Creater of ReiserFS arrested

[Redman]

Capping a monthlong investigation, Oakland police arrested the estranged husband of a missing Oakland woman Tuesday on suspicion of murder.

Police said they have evidence to suggest that Nina Reiser, 31, who went missing Sept. 3, is dead. Her body has not been found.

"All avenues led us to Mr. Reiser being responsible for the death and disappearance of Ms. Nina Reiser," said homicide Lt. Ersie Joyner.

Full article can be read here.

[fingal]

How dreadful. Last I heard Mr. Reiser was in debt and trying to finance his love for driving fast cars.

[easuter]

its quite a shock indeed.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_283171408.html

this site has the speaches of the authorities.

i am no lawyer, but how well does "circumstantial evidence" hold up in court in the US?

[techieMoe]

i am no lawyer, but how well does "circumstantial evidence" hold up in court in the US?

That depends entirely on how good a lawyer you have. In most cases you can't pin a murder rap on someone with only circumstantial evidence and no body.

[bidi]

...no body.

With a good lawyer, that alone will make the case go sour! Who can say if someone's dead if there's no body? You need something... the lawyer can just argue "she could have just run away" all day and cause reasonable doubt. Pretty much, you can't prove murder unless you have a body! I bet they just arrested him to see if they can push him over the edge and get a statement if he really did do it.

[techieMoe]

With a good lawyer, that alone will make the case go sour! Who can say if someone's dead if there's no body? You need something... the lawyer can just argue "she could have just run away" all day and cause reasonable doubt. Pretty much, you can't prove murder unless you have a body! I bet they just arrested him to see if they can push him over the edge and get a statement if he really did do it.

[soapbox]
I wouldn't doubt it. A similar situation happened to two different family members of mine: the police had no substantive evidence against either of them but they rounded them up anyway hoping they could pressure a confession out of them. Thankfully both had been well-coached by a lawyer. I'm rapidly losing faith in detectives in my country. It seems more and more of them are too lazy to do actual police work and would rather try to strongarm a confession out of someone... But I digress.
[/soapbox]

[Vergil83]

wow.... perhaps the latest ELER wasn't to far off.
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/arch...nel-programmer

[fingal]

wow.... perhaps the latest ELER wasn't to far off.
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/arch...nel-programmer

Dear God! I've never seen that cartoon before but that's sick man! (In the sense of bad not good).

Eric Raymond? Hmmm I posted to his blog a few days ago. He probably deleted it thinking I was trolling.

[MikeTbob]

Pretty sad, no matter who it happens to.

I was pretty intrigued to the idea of a conviction without a body, so I did a small search and guess what?
It has happened in the past in California.
http://www.findjeanine.com/jeanine/n...12-17-2004.htm

Jeanine Harms has not been seen since July 27, 2001, and her body has never been found, but prosecutors will try to prove that a San Jose man killed her.

Murder cases without the victim's body are rare but convictions are possible, court experts said.

And not just circumstantial evidence, but Biological Evidence.
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_283171408.html

Police told the Oakland Tribune newspaper biological evidence that puts the missing woman in a car her husband had access to is a strong part of the circumstantial case against him. They would not say what the biological evidence is, but the term usually includes blood, hair or other body fluids.

So with or without a body, I guess you can be tried and convicted.

[techieMoe]

And not just circumstantial evidence, but Biological Evidence.
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_283171408.html

Police told the Oakland Tribune newspaper biological evidence that puts the missing woman in a car her husband had access to is a strong part of the circumstantial case against him. They would not say what the biological evidence is, but the term usually includes blood, hair or other body fluids.

I'm just going to wait to hear more information. "Biological evidence" seems so far to only prove that his wife was in the car. That's not exactly proof he killed her. It's still circumstantial.