[conspire] (forw) Reiser trial: DNA tests partially flubbed, defence motion for mistrial
einfeldt at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 20:58:22 PST 2008
On Feb 5, 2008 8:45 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> > In the Reiser case, there's no evidence of the kind of violence (that
> > I've heard of anyway) that would kill someone, only circumstantial
> > evidence of death.
> Precisely the point I've made several times. Prosecution's contention
> that Hans had transported Nina's corpse some significant distance in his
> Honda CRX (to dispose of it), and yet no forensic evidence existed other
> than a faint blood stain of indeterminate age on a stuffsack, struck me
> as non-credible. We're supposed to believe that washing the floorboard
> with water removed all trace of blood? I really don't think so.
That is a really good point. It is my understanding that one needs
something like bleach to "denature" blood, whatever that means. It is my
impression from watching TV that there is something about blood that causes
it to bond pretty tightly with surfaces it contacts. Of course, that is
just TV, and you can't base your world view on TV, as it has more
misinformation than information. But that seems to be a common theme
through lots of movies, TV shows, and novels, so maybe there is a grain of
truth to it.
Nonetheless, Rick makes a really good point. Which is why the absence of a
body is really troubling in this case. This is more than a reasonable doubt
about a murder, this is a reasonable doubt about the death itself. In law
school, the buzz word that we were tested on is corpus delecti, the body of
a crime. It really seems as if the prosecution has failed to prove a basic,
basic element that is even more fundamental than causation: corpus
delecti. There is insufficient evidence that there was any crime at all!!!
We don't even know that there was a kidnapping, much less a murder.
> This has been my interpretation all along: The Oakland DA was stampeded
> into "doing something about Nina" by the professionally sponsored ad
> campaign paid for by Clear Channel, CBS Outdoor, and Web-design firm
> Idiom Technology, at the time of Nina's disappearance: They had _20_
> Nina Reiser billboards along major East Bay roadways, plus a
> profesionally-done Web site -- and consequently the story was all over
> the news.
That's awful. Who paid for that?
> It's very common for DAs to respond to that sort of public
> pressure, by filing charges against the likeliest-looking suspect and
> just hoping that enough evidence emerges post-indictment to make the
> case. (In their experience, it usually does.)
Good point. Maybe they were just forced to throw it up against the wall to
see if it would stick for political purposes.
This makes me wonder how this was engineered, and maybe if Hans is being
railroaded. After all, if Rick is correct, and that much capital has gone
into making this appear like a crime, maybe there *is* a conspiracy, and
maybe Nina *has* gone underground?
It is probably a case of mob justice. Some media outlets wanted a story,
and maybe some law-and-order types wanted to stir up public discontent,
since it has been a while since any innocent little children have been
harmed in a sensational case, and the conservatives have no more
law-and-order issues to pound their chests over.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the conspire