Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser - Linux

This is a discussion on Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser - Linux ; On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote: > "Rick" stated in post > oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM: > >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: >> >>> In article , >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

  1. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >
    >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right answer
    >>>> for
    >>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to mathematics
    >>>> or
    >>>
    >>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not the
    >>> wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>
    >>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?

    >> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>
    >>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>> whole, it was a compelling case.

    >>
    >> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to decide
    >> he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way they
    >> thought he should. So he was guilty.

    >
    > Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!


    Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    reached its verdict, which I am.


    --
    Rick

  2. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article ,
    > Rick wrote:
    >> > Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a whole,
    >> > it was a compelling case.

    >>
    >> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to decide
    >> he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way they
    >> thought he should. So he was guilty.

    >
    > Yeah, he didn't react the way they thought an innocent man would react:
    > he lied. One of the main reasons for trial by a live jury is so that
    > jurors can see and hear the witnesses, so as to use the demeanor of the
    > witness to help in deciding whether or not the witness is telling the
    > truth.


    Weird. The COLA wacks seemed to think they needed video of him filling
    in the grave to convict. Cue Rick claiming he might not have known what
    was in the grave ... *LOL*.

    --
    "Let the body stay buried wherever he put it, maybe it'll get
    found some day, maybe not. "
    -- "Bo Raxo" in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  3. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:12:14 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Rick wrote:
    >>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a whole,
    >>> it was a compelling case.

    >>
    >> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to decide
    >> he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way they
    >> thought he should. So he was guilty.

    >
    > Yeah, he didn't react the way they thought an innocent man would react:
    > he lied. One of the main reasons for trial by a live jury is so that
    > jurors can see and hear the witnesses, so as to use the demeanor of the
    > witness to help in deciding whether or not the witness is telling the
    > truth.


    I never would have put Resier on the stand in the first place.




    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "DFS" writes:

    > Convicted husband leads Calif. police to body
    > Insisted after verdict he had nothing to do with death; ID of body uncertain
    >
    > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25577513/
    >
    >


    Creepy eh?

    ,----
    | The ravine where the body was recovered was less than a mile from the
    | house where Hans Reiser lived with his mother.
    `----


    I wonder if he had a sailor suit?

  5. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "Rick" stated in post
    oO-dnWHA0eXBKO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 11:43 AM:

    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right answer
    >>>>> for
    >>>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to mathematics
    >>>>> or
    >>>>
    >>>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not the
    >>>> wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?
    >>> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>
    >>>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>>> whole, it was a compelling case.
    >>>
    >>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to decide
    >>> he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way they
    >>> thought he should. So he was guilty.

    >>
    >> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!

    >
    > Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    > defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    > reached its verdict, which I am.
    >

    And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.


    --
    If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
    Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)






  6. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:51:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> Convicted husband leads Calif. police to body
    >> Insisted after verdict he had nothing to do with death; ID of body uncertain
    >>
    >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25577513/
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Creepy eh?
    >
    > ,----
    >| The ravine where the body was recovered was less than a mile from the
    >| house where Hans Reiser lived with his mother.
    > `----
    >
    >
    > I wonder if he had a sailor suit?


    The police caught him in his mother's basement as well!

    You can't make this stuff up!

    Read the "Fortune File" I posted.

    It sounds eerily like some of the Linux loons in COLA.
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  7. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Rick wrote:
    >> > Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a whole,
    >> > it was a compelling case.

    >>
    >> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to decide
    >> he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way they
    >> thought he should. So he was guilty.

    >
    > Yeah, he didn't react the way they thought an innocent man would react:
    > he lied. One of the main reasons for trial by a live jury is so that
    > jurors can see and hear the witnesses, so as to use the demeanor of the
    > witness to help in deciding whether or not the witness is telling the
    > truth.


    That doesn't seem right!

    --
    I must Create a System, or be enslav'd by another Man's;
    I will not Reason and Compare; my business is to Create.
    -- William Blake, "Jerusalem"

  8. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On 2008-07-08, DFS wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:21:57 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Convicted husband leads Calif. police to body
    >>> Insisted after verdict he had nothing to do with death; ID of body
    >>> uncertain
    >>>
    >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25577513/

    >>
    >> Rick must be in mourning.

    >
    > (p)Rick is still holding out hope that the real murderer - the one who
    > killed and dumped the body while Hans just watched - will confess.


