As Published On
→ The Out-Lawyer’s
Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All
contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright ©
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission
to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for
personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost
always routinely given.]
Please
contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
HANS IN THE DOCK
A Summary of the
Defendant’s Testimony to the Jury and Comments
By
Jay B. Gaskill
A Reprise
GASKILL'S GUIDE TO
THE REISER TRIAL
HANS REISER TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN DEFENSE FROM MONDAY, MARCH 3 THROUGH
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2ND, SEVERAL DAYS ON THE STAND AND HUGE, ALMOST
UNPRECEDENTED DELAYS. HERE IS A CATCH-UP
SUMMARY OF THE CASE AGAINST HIM FOR THE CRIME OF MURDERING HIS WIFE, NINA --HER
BODY HAS NOT BEEN FOUND…
THE CASE SO FAR – REISER COGNOSCENTI MAY SKIP THIS PART
The defendant in this
case, Hans Reiser, a computer guru, was in a difficult divorce that threatened
the viability of his small company, his life’s work. His wife, a
beautiful Russian physician-in-training, was less than faithful and a
spendthrift. In due course the couple separated, filed for divorce,
bickered about child custody (two single digit kids) and money.
Flash forward to the Labor
Day weekend in 2006. After the predictable intra-marital squabble, Hans
was delivered the children for a visit on Sunday. At that time he was
living with his mother and driving one of her cars, an older Honda CRX. But Mom was in
Nina hasn’t been seen
since. She is not in
Many days later, police
discovered Hans’s CRX in a place of concealment: the
passenger seat had been removed; there was standing water on the floorboard and
they found a sleeping bag cover with a telltale spot of Nina’s blood.
A search warrant was
somewhat belatedly issued and executed at the home of Hans’ mother. Police
discovered that the hard drive of Hans’ computer had been removed and a single
telltale smudge on the pillar in the front entryway revealed both Hans’ blood
and Nina’s.
There is much more to the
story, of course -- Nina’s two boyfriends, dark suggestions from the defense,
hints of skullduggery and embezzlement – most without evidentiary
support. A couple of vivid images haunt us, mental pictures that this
jury will not quite be able to discount: a retired Oakland cop who, after
seeing Hans’ menace, warned Nina to arm herself; a dream-drawing by Hans’s
little boy (a remembered glimpse or a fantasy?) depicting Dad carrying a mommy
sized burden down the stairs.
We’re deep into the trial
now with Hans on the stand and the prospect of a week long interruption before
the case resumes.
My commentary has been
extensive to date… and this case goes on and on…
WHY CARE?
Husband-wife murders are
all too common. But the missing body cases are not common; and they are
very important. All murder cases eliminate at least one witness – the
victim. When additional evidence is concealed or destroyed, alarm bells
have to ring. The “missing-body wife-murder” cases are dangerous – as a
matter of the larger social policy - whenever a killer notoriously gets away
with it because we almost certainly will get a new trend: Murder could become
the divorce de jour.
WHAT WILL THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE SHOW?
This case tests the
ability of a jury to convict when a central mystery remains. In the
Reiser case, the mystery is not whether Nina has been involuntarily removed
from the scene, nor even whether she is still alive, but How did Hans – if he
is the killer – so successfully get rid of the body so effectively, given the
time constraints.
DEFENSE SALES RESISTANCE: ISSUES & OBSERVATIONS
Alien abduction is easier
to sell than the notion that Nina Reiser is alive somewhere, gloating about how
she really stuck it to Hans.
The fact
that Nina and Hans fought bitterly about child custody and money supplies a
motive to kill -- and to be killed, not a motive to flee – penniless and
childless. [There is no real evidence so far to show that Nina had some
huge cache of money; instead it shows her as a spendthrift with Hans’ money, as
tending to live beyond her means and at the edge of bankruptcy.]
Men kill all the time over
these issues and women get killed, but the roles are rarely reversed.
The Reiser case inhabits
that boundary zone between “dark suspicion” and “damned sure”, between common
sense confidence and nagging doubt. To sell a defense theory, the defense
needs to stay within the “reasonable alternative” zone.
“Reasonable doubt” is an
elastic, inherently subjective legal term: It can be expanded to benefit a
cuddly, victimized defendant or contracted to convict a cold, lying one; it can
be expanded by a jury made hostile to the supposed victim or contracted by
jurors feeling more protective of her.
