File system killer leads police to wife's bones Convicted murderer and, er, file system whiz Hans Reiser today led police to the buried body of his wife Nina Reiser. In an apparent bid to reduce his sentence, Reiser agreed to drag police into Redwood Regional Park and disclose the location of his wife's remains. Police found a grave four feet by four feet by four feet …
How can someone sit there and lie to their kids, and the world like that, all along going "Oh, woe is me, I'm innocent", and then have the effrontery to try and get a reduced sentence for proving that he was lying all along!!!
I hope they run windows ME on the computers available to the prisoners.
Anyone remember that murderer, about 15 years ago somewhere I think in Shropshire, who murdered his girlfriend? He buried her under the floorboards, then went all through the Police reconstructions, crocodile tears on TV, "Woe is me! How could anyone take her from me?". Finally some junior detective twigged about 2 months later, they went round arrested him, searched the house, found the body and banged him up for 20 years.
Makes you wonder how a person can be perfectly sane for most of their life, then *snap* they just lose it and do something so morally incomprehensible and completely out of character.
Remember the firestorm of comments back in April on /., ars tech, El Reg, etc? Lots of geeks sharing their expertise, eg:
"The wife's lover admits to mass murder but without a body the husband is convicted of 1st degree murder?! If that's not reasonable doubt I don't know what the f*ck is."
"It seems to me this man has been convicted of murder because he is a bit weird."
Oh well, maybe actually sitting in the jury & hearing the evidence does help a wee bit, even if it costs more. Wonder if I should let the govt know?
So...the guy leads the whole legal system on a chase, protesting his innocence and costing the taxpayer more money while they have to build a case against him.
Realising he's probably going to lose he admits his guilt and then pretty much proves it beyond any doubt by leading them directly to the grave.
And he's likely to get a REDUCED sentence?
I don't agree with people getting shorter sentences on the basis that they suddenly decide to co-operate. It doesn't change what he did.
Personally I doubt there is an ounce of compassion in the man. If there is any regret for what he has done this is probably only in the consequences his actions have had upon himself. From what I had read, the circumstantial evidence against him seemed compelling and I thought the jury had probably arrived at the correct verdict - now confirmed as correct by this turn of events. The reason this may result in a reduction in his sentence is because this gives his victim's family the ability to conduct a proper burial and funeral and to finally know with certainty what happened to their daughter and mother. I think under the circumstances there should be a reduction in his sentence, but he should still be imprisoned for very many years for what he did.
From what I've read about Reiser, I'd gess that he is close to what is called Asberger's syndrome when it makes it impossible for the person to live a normal life. One feature of this trait is being very good at something, usually narrowly defined and technical. Obviously coding filesystems, for Reiser. Another is a poorly developed interface to other human beings, and in particular a lack of empathy. They have to think through and rationalize what is instinctive or intuitive to most people. Speculating, I'd imagine that rational thought might have been too slow to cope with a murderous implulse, and that after that, the concepts involved in confessing to a crime of passion and loss of self-control might well be utterly foreign ones.
A penguin, because I don't believe that because someone is a murderer, everything else that he has ever touched is tainted. And because I hope that they can find a way to allow him to continue to develop filesystems while he is incarcerated. If I'm right about the psychology, denying him this will be as cruel and unusual as denying a semi-deaf man a hearing aid.
I think that's what we call self preservation. It's surprisingly common.
The question is "How can someone murder another living being?". Simple, some people just don't care for other peoples' lives, others do so in self defence, some are pushed slowley 'til they crack, others are shoved so they crack pretty quickly. Some just seem to have a screw loose.
Note: I'm not implying any of these things for HR, however, anyone who kills someone, makes it pretty obvious it was him, and can produce a whole Filesystem (whether you like it or not, it is an amazing thing) must be suffering from a good selection of the above.
Yes, obviously. However, a person should still be presumed innocent until convicted, or we're all screwed. It's easy to say in hindsight that it's obvious he did it. (although it was pretty obvious... missing car seat, blood, etc.)
For all the worth of idle commentary "He did it" "He didn't do it", it would be better if people just shut up or at least ran a betting pool on it..
Yeah, it's a valid view to take, but the legal system has to provide some incentive to finding the body
Without it the family that remains is very unlikely to get 'closure' on the incident.
Also, there's this whole theory that correctional services are to correct behaviour. And, if after 6 months of lying, he's now no longer lying, then maybe he's starting to be, er, corrected.
I don't buy that argument as easily as I do the first tho.