    Do you know where OJ was?


    --

    (o< |)
    //\ ..may the beacon /\obt.
    V_/_ pass you by.. /\/\iller
    3:46pm up 3 days 0:14, 19 users, load average: 1.26, 0.70, 0.50
    processes 241335

  9. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:46:40 -0500, Robt. Miller wrote:

    > On 2008-07-08, DFS wrote:
    >> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:21:57 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Convicted husband leads Calif. police to body
    >>>> Insisted after verdict he had nothing to do with death; ID of body
    >>>> uncertain
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25577513/
    >>>
    >>> Rick must be in mourning.

    >>
    >> (p)Rick is still holding out hope that the real murderer - the one who
    >> killed and dumped the body while Hans just watched - will confess.

    >
    > Do you know where OJ was?


    Probably playing golf with all his white friends.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  10. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    In article ,
    Rick wrote:
    > Use the the demeanor, yes, but not decide based on the fact that he was
    > "different". Ah, well.In a sense some justice was served. He will go to
    > jail. However, I wonder what will happen to other people that go to trial
    > that are different... they twitch, or are savants... and are innocent.


    They'll be acquitted, because the prosecution won't have dozens of
    strong pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as them saying how much
    they hate the missing person, the missing person's blood on their
    sleeping bag, them frequently calling the missing person and then
    suddenly stopping right at the time of the disappearance, them picking
    up the children when they are not supposed to (an act that could get
    them in serious trouble with the divorce court), and so on.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:04:16 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > oO-dnWHA0eXBKO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 11:43 AM:
    >
    >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right answer
    >>>>>> for
    >>>>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to mathematics
    >>>>>> or
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not the
    >>>>> wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?
    >>>> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>>>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>>>> whole, it was a compelling case.
    >>>>
    >>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way
    >>>> they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>
    >>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!

    >>
    >> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>

    > And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.


    Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    reached its verdict, which I am.

    I will translate for you. I wasn't defending Reiser. That is your
    incorrect inference.

    --
    Rick

  12. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:18:52 -0500
    :
    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:04:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> oO-dnWHA0eXBKO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 11:43 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right answer
    >>>>>>> for
    >>>>>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to mathematics
    >>>>>>> or
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not the
    >>>>>> wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?
    >>>>> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>>>>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>>>>> whole, it was a compelling case.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way
    >>>>> they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>>
    >>>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!
    >>>
    >>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>

    >> And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.

    >
    > Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    > defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    > reached its verdict, which I am.


    Not to mention the actual code, which is ignoring all this. ;-)
    While there are some problems therein according to "yttrx", I
    have no idea how the wife's body or lack thereof would affect
    the filesystem performance.

    >
    > I will translate for you. I wasn't defending Reiser. That is your
    > incorrect inference.
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "Rick" stated in post
    oO-dnWPA0eUxVu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 1:18 PM:

    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:04:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> oO-dnWHA0eXBKO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 11:43 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>> oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right answer
    >>>>>>> for
    >>>>>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to mathematics
    >>>>>>> or
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not the
    >>>>>> wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?
    >>>>> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>>>>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>>>>> whole, it was a compelling case.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way
    >>>>> they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>>
    >>>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!
    >>>
    >>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>

    >> And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.

    >
    > Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    > defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    > reached its verdict, which I am.
    >
    > I will translate for you. I wasn't defending Reiser. That is your
    > incorrect inference.


    You can deny your defense of Reisner all you want... even though your
    defense of him is, clearly, based on your view of the juries opinion of him.


    --
    One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.


  14. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "DFS" stated in post
    DaKck.18878$CC.1676@bignews9.bellsouth.net on 7/8/08 6:47 AM:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:21:57 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Convicted husband leads Calif. police to body
    >>> Insisted after verdict he had nothing to do with death; ID of body
    >>> uncertain
    >>>
    >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25577513/

    >>
    >> Rick must be in mourning.

    >
    > (p)Rick is still holding out hope that the real murderer - the one who
    > killed and dumped the body while Hans just watched - will confess.


    But they jury did not like him!

    Sigh...



    --
    When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
    When God changes your mind, that's faith.
    When facts change your mind, that's science.