As matters stood before
Hans took the stand, he seemed to have lost the “he just couldn’t have done it”
advantage. Whether or not Hans Reiser can persuade 12 people that he could not
have killed Nina is unlikely – but this is secondary to the real issue: Did he?
During the first three days of his testimony, there was no cross
examination. Hans denied killing Nina while painting a dismal picture of
their marital disputes, a situation so severe that some jurors might find
several motives to kill her. At stake is Hans’ credibility. If he
is caught in one important act of deception with this jury, the defense is
toast.
The very least sales
resistance: Why doesn’t the defense avoid the “Nina is alive and protected by
shadowy KBG figures” notion? Why doesn’t the defense
simply advocate the theory that Nina was the victim of some local thug or
abductor? There are several, at least nominally plausible possibilities:
A Craig’s List stalker, a former aggrieved boyfriend, or a kidnapper who
mistakenly thought that there was a potential ransom to be had.
SOME SCENARIOS, SEQUENCES, CONSTRAINTS & ADVANTAGES
Assume for the sake of
discussion that the Reiser killing was an impulsive, angry act, followed by an
“Oh sh.., what do I do now?” Let us also
assume for the purposes of analysis that the killer was Hans: What was his
logical sequence of actions? What were the constraints?
THE MOST PROBABLE SEQUENCE - ASSUMING HANS DID IT
(1) Hans has to get the
body out of sight ASAP. The CRX in the garage
has three advantages as a corpse container:
(a) It
is out of sight and never used by Mom.
(b) It is self
sealing. The decomposition smells could be temporarily contained when the
windows are rolled up.
(c) It
has wheels.
(2) He has to get Nina’s
van away from the scene as he reasonably can and still get back on foot to the
house before his absence causes a problem.
THE WITNESS CONSTRAINTS
(1) The kids are home.
(2) Mom is returning soon.
This means that Hans
(again, we’re assuming for this discussion that he’s the killer) has about 40
hours, but only when the kids are asleep or otherwise occupied. This
favors taking action under the cover of night. By the way, the very
difficulties that these circumstances present to a killer seem to undercut the
notion that Hans would have planned the killing in advance; hence the greater
plausibility of an impulsive, even “accidental” killing followed by hasty
improvisation, taking full advantage of the time windows. And these constraints
imply a double move of the body:
(a) A
quick relocation out of the garage to a place of concealment with a turnaround
time of, say three hours or so;
(b) A later
relocation to a more secure hiding place when the kids are in other hands, or
more time is available.
THE TIME-LIMITED “NOBODY’S REALLY LOOKING” ADVANTAGES
There are two key time
frames during which the hypothetical “Hans-as-killer” could exploit the
circumstances to hide or destroy evidence:
(a)
Before Nina is discovered to be among the missing – from about 4 PM on
September 3, 2006 until the end of school on September 5th or the morning
of September 6th when Mom wakes up, after having gotten home from Nevada –
40-50 hours;
(b) Before the
police can secure the first search warrants – about 10 days.
Assume that the murder
would have been on September 3, 2006:
·
On September 13, a search warrant is executed at the Exeter house with cadaver
dogs. [Why wait so long? Oakland police Capt. Jeff Loman:
“We don't have any evidence of foul play.”] The house is searched again on the
14th.
·
A search warrant of Hans’ person is executed September 28, 2006. DNA is
obtained; he’s carrying cash; his cellphone battery is disconnected
·
Hans is arrested October 10, 2006
THE HOLES AND MISSING PIECES
1.No
credible reason for Nina to disappear so suddenly, covertly and thoroughly?
2.No
innocent explanation for the position and condition of Nina’s car, purse,
money, groceries and cell phone?
3.No trail or trace
leading to any plausible corpse disposal location, other than the washed down,
partly seatless Honda CRX with a sleeping bag cover
revealing a DNA-identified, almost invisible blood spot, belonging to the
victim?
4.A
constrained timeline for Hans to have hidden the body.
5.No
other suspects?
POSSIBLE TIE BREAKERS
Why did Hans remove the
hard drive and where did he put it?
Why did Hans remove the CRX seat and were is it?
Why did Hans wash the CRX and driveway?
Why was Hans so evasive
throughout?
How did Nina’s blood get
on the post?
How did Nina’s blood end
up in a bag in the car, after it was cleaned?