My understanding from the article is that he's already been found guilty and is just trying to make a play for a reduced sentence. Such things aren't an automatic function of law, but are at the judge's discretion so I'm sure he or she will take into account the fact that he protested his innocence for sufficiently long as to cause others to incur the financial and emotional costs of a full trial and only led police to the body fractionally before his initial sentencing.
My guess is that they want to promote people giving up the bodies, so they'll knock something off with an eye to the harm that could have been done to the victim's family had the body never been found. But it'll be a negligible amount to take account of his unwillingness to admit guilt.
Depends on the judge really (and that state's particular definition of the distinction between degrees of murder), but it's not like he's played some sort of 'get out of jail free' card at the last minute.
I don't know what computer facilities are like at American prisons, but I assume they're limited? Otherwise to whatever degree the imprisonment is meant to be punishment (versus just keeping society safe by isolating the person) may not be effective as they're essentially telling a geek that he has to stay inside all day but can play with some computers if he likes.
Is the machine open to bribery and blackmail? Does it work for live hostages taken prisoner by countries offering rendition services to war criminals?
Some governments offer the same payment to get hostages back do they? Where are my lost Opera Tabs? Why are they no longer in History? Bloody new releases!
How much do Scandinavians charge?
I believe It was on summer 2001. The company I was working for back then sponsored some conferences on a computer geeks event (Campus Party) in the south of Spain. He was going to give that year's main speech for Linux lovers.
I spoken to him briefly and I help him setting up his computer on the net. It was quite surprising to me that this guy that supposedly knew so much about computers and file systems didn't know how to configure a simple network interface.
His conference was pretty bad. It was totally unprepared. He wrote down 5 bullet points on a MS Word document whilst people sat down to listen to him. Unenthusiastic, uninformative, waste of time. Since then I rewarded reiserfs with different eyes. I never thought I would be such influenced by him.
Sad.
They'd actually be kind enough to let them near a PC they can use there? Doubt it somehow, the guilty ones would go telling their comrades in arms die Bush die!
And wouldn't mr outgoing president hate to have hate about him spread using software written by one of the biggest companies in US history?
That would have been 1991, in Oxford - the murder of Rachel McLean. The murderer in question was John Tanner who happened to be studying Classics in the same group as my (at the time at any rate) girlfriend. It took the Old Bill 17 days to find the body.Tanner was released in 2003 and is now back in New Zealand, where he was born.
You were right about the crocodile tears though - but the reconstruction he took part in went a good way towards conviction, because he was identified as having been seen but _not_ Rachel.
I met him a few times, and he always seemed like a nice bloke. Whatever it was made him flip so far will probably never be explained. A bit like Reiser.
Finding the body is important to the family of the deceased, it's likely the
deal was done before he led them to the corpse at all..
>Maybe he's going to switch to 'diminished capacity.'
He tried that, it got chucked out, because he's a weirdo not insane.
Shame he wasn't living in Texas.
...behind a reduced sentence is probably something along the lines that admitting the crime permits the convict to show remorse, and start making progress along the road to rehabilitation.
I'm sure that's true in some cases, but I hope the Judge gets some decent psych analysis on this guy to see if he truly is remorseful or is just trying to play the system.
Who else amongst El-Reg afficionados has the work of an axe murderer actually running on their system(s)? Or on an install disk somewhere?
.
I'm going to burn my purchased copy of Suse Linux. I dont actually have it installed anywhere, his data is only on the install CDs.
.
Mind you Suse Linux sucks donkey balls too and I need the shelf space back.
Not after less than two years. We live next to a churchyard that's been actively used for centuries; in our soil, at least (which is a lot wetter than Oakland I suspect) it takes a long, long time for a body to be reduced to bones. Decades, at least.
@Andy Worth:
"I don't agree with people getting shorter sentences on the basis that they suddenly decide to co-operate. "
Consider that Nina's family and her children would still not have her body back (I'm not going to use the "cl" word) had he not cooperated.
It's jarring, yes, but it's a feature of the adversarial justice system. In criminal cases, the defendant/accused will swear under oath that they are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, and cast doubt on the accusers where possible. Then, having been found guilty, or having exhausted the appeals process, or having realised that the case against them is too strong and changed their plea to "guilty", the defendant puts up their hands, admits guilt, and nobody holds the lies that they told against them. That's how it works.
Lawyers are, of course, allowed to represent clients that they know are guilty, because that knowledge would be covered by attorney/client privilege. The only people who can get into trouble for lying in court are ones who are not accused.
In fact, you get in worse trouble if you *carry on* maintaining your innocence after the courts have imprisoned you. You are considered to be in denial of your crime, and will not get parole or early release.