  15. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:51:23 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > oO-dnWPA0eUxVu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 1:18 PM:
    >
    >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:04:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> oO-dnWHA0eXBKO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 11:43 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:33:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> oO-dnWfA0eWAOu7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 10:42 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:20:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>>>>> You know, there is such a thing as getting to the right
    >>>>>>>> answer for
    >>>>>>>> the wrong reason. This is an idea not entirely alien to
    >>>>>>>> mathematics or
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> But overwhelming evidence, such as they had at the trial, is not
    >>>>>>> the wrong reason. The prosecutor summed it up nicely here:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/detail?
    >>>>>> blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/
    >>>>>>> detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25878>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any one or two of the items can be explained away, but taken as a
    >>>>>>> whole, it was a compelling case.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the
    >>>>>> way they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!
    >>>>
    >>>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>>
    >>> And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.

    >>
    >> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>
    >> I will translate for you. I wasn't defending Reiser. That is your
    >> incorrect inference.

    >
    > You can deny your defense of Reisner all you want... even though your
    > defense of him is, clearly, based on your view of the juries opinion of
    > him.


    This is an example of why people detest you.

    One more time, Michael. I was not defending Reiser. How many tome do you
    have to be told?

    --
    Rick

  16. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "Rick" stated in post
    oO-dnZ3D0eWofO7VnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/8/08 2:50 PM:

    >>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>
    >>> I will translate for you. I wasn't defending Reiser. That is your
    >>> incorrect inference.

    >>
    >> You can deny your defense of Reisner all you want... even though your
    >> defense of him is, clearly, based on your view of the juries opinion of
    >> him.

    >
    > This is an example of why people detest you.
    >
    > One more time, Michael. I was not defending Reiser. How many tome do you
    > have to be told?


    I do not deny your *denial* defending your jury-hatred defense of Reisner...
    but I shall not pretend the defense you have been pushing does not exist.
    If you "detest" me for telling the truth about a topic you are discussing
    then so be it... personally I *like* when people stick to topics and tell
    the truth!


    --
    "And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. Itıs
    never a reason." - Bill Gates


  17. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    In article ,
    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    > >> Yeah, he didn't react the way they thought an innocent man would react:
    > >> he lied. One of the main reasons for trial by a live jury is so that
    > >> jurors can see and hear the witnesses, so as to use the demeanor of the
    > >> witness to help in deciding whether or not the witness is telling the
    > >> truth.

    > >
    > > That doesn't seem right!

    >
    > We are human beings and are not perfect.
    >
    > I've been on several juries including Federal Grand Jury and I can tell you
    > that in my experience while the demeanor of the witnesses, or the defendant
    > was certainly discussed, it was clearly the evidence based upon the
    > instructions from the judge that determined the outcome.


    Right. Where demeanor comes in is deciding which witnesses to believe.
    That's usually the hard part. Given the facts and the law, any first
    year law student could determine what the correct outcome is. What we
    need juries for is to decide what the facts are.


    > Mistakes happen though, mostly due to either attorney incompetence or jury
    > incompetence. Sometimes the judge's charge to the jury has an effect as
    > well.
    >
    > The OJ Simpson trial was a perfect example of the above.
    >
    > This came out after the trial of course, but that jury was composed of
    > morons.
    >
    > A&E did a show on that trial from the jury perspective and I was totally
    > shocked, I mean completely floored, when one woman said something along the
    > lines of " Well a lot of people have O negative blood types so what makes
    > them think it was OJ?"
    >
    > This woman sat through months of testimony and somehow, someway never
    > managed to grasp the difference between blood type and DNA................


    But the DNA evidence was pretty much worthless, due to incompetent crime
    scene technique by the police and incompetent handling in the lab.

    ....
    > By contrast you have Johnny Cochran and his "If the glove doesn't fit, you
    > must acquit"...


    Note that it was the prosecution that asked OJ to try on the glove.
    They *knew* this was a bad idea. They had decided not to do it. And
    then Cochran managed to get them to do it anyway.

    I'm sure Simpson did the crime, but with the DNA evidence made worthless
    by police bungling, and police perjury over past racial remarks (making
    the idea of a police frame up at least remotely plausible), and various
    other problems with prosecution witnesses, I'm not sure I could have
    found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    If we are going to talk about famous cases where people got off due to
    brilliant defense and/or prosecutorial bungling, surely the trial of the
    cops for the Rodney King beating should be mentioned. Jesus
    Christ...the whole thing was on video. Should be about as open and shut
    a case as you can find, right?

