[conspire] (forw) Re: [Evals] Hans Reiser found guilty

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Apr 30 13:34:25 PDT 2008

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:31:59 -0700
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: evals at lists.merlins.org
Subject: Re: [Evals] Hans Reiser found guilty

Quoting Marc MERLIN (marc at merlins.org):

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:51PM -0700, Chris DiBona wrote:
> > So you present 2 stark choices here:
> > 
> > 1) A woman puts her children through hell for 3 years and scars them
> > for life to skip out on her husband to return to a fucked up country
> > that she was desperate enough to marry hans for a green card to get
> > the hell out.
> > 
> > 2) Not #1.
> I find your explanations confusing :)

I'm still catching up on the final couple of weeks of testimony, but 
defence indeed argued the scenario Royce mentioned:  that Nina was so
furious and determined to frame Hans that she suddenly abandoned her
children, her new US citizenship, all her US friends, her new country,
and in effect her entire life's identity, to go back to Russia
surreptitiously, walking away _even_ from thousands of dollars of cash
in her apartment -- intending to be reunited with the children when her
mom or somebody else spirited them out of the country.

Prosecution, in effect, countered:  Why take all that trouble, and
suffer all of that loss and disruption to her life -- just to "get" Hans
-- when she could have instead taken _all_ of her remaining money and 
both children (whose US and Russian Federation passports she had, and
who had Russian citizenship) on the next flight to St. Petersburg?  
That would have been clean, effective, and a great deal easier.  She and
the children would have been completely out of reach of Hans and any US
courts.  The record suggests that Nina might easily have been a crook, a
manipulator, and a golddigger, but there's no reason to believe she
wanted to ruin Hans's life.

I guess defence's only comeback to that, and it was pretty feeble, was
Hans's claim on the witness stand that he'd very recently accused Nina,
to her face, of embezzling huge amounts of money from Namesys, and
implied that he was going to make an issue of that in the divorce
proceedings (and maybe cut off alimony).  Hans said he confronted her
about this _during_ the final conversation with her on Su 2006-09-03,
just before she walked out the door.  However, we have only his word
that this conversation occurred at all and, anyway, big deal!  It's
not really reasonable that it would have so flipped Nina around the bend
that she decided to disappear off the face of the planet and frame Hans
for murder.

So, I don't buy defence's argument on that point, and it's one of the
reasons why I think it's likely that _somebody_ murdered Nina, rather
than her voluntarily vanishing.  (That somebody was probably Hans, in my

Evals mailing list
Evals at lists.merlins.org

----- End forwarded message -----

More information about the conspire mailing list