Who, besides Hans
demonstrated a scary hostility to Nina?
Just how implausible are
the “Hans-got-rid-of-the-body” scenarios?
Has Hans lied about any of
this?
WHAT IS NEXT
Hans will finish
testifying. The defense will conclude with one - or more - other witnesses,
including a DNA expert. Then the prosecution will call rebuttal
witnesses.
After that the case will be argued…
THE
BIG DAY BEGINS
Monday, March 3.
Hans has taken the witness stand in a packed courtroom.
Everything is two edged. Hans, well prepared for
direct examination, has just described a civil, almost normal domestic scene
with Nina before she left the house – forever. This almost idyllic
account – for example, Nina is quoted as saying that Han can keep his company –
can be seen by the jury as Hans’ true account leading to his wife’s
inexplicable disappearance or as a fantasy construct, that when analyzed,
reveals the motive of a killer.
THE BIG DAY – Part
Two
The defense is still in its direct examination of Hans
Reiser; the court is in recess until Wednesday, when the case resumes with
client still on the stand.
Hans’ testimony is far to detailed to summarize here.
Go to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/category?blogid=37&cat=1428
for Henry Lee’s (SF Chronicle) excellent
account.
The overall purpose of this long narrative is to persuade
the jury that Hans was not someone who would kill the mother of his children
and – as the story unfolds – to paint a portrait of Nina as someone who was
capable of suddenly leaving them. I’ll return to the biographical
elements as Reiser’s testimony continues.
Here are some of the pertinent elements that caught my
attention:
1. I’ve already referenced Hans’ testimony that on
2. At some point in the past, Hans said that he and Nina had
sexual intercourse on two sleeping bags. This was offered to support the
inference that the blood trace linked to Nina found on the sleeping bag
cover in the CRX may have had an earlier, more
innocent origin than the prosecution maintains.
3. Hans eventually came to the conclusion that Nina
didn’t love him as he loved her. “I think Nina loves attention and needs
to be loved but does not herself love.”
4. Hans wanted to have children but Nina was less
interested.
5. Hans admitted removing the hard drive from his
computer. The reason? He didn’t want the
government to take it.
So far so no one has asked Hans what he did with the hard
drive, and what he was hiding. Observers on the scene estimate that Hans
will be on the stand in direct examination all day Wednesday and that the DA’s
cross examination will take up at least the next full day.
Wednesday, March 5
WHY SO BORING? WHAT
IS NOT BEING SAID? MEN HAVE KILLED FOR LESS.
By all accounts, today’s session with Hans Reiser still on
the stand, still on direct examination, still led by his attorney, Bill DuBois
--- was a crushing bore.
I suppose that the defense strategy might be to so inundate
the jurors with the mountainous minutia of Hans’ troubled – and in contrast
with, say, Bill Gates - tragically diminished life, that the jury will be
stirred by pity to give the poor lad the benefit of all doubts and ... acquit
him because, after all, he was treated so badly by Nina...
For me this resonates in an eerie way with the mitigation
phase in a death penalty case, where the thrust of the defense evidence is
designed to evoke the “OK he is a murderer, but we feel so sorry for the poor
SOB that we will spare his life” response.
But that’s not the game: This jury is being asked by the
defense to walk the defendant out the door.
Here is a lens you can use to more closely examine the
defendant’s testimony: Think (for this exercise) like a prosecutor – What is
damaging? What can Paul Hora use in final argument?
So here’s the scorecard:
Day One - Yesterday
Hans tended to ramble in his answers, but the jury learned
that just before Nina left the building on
Nina – this is according only to Hans here – was going to
marry boyfriend Anthony Zografos.
Hans told Nina that he was no longer going to pay her child
support ($1,000 a month). Nina did not agree.
Nina would have to repay Hans for alimony payments he had
made. Nina – we can infer – did not agree.
Hans would have legal custody of the kids. Nina did
not agree. The couple also argued about the boy’s dental care.
According to Hans, Nina agreed that Hans could have his
company. We can reasonably infer that Nina would never have made this
concession.
After this one hour long “discussion” (we can infer that it
was a bitter argument), Nina refused to keep talking with Hans. Breaking off a
discussion like that is known to infuriate males.
Nina then called the children to upstairs for bye-byes. [The
front door to the Exeter house is at street level.]