    Yet the defense turned that tape into their biggest weapon. They showed
    it frame by frame. Most people would concede that the first couple of
    hits by the police are justified, to subdue King--the issue is that they
    used way too much force, not that they used force at all.

    By going frame by frame, looking at each blow in isolation, the defense
    asked the question, "was THIS blow justified?". For each one, they
    showed that the cop taking the swing, from his limited point of view,
    had just seen something like King kick another cop, or take a swing at
    one. So *that* blow was justified. But when King would involuntarily
    kick or twitch on receiving that blow, some other cop would see that,
    and not see the blow that caused it, and to him, it looked like King was
    still fighting, justifying *his* blow. They were able to go through the
    whole damn tape that way, and show that every blow was justified from
    what the officer who took it could see.

    It was absolutely brilliant defense lawyering, and with the tape turned
    against them, the prosecution was pretty much screwed.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:09:53 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >>>> Yeah, he didn't react the way they thought an innocent man would react:
    >>>> he lied. One of the main reasons for trial by a live jury is so that
    >>>> jurors can see and hear the witnesses, so as to use the demeanor of the
    >>>> witness to help in deciding whether or not the witness is telling the
    >>>> truth.
    >>>
    >>> That doesn't seem right!

    >>
    >> We are human beings and are not perfect.
    >>
    >> I've been on several juries including Federal Grand Jury and I can tell you
    >> that in my experience while the demeanor of the witnesses, or the defendant
    >> was certainly discussed, it was clearly the evidence based upon the
    >> instructions from the judge that determined the outcome.

    >
    > Right. Where demeanor comes in is deciding which witnesses to believe.
    > That's usually the hard part. Given the facts and the law, any first
    > year law student could determine what the correct outcome is. What we
    > need juries for is to decide what the facts are.
    >
    >
    >> Mistakes happen though, mostly due to either attorney incompetence or jury
    >> incompetence. Sometimes the judge's charge to the jury has an effect as
    >> well.
    >>
    >> The OJ Simpson trial was a perfect example of the above.
    >>
    >> This came out after the trial of course, but that jury was composed of
    >> morons.
    >>
    >> A&E did a show on that trial from the jury perspective and I was totally
    >> shocked, I mean completely floored, when one woman said something along the
    >> lines of " Well a lot of people have O negative blood types so what makes
    >> them think it was OJ?"
    >>
    >> This woman sat through months of testimony and somehow, someway never
    >> managed to grasp the difference between blood type and DNA................

    >
    > But the DNA evidence was pretty much worthless, due to incompetent crime
    > scene technique by the police and incompetent handling in the lab.


    The chain of custody of the DNA was suspect but what gets ignored is that
    VanAtter. Furman and the other cop whose name I can never remember, didn't
    know each other until this case.
    IOW they would have had to all get together, get the correct evidence and
    then plant it appropriately.
    Just about impossible.

    For example, how did Nicole and Ron's blood get in OJ's jeep and not
    smeared all over the place but laid out in a fashion (splatter) which would
    be typical of a person covered in blood driving away from the scene.

    A lot of this kind of stuff gets ignored because the chain of custody of
    evidence was indeed poor. This alone does not mean the other evidence
    should be ignored.

    > ...
    >> By contrast you have Johnny Cochran and his "If the glove doesn't fit, you
    >> must acquit"...

    >
    > Note that it was the prosecution that asked OJ to try on the glove.
    > They *knew* this was a bad idea. They had decided not to do it. And
    > then Cochran managed to get them to do it anyway.


    Correct, but my point is people remember what Johnny said, not what Marcia
    said.

    Big difference when you have a moronic jury.

    > I'm sure Simpson did the crime, but with the DNA evidence made worthless
    > by police bungling, and police perjury over past racial remarks (making
    > the idea of a police frame up at least remotely plausible), and various
    > other problems with prosecution witnesses, I'm not sure I could have
    > found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


    See above.
    The defense made this out like it was a concocted plot but yet these people
    didn't even know each other at that level.

    Also they would have had to assume the suspect was OJ from the very start
    and in the confusion of a crime scene the idea is to collect evidence.

    It would have been way too much to have set that scene up and set OJ up as
    well.
    Cops are not too bright in general either.

    Taking just the DNA and other evidence chain of custody as a stand alone,
    yes it does raise reasonable doubt, but when considered with everything
    else, the guy is guilty as sin.