So the wording of the old principle can be given a double meaning. In the adversarial system, you have to act innocent until proven guilty.
Seizing on a murder as an opportunity to show your wit by making a joke puts you pretty firmly in a glass house there, Charles. Of course, it's a safe bet most of your audience will laugh, so you can think you are being witty. Oh, look. You're already getting feedback from your fans. Congratulations. I'm guessing that house will probably be needing an extension soon.
Remember him! - I met him when he was studying @Nottingham - I fixed his bloody twin tub - gave myself an electric shock in the process - If I knew then what know now; however I fancied the pants of one of his housemates (hence the fixing of twin tub act of desperation - I am an electrical engineer what other chance have I got to close to girlies).
More info here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_McLean
Paris - 'cause I'd fix her twin jugs, err tub, any day.
But the real issue here is the California penal/judicial system. Charles Manson (and the rest of his sicko, scum "family" who have not already been released) is up for parole every two years. Ten years ago, a rapist who chopped the arms off of his victim got protection from the state after he was relocated to a community (at state expense) that really didn't want him around. He did a very light sentence, BTW. My guess is that this piece of dung will indeed get a reduced sentence, possibly let off with time served. After all, his lawyer said the whole experience of leading the cops to the body **was** traumatic to him.
Welcome to California, land of Scientology, touchy-feely, and a forgiving atmosphere for criminals.
One last note, don't fail to license your vehicle on time. You CAN be severely punished for that...
Since you're quoting me ("The wife's lover admits to mass murder but without a body the husband is convicted of 1st degree murder?! If that's not reasonable doubt I don't know what the f*ck is."), I'd just like to say that I was right: there was reasonable doubt then. There isn't now. But the truth doesn't work retro-actively. Sorry.
Without even a body, and with a *confessed* mass murderer known to have been sleeping with the alleged victim, any jury that convicted had a screw loose. The fact that the jury got lucky isn't a defense for their actions or the police's. What if they'd been wrong? How long would it have taken to get Reisner out of gaol again? 10 years? 20? Ever? Or does it not matter if you bang up the occassional innocent if it means you can get a quick conviction?
@nigel (RE: Definitely a bit wierd)
I have to disagree with you using asbergers syndrome as a reason for what this man did and also some of what you said describing the symptoms. As someone who has been diagnosed with this condition, I would disagree with people saying I can't live a normal life. As far as I can tell, my life has been as normal as any other person, with the exception of being "very good at something", which in my case (and in many others) is computing (not a narrow topic, but I love every aspect of it).
I disagree with you saying that the reason for murdering his wife and denying it afterwards is due to "lack of empathy" caused by asbergers syndrome. Though I may not display empathy outwardly as much as most people, in my mind I have empathy towards people probably more then most people, they just don't always see it. In other words, from my experience of the condition, he'd have felt just like any other person about murdering his wife. If he didn't, then he is suffering from something a lot worse then asbergers syndrome.
"Lawyers are, of course, allowed to represent clients that they know are guilty, because that knowledge would be covered by attorney/client privilege. The only people who can get into trouble for lying in court are ones who are not accused."
On the contrary, at least here in the England & Wales, barristers are not allowed to knowingly mislead a court — check out rule 302 on http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/standardsandguidance/codeofconduct/section1codeofconduct/partiii_fundmentalprinciples/.
If a client tells a barrister they're guilty but still wants to contest the evidence then the barrister may still go into court and argue that the evidence that the prosecution have isn't strong enough to convict the client. That doesn't involve misleading the court and serves a useful function — it makes sure that the prosecution know that they need evidence beyond reasonable doubt before they go off to court. So those of us that are innocent are protected.
"Ah, now there's justice for ya. So a "life sentence" is a little over 10 years now, is it?"
In the UK, "life" just means "indefinite". Judges usually set a minimum sentence (though they don't have to and often didn't until quite recently), after that it's at the discretion of parole boards. Parole boards are mainly interested in public safety, so essentially a life sentence means that the judge thinks you should do x years as a punishment and then parole boards will continue to detain you if your release would be a threat for society.
It will be reduced from what he would have got if he had not led them to the body.
This is not the same as being reduced from what any "normal" wife murderer would have got. It is very likely he will get a tariff which is something like:
X years (the murder) + Y years (the piss taking re: the pleas of innocence)
rather than
X years (the murder) + Y years (the piss taking re: the pleas of innocence) + Z years (refusing to co-operate re: the body)
So rather than saying he is hoping to get a reduced sentence you could phrase it that he is trying to avoid extra punishment for not locating the body.