Little R.... hugged Mom. Then – in Hans’ courtroom account –
Nina goes out the door.
Here is Hans’ description of what happens next: “The minivan starts up and drives away.” Note the passive voice here. It would work equally well if someone else, say Hans himself, drove the car…
Was this a grammatical accident or a revelatory slip?
Hans said he never saw her again. Some jurors might add – he
never saw her again ... alive.
Clearly this was the description of an ongoing domestic
fight. From the prosecution’s POV, one only need add
a single provocative element, like a taunt or threat, something one could
easily imagine pushing Hans’ button or jerking his chain -- something like --
“I can close down your company!”.
This sort of thing can easily provoke a sudden violent
response.
In this hypothetical scenario, it need not have been a
killing blow (recall, however Hans’ martial arts training), but an injurious
one might have initiated a tragic cascade of events -- “Oh sh..!
If I call 911, I’m really screwed” -- leading to Nina’s death and a hastily
improvised cover-up.
Every murder involves the elimination of at least one
witness.
Day
Two
This is Hans, describing how the marriage began to unravel
over money issues:
“Well, there are things in retrospect now, like we’re
running really low on money and yet, her credit-card records show that she
spent $20,000 on clothing in 2003. Um, at the time I had cut somebody's salary
from $5 an hour to $3.75 an hour, she spent over $1,000 on jewelry purchases at
the House of Jewelry, in credit-card debts. And this seemed kind of nasty.”
On
This is the picture of a potentially ruined man, one with a
huge set of grievances.
So Hans moves in with mom and pays rent for the use of the CRX. When DuBois showed Hans the video of an investigator
demonstrating how someone could use the CRX, with
seat removed, to lie down in, Hans was also shown pictures of the sleeping bag
and carry bag – the same bag having Nina’s DNA. Hans wanted to change the
subject.
As to the bitterness of the divorce, Hans said: “We’re not
very physical people. You can be vitriolic in words without coming to
blows.” The jury will later be asked to recall that Hans was, for a time,
subject to a restraining order after having “shoved” Nina.
Perhaps the most interesting exchange of the day was
stricken from the record. The ever persistent Bill DuBois is still trying to
get derogatory (and menacing) information about Nina’s ex-boyfriend, Sean
Sturgeon, before the jury. This was about Sturgeon’s possible complicity
in taking money from Hans’ company.
DuBois: “Do you have any idea of the total amount of money
she may have taken for her own use while she was managing your Namesys revenue?”
Hans: “Based upon Sean’s note, which we obtained at the
settlement, I think a lower bound on the amount is $150,000, because Sean
claims to have loaned her $150,000 starting in May 2004 to the time he wrote
that note.”
WHAT TO MAKE OF ALL
THIS
If an estranged husband thinks his wife has not only been
engaged in an affair with a business associate, but has also taken money from
his company (again there is no evidence before the jury of actual
embezzlement), and that she is being patently unreasonable about alimony and
child support, and that she is keeping him from his children and stands to ruin
his business…. Men have killed for less.
Every element of proof about how Nina “did Hans bad” has
this double edged quality – it evokes sympathy, and it supplies a very
plausible set of reasons for Hans to have gotten angry enough to have
impulsively done something that was so terrible he cannot now admit it.
This disposition of Hans’ hard drive and the missing car
seat cannot be fully explained by what Hans has offered so far. Perhaps
wisely, the defense has let the narrative end on these points with Hans’
casual, mundane explanations. But Hans will be required on cross
examination to explain in much more detail why he did what he did and to tell
everyone where these things are right now. An “I don’t recall” won’t be
good enough for a computer genius with an excellent memory and blood in his car.
This will go on for some time.
A
GAG ORDER, HANS Cries, NO DNA WITNESS
Hans Reiser has been on the witness stand all day. There
really is little of note to report – at least little that will affect the
outcome of this case..
This afternoon, Hans Reiser admitted to being – his own
words -- “a patronizing asshole”. And, as to his martial arts training, he
opined as follows: Being a Black Belt in judo “makes you a calmer, more
level-headed person.” I imagine at least one juror adding, “until
Nina pushes your button.”
The entire rest of his testimony – once again aptly
summarized by the Chronicle's Charles Lee – is available on line at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/localnews/category?blogid=37&cat=1428
The expected DNA expert did not testify today.
I believe that the defense is marking time here, doing no
harm to the defense case, but little else, trying to
run out the clock until the onset of Judge Goodman's vacation next week.
The trial will not
resume until Monday March 17.
Why do I say that the defense is running out the clock? The
prosecution needs to catch Hans Reiser in a material misstatement. This
requires that someone – obviously that would be Paul Hora – press Hans for
details about why and what he did with key items of evidence in the case,
notably the hard drive and the car seat among other things. In a perfect day
for the prosecution, that would have taken place today, giving the DA's
inspectors a full week to check out Hans' story and come back with rebuttal
evidence. But it wasn't a perfect day for the prosecution because, for now, the
defense controls the flow of evidence in the courtroom.
Hans' day ended in tears over the way he has been treated by
the authorities, followed by a series of explanations about why he evaded the
authorities, why he bought police procedural books at Barnes and Noble and so
on. Not to be too cynical here, but obviously a lot more thought has gone into
Hans' testimony than into his earlier conduct. As to the prospect of the books'
discovery - “I figured if I was innocent, it wouldn't really matter.” Again was
this accidental syntax or unintentional revelation?
Most people already know if they are 'innocent'.
But the defense does not control the flow of information to
the press. Today, Judge Goodman issued a so called 'gag order' that in effect
prevents both sides from talking to reporters, but in reality is aimed at Bill
DuBois who has been chafing under the court's restrictions relating to Nina's
weird ex-boyfriend, Sean Sturgeon. Whatever dirt on Nina and
Sean that has been excluded for evidence will surface later if Hans is
convicted as an issue on appeal.
Tomorrow, I will post a “Guide to Following the Reiser
Trial” that should place all these trial events in the appropriate context.
Reiser resumes the witness stand on Monday, March 17, in
WAITING FOR REISER –
AT THE KNIFE’S EDGE
From the point of view of an outside observer, there comes a
point in every criminal trial when the whole prosecution enterprise seems
balanced on a knife’s edge, a forensic tipping point after which the case
momentum will drive sharply to one side or the other. For the Han Reiser
murder trial case, that knife’s edge is Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Hans Reiser’s own testimony will provide the tipping point, possibly with the
help or hindrance of additional proof – like the DNA expert who was expected to
testify last Thursday but did not.
A number of careful observers have concluded that the
underlying truth of the case is most likely that Hans killed Nina on
“I want to thank you for providing analysis of the Reiser case on your blog.
We have excellent trial coverage from [Henery Lee] www.sfgate.com
and [David Kravets] Wired-on-line, but … you are
providing an important context for some of the events.
“I became aware of the Reiser case because I am a
professional free software programmer. I have never worked together with
Reiser or even met him, but I know people who have, and I could have easily
encountered him through the years. And although the connection is a far
stretch, it's probably as close as I ever came to a murder case in my life, and
hopefully ever will (crossing my fingers here).
“I was convinced that Hans Reiser killed Nina on an impulse
and hid her body very early in the trial, and my opinion has not changed.
Any explanation of the circumstances of Nina’s disappearance [must] respond to
three established facts: (1) Nina disappeared suddenly, leaving behind most of
her possessions and abandoning her children and pet. (2) Hans Reiser
destroyed potential evidence and showed other signs of an extensive cover up
(some of the evidence indicates conspicuous behaviour even before he could
learn that Nina was missing). (3) There is an utter lack of evidence for
alternative explanations. Any response must address all three points at
the same time, but the defense has only attacked (1) and (2) individually, and
did not address (3) at all.
“Further support against Hans comes from his background, in
particular his anti-feminist view of relationships, and the contentious divorce
proceedings. Its too sad to repeat here.
“I should address the ‘geek defense’, being a geek myself,
and knowing many of them at a personal level. The geek defense can of
course not explain conspicuous behaviour by Hans before he learned that Nina
was missing and that the police might track him. In particular, if he
removed the battery from his cell phone, showed extraordinary tiredness, and
behaved abnormally when he brought his children to the school on Monday, that
is all before he learned from other sources that Nina was missing, and the geek
defense does not apply.
“Second, although geeks behave different from non-geeks,
they still behave quite predictably. I can understand why Hans-the-geek
would trash his hard drive when under police investigation. I can not
understand why Hans-the-geek would try to hide the car he was using. I can even
understand why he would throw away a seat to make the car more comfortable, but
I can not understand why he would soak the floorboard with water.
“When a geek decides to *clean*, something is seriously
wrong!
“There are open questions, of course. ….
“I am not part of the jury. I don’t need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, and I don’t have access to most of the evidence and other documents in the trial anyway. Thus, I can afford the luxury of basing my opinion on incomplete evidence, and it seems more than reasonable to think that Hans killed Nina and hid her remains.”
A local civil attorney friend of mind, someone with
absolutely no axe to grind in this case, echoed the same analysis, adding – I
don’t know what I’d do if I were on that jury.’
Accountability for a decision like this wonderfully
concentrates the mind. Here is the fulcrum of the tipping point:
Reasonable doubt can be a path to evade accountability, after all who can ever
challenge the juror who says, “It just wasn’t enough” but means “I didn’t want
the responsibility”. But reasonable doubt can also be a ratification of a
conscientiously held view – i.e., that “Reiser really might not have done it”.
And reasonable doubt can mark the line between those nagging doubts that dog
all our important decisions (as the judge will instruct, “everything in human
affairs is subject to some possible or imaginary doubt”), and that robust
common sense that says, nah, it is just not reasonable to think that all this
evidence just happened to encircle an innocent, angry husband – i.e.,
“There are just too many incriminating circumstances and no other reasonable
alternative theory with any actual support in the evidence”.
Now the defense may actually help the prosecution in making
the sale (1) by stressing the not-believable theory that Nina is still alive
somewhere, somehow having contrived this as a kind of frame-up; and/or (2) when
Hans appears deceptive in his testimony.
That’s why calling Hans as a witness was rolling the dice.
Any juror who actually believes him must acquit, but the juror who thinks he
his trying to deceive will have no problem voting to convict.
WHY
KILL NINA?
SAINT PATRICK'S DAY
IN COURT –
REISER IS ON THE
STAND.
My analysis is based on Hans' performance until about
Today Hans recounted his activities in and around the time
of the crime in some detail. As of later afternoon, he was still on
direct examination by Bill DuBois with no clear end to his testimony in sight.
At this stage, almost everything Hans says has a double
edged quality. At any given point in his testimony, he may think he is
furthering the defense case, but he is simultaneously providing telltale keys
and cues for the DA who will put this together in an entirely different way.
I have some pointed comments about what happened today, but
first let me identify the key highlights:
Reiser washed the CRX in the same
weekend that Nina was missing. He used a hose – inside the vehicle. This
was part of a general house cleaning to please his mother. But he did not
attempt to clean his mother's hybrid car.
So far Hans hasn't described any general house cleaning
activities on the fateful Labor Day weekend in 2006, just the CRX washing & the driveway.
Hans confirmed that he had a
Hans did briefly see his kids at school on September 5 –
during “adventure time” but gave the school an incorrect cell phone number for
himself. This was an accident of memory, he asserted, after he had just
pointedly demonstrated his accurate recollection of the license number of an
undercover police officer.
Hans first saw Bill Dubois (who is known as a criminal
defense attorney) on September 7. Hans apparently first learned that he
was being followed on September 8. Hans agreed with his attorney that he
tends to the paranoid end of the personality spectrum.
The Last Divorce
Discussion and Nina's Disappearance
This was Hans answer to a fairly simple question from his
lawyer today:
DuBois: Did you have anything whatsoever to do with her
disappearance?”
Reiser: No, I did not.
DuBois: Have you thought about this?
Reiser: Yes. I thought about, you know, if I had been more
emotional with her, um, she would have felt cared about more....I've thought
that, you know, maybe since I was getting intellectual property worth millions,
I could have been less chintzy about the debts, 'cuz
actually, you know, I actually didn't, they really weren't that important to
me, because they were long-term debts.”
And in a separate exchange--
DuBois: I'm asking you about Nina. What, if anything, might
you have done that could have caused Nina to disappear?
Reiser: Um, I opened the door.
DuBois: Did you conduct yourself in any manner you think
contributed to her disappearance in any manner whatsoever?
Reiser: Well, I put a lot of pressure on her, and I failed
to consider that if you say not nice things to Nina, Nina appears completely
unconcerned. It actually means she's very worried. That's her pattern. During
the deposition she was completely calm, cool and unconcerned, yet when I asked
her to come by and pick up the kids at Greg Silva's office ,
she wasn't willing even to go near his office. It was clear that it was
traumatic for her to even go near his office.