    I still contend the jury was morons and could not absorb the complexity of
    the evidence.
    Coupled with the circus like atmosphere of the court, brilliant questioning
    techniques by Barry Scheck and the other defense attorneys, the idiocy of
    the prosecution (IOW not asking Furman if he is a rascist) and then OJ's
    star status added in, it all makes for a disaster for the state.

    Then of course you have the jury wondering if they can ever live their
    lives in safety if they convict.

    let me tell you I was a federal grand juror on a very high profile case and
    i wondered this.
    We all got picked up in a limo by the federal marshalls each morning and it
    was nerve racking to say the least.
    Our phones were tapped etc.
    Not fun so I can sympathize with the fear of the OJ jury.

    Still, I would have hung the MF.....


    > If we are going to talk about famous cases where people got off due to
    > brilliant defense and/or prosecutorial bungling, surely the trial of the
    > cops for the Rodney King beating should be mentioned. Jesus
    > Christ...the whole thing was on video. Should be about as open and shut
    > a case as you can find, right?


    I didn't really think so.
    At first to be honest my feelings were mixed.

    > Yet the defense turned that tape into their biggest weapon. They showed
    > it frame by frame. Most people would concede that the first couple of
    > hits by the police are justified, to subdue King--the issue is that they
    > used way too much force, not that they used force at all.


    It was brilliant.

    > By going frame by frame, looking at each blow in isolation, the defense
    > asked the question, "was THIS blow justified?". For each one, they
    > showed that the cop taking the swing, from his limited point of view,
    > had just seen something like King kick another cop, or take a swing at
    > one. So *that* blow was justified. But when King would involuntarily
    > kick or twitch on receiving that blow, some other cop would see that,
    > and not see the blow that caused it, and to him, it looked like King was
    > still fighting, justifying *his* blow. They were able to go through the
    > whole damn tape that way, and show that every blow was justified from
    > what the officer who took it could see.


    Yea it did, but my mind was more involved with the entire scene and it's
    purpose rather than the minutia.


    > It was absolutely brilliant defense lawyering, and with the tape turned
    > against them, the prosecution was pretty much screwed.


    At the time, I thought Rodney King should have gotten off.......
    The beating was excessive IMHO.

    But I didn't really follow that case as well as I did the OJ case.

    Of course subsequently King showed what he was really like so maybe I was
    wrong after all.

    I think the fact that the two of us have differing opinions proves that the
    system is not perfect, and neither are humans.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  19. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in post
    a70dk5-kuc.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/8/08 1:44 PM:

    >>>>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the way
    >>>>>> they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!
    >>>>
    >>>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>>
    >>> And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not like.

    >>
    >> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >> reached its verdict, which I am.

    >
    > Not to mention the actual code, which is ignoring all this. ;-)
    > While there are some problems therein according to "yttrx", I
    > have no idea how the wife's body or lack thereof would affect
    > the filesystem performance.


    The fact he wrote some, apparently, nifty code is likely the reason Rick
    defends him so strongly. Why Rick *denies* defending him is a mystery.


    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds


  20. Re: Hans Reiser gives up the body of Nina Reiser

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:59:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "The Ghost In The Machine" stated in
    > post a70dk5-kuc.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 7/8/08 1:44 PM:
    >
    >>>>>>> By juror comments, IIRC, they had to have Reiser on the stand to
    >>>>>>> decide he was guilty... they didn't like him. He didn't react the
    >>>>>>> way they thought he should. So he was guilty.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Funny how much you defend a guy you deny you have defended!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>>>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>>>> reached its verdict, which I am.
    >>>>>
    >>>> And look how you call me names when I point out facts you do not
    >>>> like.
    >>>
    >>> Funny how you are too damn stupid to know the difference between
    >>> defending Reiser, which I am not, and taking issue with how the jury
    >>> reached its verdict, which I am.

    >>
    >> Not to mention the actual code, which is ignoring all this. ;-) While
    >> there are some problems therein according to "yttrx", I have no idea
    >> how the wife's body or lack thereof would affect the filesystem
    >> performance.

    >
    > The fact he wrote some, apparently, nifty code is likely the reason Rick
    > defends him so strongly. Why Rick *denies* defending him is a mystery.


    Why are you too stupid to know the difference between defending Reiser
    and criticizing the jury?

    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast