

That might inspire him to the most.. secure file system ever.

Oh come off it. The fact that he had talent and that so many people bought into Namesys' hype has no bearing or relevance on the matter. He killed his wife or he didn't. Before this, positing that Hans was guilty brought down the wrath of all the Holier-Than-Thou Reiser4 fans who were "outraged" that anyone would have the audacity to look at the facts and speculate that he was guilty... always, indignantly arguing that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Well, now a jury of his peers has painstakingly considered the evidence in the case and determined that he is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty as sin. (And yes, that includes considering even the outlandish possibility that she might have defected to Russia with the kids.) So I would remind the "Innocent until proven guilty" contingent that the guy has now been proven guilty. And having been proven guilty, he should be *considered* guilty. So let's dispense with all this "if he's guilty" crap.

Hans murdered his wife. And no amount of Reiser4 hype, deserved or not, changes that fact a whit. Nor does his relative level of ability as a programmer.

Edited 2008-04-29 14:04 UTC

And what if you're like me, and you consider the jury system to be medieval and immensely error-prone?

I'm not saying the system erred in this specific case (I don't know if he's guilty or not) - I'm just stating that "a jury of his peers found him guilty" doesn't bear a lot of weight for people with scientific objections against the jury system.

So what do you propose? A public phone in? Text Yes to 80111 if Hans Reiser is guilty, No to 80111 if he's not guilty. Phone lines close at midnight?

The jury system, while not perfect is the best thing that we've got.

Err, what about using *gasp* judges to determine if someone's guilty or not? That's what many countries do - including mine. We don't have juries.

Just because the US uses juries, doesn't mean everyone does.

It seems a bit strange to call having a jury of your peers medieval, implying that having your fate decided by a single person or small group in power as not being so despite that being.. well.. how it was done then.

Though really jury or judge alike, neither is going to be all that scientific at all. In both cases it's people looking at evidence presented by both sides and coming to a conclusion. That's not science. (Unfortunately though, regardless of which of those two systems you prefer there, they're both in ways about as good as it's going to reasonably get.)

It's proven guilty *by those people on court only*. How much you trust their ability and correctness is another thing. Court *prove* something guilty doesn't mean it is really guilty. You have your own judgement.

At a certain point in real-life affairs, it simply does not make sense to continue to play the epistemological skeptic any longer.

A jury of his peers, each member accepted as such by the defense, viewed the known evidence and considered it over a period of nearly 6 months. They were each personally exposed to the arguments and evidence of both the prosecution and of the defense. They rendered a verdict of guilty.

Now, answer me this: Why should I weight the opinions of random OSNews posters, who have gotten their sketchy information mostly from news stories in the press and posts here on OSNews and perhaps in other forums, higher than I weight the determination of those 12 people.

Beyond this point, we may as well be debating the actual existence of a christian god.

Hey, sbergman. I usually agree with you, but I think you're drifting badly here.

The guy is NOT saying Hans is innocent. He is just saying that he prefers not to make any concrete comments on his innocence because he doesn't have enough to say he is guilty or innocent.

Now, you can argue that "when it comes to the law" he IS guilty, but there is more than law in this world and I've seen courts messing up before, at least in my country.

Regards,
Alexandre

PS: At least that is how I read the guys post. Not too sure if that is exactly what he meant, though.

Because judgements of men are insignificant compared to laws of God with eternal consequences. And one of those posters might cite the mind of the Lord based upon God's historical and future dealings with mankind as revealed in holy writ.

Isaiah 2:3
…and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Man, I so wish I hadn't already replied in this thread so I could mod you up.

That is like saying you are surprised by Hitler's actions because he was a talented leader.

There was no solid evidence, it was all circumstantial (although there was an awful lot of weird circumstantial evidence). Also just because somebody is an asshole does not mean they deserve to be locked up.

Without being in on the case other than through the occasional web article, I have no opinion on whether he has or has not done it, but imagine a scenario where your wife hates you that much that she deliberately plants evidence (a bit of her blood here, a bit more there) then goes missing. The kids are back in Russia now, where she would be if she indeed just left. It is just as possible that she hated him enough to let him hang himself like this.

In US law there are two types of evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

What is "solid evidence" legally speaking?

I believe Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson once described circumstantial evidence as being like a rope, each strand of evidence laid along side of the others builds a stronger and stronger rope. It is that rope of evidence that finally leads to the conviction of the accused.

If your wife hates you that much maybe you're just getting what you deserve.

Not us Europeans. We're much too civilized for that. For that kind of crime he'd get 5-10 years in Denmark and a nice hotel-like room with professional people to take care of his mental condition.

so you'd send him on vacation for murdering his wife? What kind of punishment is that?

I think he was exaggerating things a bit. That said I don't see a point in treating people who temporarily lost it as Charles Mason types. The sentences you see given in most western countries for things like 2nd degree murder seem acceptable.

he's being tongue-in-cheek (sarcastic to the European light sentences).

Not us Europeans. We're much too civilized for that. For that kind of crime he'd get 5-10 years in Denmark and a nice hotel-like room with professional people to take care of his mental condition. "

I'm a European and where I live (Netherlands) a life sentence means a life sentence. You can get sentenced to life imprisonment if you're enough of a sadist.

It's true there are cases where the penalty is way too mild (although it's changing aamof).

But that includes the US - where the greatest murderers of all, you know the people that get soldiers killed by the thousands and citizens by the hundreds of thousands, waging wars based on lies? They always walk.

Hans Reiser doesn't walk. But they'll probably give him a computer in jail, won't they?
(ed.) that was a double.

Edited 2008-04-29 11:55 UTC

But that includes the US - where the greatest murderers of all, you know the people that get soldiers killed by the thousands and citizens by the hundreds of thousands, waging wars based on lies? They always walk.

Ouch!

You say that like it's a good thing.

The guy's as guilty as sin, if this was anyone else you'd probably all be saying death row for him. There was solid evidence to convict him, good riddance I say.

I disagree. There isn't even a body, nevermind a murder weapon, or a witness. Those are the three biggest pieces of evidence in a murder trial and they don't even have one of them! There seems to be only circumstancial evidence in this case and I'm actually surprised the verdict turned out the way it did.

Mental note: Incinerate bodies and bury weapons well in secret. That makes me innocent.

Is it not possible that Hans Reiser is just an evil, murdering son of a bitch? Is it not possible that someone who rips seats out of his car, washes the car floor out (!?), carries a mess of cash around, and so forth, MIGHT JUST BE GUILTY?

All I keep reading in this case amounts to, "He looks completely guilty, therefore he must not be because it is far more enlightened to just believe the whole system has a 100% failure rate."

Sounds like a guilty, murdering, lying SOB who deserves to rot.

Yes he is a guilty, murdering, lying SOB, but it seems the loonies do not care. I am sure if he was the author of FAT32 or WinFS this same crowd would be screaming for a public stoning.

Is it not possible that Hans Reiser is just an evil, murdering son of a bitch? Is it not possible that someone who rips seats out of his car, washes the car floor out (!?), carries a mess of cash around, and so forth, MIGHT JUST BE GUILTY?

You do understand that the state needs to prove BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that the defendant is guilty in order convict don't you? The evidence you speak of is what is called "circumstantial evidence", which basically means that it proves nothing. This type of evidence is usually useful to support other facts that put the suspect at the crime scene or provide motive. The state doesn't even have any hard evidence to show that a murder even occurred. The justice system in the United States doesn't work around the idea that a person is acting guilty, it's based around EVIDENCE. Show me any evidence from the trial that PROVES:

A. A murder occurred.

B. Reiser committed the murder.

and

C. There is no reasonable doubt to Reiser's guilt.

I just don't see how you can prove any of that without a body, a murder weapon, or a witness.

If you read my post you would have noticed I didn't say whether or not I think Reiser is guilty. That is irrelevant to the fact that I don't think the state made their case. Reiser probably would have been better off without a jury. A judge is less likely to convinct based on only cirumstantial evidence and emotion.

Maybe she had a nosebleed?

Although I think that him removing that passenger side seat from his car was very suspicious. The stories that have come out of this case have just been really bizarre. Everyone involved seems to have some pretty serious mental issues going on, one family friend even confessed to murdering Nina and several other women, and the police decided that he was just crazy.

I haven't read the details of the case, I've only been following it loosely. However, I do work in law enforcement and I know the difference between visible blood and trace amounts of blood. Something as insignificant as a pricked finger, or a ripped fingernail, can leave traces of blood that can only be picked up by applying a chemical such as Luminol and looking at it with an alternative light source. If it was only trace blood found in the car, it is a possibility that there is a benign explanation. Granted, if he did do it, it's also quite possible that he wasn't careful enough to notice leaving any trace behind when placing her body in the car. Also, it could be more than trace amounts found which would indicate something more serious than a simple cut.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out the possibilities in a case like this.

I've had nosebleeds in my car and home. You would find traces of my blood in both of those places. It doesn't mean I'm dead.

That depends. Do you have an unrelenting need to consume human flesh? If so, you may be a zombie. ;-p

*mumbles something about women and biology*

And that's my cue to leave!

So you feel "compassion" for someone who is enough of a childish, tempermental damage case that they beat their spouse to death, later citing "She drove me to it, she was being bitchy and I just lost it?" If a person is enough of a c*nt that they cannot step away from their wife and/or kids when they're had a "bad day" they deserve the grinder just like a hardcore predator IMNSHO. Accidentally killing someone in, say, a bar fight or something might be different, but preying on the weak, whether you know them intimately or not, is f--ked up.

I am very much pro death penalty. I can never understand how society can send a message out there that no matter what kind of crimes you commit you will never pay for them with your life. I can never understand how a society can collect taxes from the friends and relatives of the victims of a serial killer and use that money to provide shelter, clothing, milk a cookies for this very same serial killers. We are talking about the overpopulation, food shortage, global warming and recession, and yet we spend food, water, oxygen and money to support a life which does not deserve any support.

Don't misunderstand my statement, I am not advocating for the death penalty to be used left and right a center, but I believe it should be available as an option for truly extreme cases.

I am very much pro death penalty. I can never understand how society can send a message out there that no matter what kind of crimes you commit you will never pay for them with your life.
Because there is always a chance for error in a crime sentence. A jail sentence can always be removed if for some reason something comes up but a death sentence can't because the person is already dead. In any case, technically speaking, you don't own someone's life. Taking a criminal's life is in no way less wrong than murdering some kids' mother.

Off topic, as an engineer myself, I think it is a disgrace that someone would kill another person just out of an argument about kids.

I find it difficult to believe that a serial killer who was convicted with direct evidence (DNA and such) of killing, say, 10 people will suddenly turn out to be innocent of all 10 killings. Death penalty should be available as an option for EXTREME cases, much more extreme than a single 1st degree.



You don't own someone's freedom either, so, would locking up a criminal be the same as locking up your own daughter in the basement for 24 years? http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/29/austria.cellar/index.htm...

There have been many people on Death Row that were eventually cleared by DNA testing, so apparently current death penalty cases don't live up to your standards. And there's been a lot of complaining that even the current process takes way too long and costs too much money.

That said, I don't think wrongful convictions are really the issue here. You either believe that killing someone is justifiable punishment for their sins, or you think that killing someone is itself a sin and can never be justified. It's the same as abortion, you either view it as a medical procedure, or as murdering a child. Good luck convincing anyone on either side that they're wrong.

I don't know about that, the sordid details of their personal lives sets up for me a situation where murder may have flowed almost naturally out of the situation. The battle between them was nasty and continual.

I married a woman who had kids from a previous marriage, and at the worst point of the dispute, which involved almost daily harrassment by the Ex, I found myself wishing he would do SOMETHING that would force me to kill him. It would be self defense, of course, but even if it wasn't I would spend a few years in prison, and when I got out my family could live in peace. When I realized the significance of what I was fantasizing about it scared the crap out of me. I moved my family to Alaska without telling anyone and in defiance of a court order. Despite the legal fallout of defying the Judge, I know I made the right choice...

If Hans Reiser, in a much worse situation than mine, made the other choice, I'd understand. I'd still send him to prison though.

You're absolutely right. It's a shame that we spend so much feeding and sheltering murderers. One answer would be to kill them, but a simpler and much less brutal one exists: Just let them go. If they kill again and there is a probability that they will keep doing so, then lock them up for that. The overall cost will be so much lower due to the lower volume of incarcerated people that the tax burden will seem light.

Most people who are convicted of murder would never do so a second time and are unlikely to be any kind of harm to society.

Given the flawed nature of the justice system, represented by the number of people later found to be innocent, it is impossible to justify killing. The framers of the US constitution attempted to design a legal system that minimized false positives. It is far better to have a hundred guilty men go free then it is to deny freedom to a single innocent man.

I support the death penalty; it simply must exist. Sometimes killing people is the only thing to do. However, its application is to me only theoretical; I do not think I can imagine many cases in which it would actually be applied.

Killing someone for revenge is morally wrong. You can call it "justice" if you like, but for the families it is largely just revenge. The questions to ask are "What is the advantage to society?" and "What is the harm to society?"

If you allow a murderer to live and go free society is harmed. There is a potential for another murder, which is inherently harmful. Those still alive who