DuBois: Well, what kind of pressure did you put on
her? Can you be more specific?
Reiser: Well, she had embezzled money, she had forged these
checks in my name, she forged a legal affidavit, she...
DuBois: Is this pressure you put on her? Can you
explain what pressure you put on her?
Reiser: Well, I caught her at it. That's pressure.
DuBois: Anything else?
Reiser: Um, I told her embezzlement was a serious crime,
that forgery was a crime, that she committed perjury.
In a response to DuBois’ question about how this affected
Hans emotionally, this is what Hans chose to tell the jury:
Reiser: “I don't like these conflicts with family, you know?
It's just horrible. And I wanted to go to a mediator from the very beginning.
And I told her that if we didn't go to a mediator, Namesys
would go bankrupt.”
Hans was also concerned that Namesys’
programmers “really got screwed by this whole thing. They still haven't been
paid. They’re still owed $130,000, probably more.
In spite of the fact that Nina had just offered to give Hans
Namesys in the divorce, Hans was “unhappy” when she
left abruptly. Why? “Cuz only the lawyers win
in divorces.”
COMMENTS
IF you are among those who are seriously entertaining the
idea that Han Reiser killed Nina on September 3, then you will necessarily
assume that some of Hans’ account is truthful and some is not.
The DA will exploit several parts of Hans' testimony today
in final argument.
This is a man who, by his own account has been separated
from his children by an embezzling wife who has the power to destroy his
business, one that owns a half interest in Hans'
“intellectual property worth millions”, but whose divorce posture has already
“screwed” his programmers out of more than $130,000 in earnings and threatens
to destroy the company Hans built.
Hans claims that Nina actually offered to give up her
community property interest in Hans' company (his life's work) then abruptly
walked out of the discussion. But instead of being elated, Hans is
unhappy. Why? Most jurors are probably saying to themselves –
because Nina was just jerking Hans chain and he knew
it.
A powerful motive to attack one's spouse in a sudden rage
does not necessarily prove murder, but it absolutely does not help the defense.
Take it from an old hand at criminal trials -- I would never
give the DA as much ammunition against my client as was provided today
...without a gun to my head.
THE CROSS
EXAMINATION BEGINS
Paul Hora began by taking charge immediately.
Hans Lied to the
Jury Earlier
Hora: Let me begin by asking if you're willing to admit,
here and now, that when you testified you willfully concealed the fact that you
routinely removed the battery from your cell phone after Nina disappeared?
Reiser: Yes, and I feel badly about that.
Hora: And that was a willfully false or deliberating
misleading statement of a material fact, do you agree?
Reiser: Yes.
Comment
The court will later instruct the jury that a witness who
testifies falsely about a material fact in one part of his testimony can be
distrusted in all his testimony. Note here, that Paul Hora’s
question has carefully narrowed the time frame to “after Nina disappeared”.
This is what makes the omission particularly material.
What Was Hans hiding?
Reiser began to fence with Hora during questions about why
he was evading police in the CRX even though he
apparently knew that there was a search warrant.
Reiser: But I didn’t have an awareness that it was my legal
responsibility to provide a car upon obtaining the knowledge that there exists,
somewhere, such a lawful search warrant, and I don’t think that I have that
legal obligation -- but I'm sure Mr. DuBois can direct me…. You’re kind of asking
me for a legal conclusion, sir, as to whether I should have provided the police
with my car. I guess you're implicitly asking me for a legal conclusion -- you
didn’t explicitly. I don't have a great deal of desire to give the government
all of my possessions -- not my underwear, not my car, definitely not my
children.
Hora: And not information about where Nina is?
Reiser: Your question is ridiculous.
What Happened on
September 3?
Then Hora took Reiser thorough a whole series of questions
about the events on September 3. Reiser agreed that he and Nina discussed
the divorce, but denied that voices were raised or that “passions were
aroused”.
Hans denied striking Nina, pushing Nina; he denied
accidentally or intentionally killing her; he denied that she committed
suicide, denied that she tripped and fell, and so on. It was an amazing string
of questions - in effect Hora was using the defendant to rule out any
mitigation or defense to a killing, bringing the case down to an all or nothing
choice.
One interesting
question and answer:
Hora: Did you assault her?
Reiser: No.
Hora: Did you touch her?