"On the contrary, at least here in the England & Wales, barristers are not allowed to knowingly mislead a court"
That's right. A friend of mine who is a barrister explained it to me when I asked him the difference between him an a solicitor when it comes to trials. Essentially a I understand it, if you're taken to court you get yourself a solicitor and can tell them everything, including that you are guilty. Now I'm not certain about where the split goes, but a lot of the evidence gathering is done by the solicitor who obviously knows the truth, and this is then passed to your barrister to build a case for your defense, with them always assuming your innocense. This way the solicitor can make sure (while knowing your possible guilt) that they have covered the angles which may come up in the trial against you, without the barrister knowingly lying to the judge/jury.
Robert Long wrote "Without even a body, and with a *confessed* mass murderer known to have been sleeping with the alleged victim, any jury that convicted had a screw loose."
Not to put words in your mouth but "without even a body" suggests that any murderer who can hide or dispose of their victim's body is entitled to full benefit of reasonable doubt. It's a consideration but it's not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
The self-confessed mass murderer has never been charged with murder because the police haven't been able to substantiate his stories, I believe. That one wingnut has a wingnut for a best friend is quite plausible to me.
"... any jury that convicted had a screw loose." Just because people see things differently than you do doesn't mean they necessarily have a screw loose. The jury had the benefit of all the evidence, which also included the defendant's demeanor.
The key part of the phrase, that has to be explained in every capital trial, is "reasonable".
Clearly, the jury in this case, who for some reason have come under your vitriolic fire for doing a civic duty that most people would all-but chew off an arm or leg to get out of doing, found that any doubts they had in the light of the evidence they were exposed to were unreasonable.
That is to say, that it was MORE reasonable to deduce this lying, sociopathic, murderous, did I already mention lying git had killed his wife and hidden the body than that she fled the country while he was re-arranging his card interior (as one so often does) and hosing it down (who here hasn't said "damn the devaluation and damage to fixtures and fittings, I'm hosing out the interior of my car" at sometime or other?). Oh, and reading his "Hiding the Evidence For Dummies" books.
I'm amazed and not a little appalled that people are *still* trying to excuse this murdering git's behaviour even though he has finally admitted "it's a fair cop (but Aspberger's Syndrome made me do it)".
Wanna make book on that Aspberger's diagnosis in light of his record on honesty?
Hay-zoos on a velo.
[quote> On the contrary, at least here in the England & Wales, barristers are not allowed to knowingly mislead a court — check out rule 302 on http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/standardsandguidance/codeofconduct </quote]
I read the link as http://www.bastardsetc
Since the popular variant was "fled back to Russia", but not (that I saw) with any suggestion of how she achieved this without leaving a trace of the departure or arrival. Every time I enjoy the privilege of arriving or departing in the USA I'm left in no doubt that my passage has been comprehensively logged.
Now of course there are ways that this is done, especially in the more exciting kind of movies, but that's working against the "reasonable doubt" again. Which as many have observed above is a strong but not purist test: there is almost always _some_ doubt, sadly even with a confession (coerced from the innocent, volunteered by the lunatic attention seeker). Were it always cut and dried you wouldn't need a jury, let alone a dozen on it.
With the amount of movies out there about springing a convict from jail to prevent some terrible thing, there has to be room for yet another. But this time, Hans will have to team up with OJ Simpson to restore betting agencies' file systems before the Super Bowl. Hilarity ensues as they take stabs at one-liners.
"I was expecting a slew of comments wishing 25 years of brutal anal rape on him, administered by large sadistic men in orange jump suits."
Nah. That I wish upon Icahn, if he gets to do his own first-degree murder of Yahoo!
Sadly, I truly hoped for Reiser to be innocent, but he actually did it. Sad, as it only propagates that "CompSci dudes are weirdo serial killerz!" perception...
I've known a few people on the autistic spectrum who've been a bit "In Your Face", but they'd all have spotted that naming an FS after yourself is more than a little bit narcissistic.
Whatever brought Reiser to do this, he _did_ kill someone, he _did_ try to hide the evidence, and he _did_ lie about it.
@thornbat,
Your passage was logged? I knew that the yanks liked biometrics, but I'd think your passage is a step too far.
Half the people I see posting on the internet would've done the same thing, gotten caught up in juvenile anger and it resulted in murder, not wanting to end up in prison or be shunned so much so they maintained innocence, then when it finally comes down to it in the end they realize they are going to be convicted either way and just want a chance of getting out of prison before they've died of old age.
Did you think all guilty people confess instead of leading the police et al on a chase? If that were the case would we need courts at all?
I'm not siding with the guy, obviously society can't have murderers wandering around loose if they pose a danger.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