Reiser: ….Probably not. [My emphasis.
Reportedly Hans paused before answering that question.]
And at another point:
Hora: Did Nina hit you?
Reiser: She did not.
Hora: Did she apply any physical force to you at all?
Reiser: She did not.
Hora: Did she touch you?
Reiser: I believe she did not touch me. [Again
my emphasis.]
COMMENTS
Once again, some astute jurors may be paying attention to how
Reiser chooses to express himself. “I probably didn’t touch her.” [And from his
earlier explanation about why Hans didn’t jettison the police procedural books,
“I figured if I was innocent, it wouldn’t really matter.”] These could be
examples of careless syntax by an innocent genius or instances of unconscious
slips by a very bright, but very guilty man under a lot of stress.
Hans as Physically
Dangerous
As the day closed out, Reiser admitted that he is much
heavier than Nina, that he had been taking judo lessons and practice for 19 years, that he studied for a time under a Russian judo champion,
and that he, Reiser, has a black belt.
More
Then the topic turned to the nature and value of Hans’
company. More on that thread tomorrow…
In the meantime, you can be assured that the DA’s inspectors
will be checking out a certain
It may be a bit too early to identify the tipping point in
this case, but Hans’ earlier pattern of deception and evasion may have just
entered the courtroom. Much more of this pattern and there will be a
shift in favor of the DA…
MOMENT OF TRUTH PART
TWO - THE FIRST LIE?
The doubled edged nature of Han Reiser’s testimony was
blatantly apparent, so much so that at times the defense direct examination by
Bill DuBois was hard to distinguish from a cross examination by a prosecutor.
To be fair, any competent defense attorney needs to take the sting out of a
client’s admissions and concessions by presenting them first and in the best light.
But the overall effect illustrates the downsides associated with calling this
defendant to the witness stand at all, given the sheer number of damaging
behaviors and circumstances that need to be persuasively explained.
THE DEFENSE
HIGHLIGHTS
Hans bought the police procedurals after seeing his attorney
– but not on his attorney’s recommendation. Hans was worried about police
interrogation techniques.
Hans thinks his own DNA may have been deposited onto the
COMMENT
Hans’ assertions here may or may not be helped or refuted by
DNA evidence, but the fact that he has implicitly acknowledged the DNA
identification tells me that the defense DNA expert may have little to add to
the case, if that expert testifies at all…
The CRX
Hans slept in the CRX for a few
days to avoid being arrested after Nina’s disappearance.
Hans admitted that he evaded the police because he didn’t
want them to seize his CRX. He contemplated
throwing away the police procedural books he kept there. He parked the CRX on
The
Hans admitted that he had not been honest earlier when he
concealed the fact that he had a practice of removing the battery from his
cellphone when he was not using it.
The Storage Unit
Hans admitted that he had explored using the
Hans admitted that he threw the passenger seat from the CRX into a dumpster by Tom’s Hardware and Auto in
That ticket
Hans contradicted himself – again on direct examination –
about what he was doing in
LAYING TRAPS FOR THE
DEFENDANT
Wednesday
The DA spent the time from
[][][]
A hugely interesting exchange out of the jury’s
hearing. This email from Nina to Hans will not be read to the jury:
“I will not continue mediation if you keep threatening me.
When you give me a hard stare and … that you are very good at combat, your
request that I drop domestic-violence charges against you, it very much sounds
like another threat. I warn you that if you are going to communicate with me in
this manner, I will have to end mediation and report it to the police. …”
[][][]
If the DA ever gets this email into evidence, the tide will
have turned. Watch closely…
Today, Hora has changed topic, returning to Hans’ car
washing and the circumstances of the disposal of the car seat. He has
turned up the heat by pointedly asking about the
More this evening…
HOT
SEAT
Reiser Was On the Witness Stand All Day Under Cross Examination, and…
In cross examination, Hora got Hans Reiser to assert that he
had washed out his old 1991 Plymouth Laser with a hose – inside the vehicle;
then he was able to grill Hans about whether there were existing holes in the
floorboard for the water to run out.
It went something like this:
Reiser: I don't remember. At some point I discovered
there was a hole. I may have discovered there was fortunately a hole. I just
don't remember. This was a long time ago.
Hora: So you didn't tear up the carpet on the floorboard to
see if there was a hole? You just started squirting water and, lo and
behold, discovered there was a hole in the floor?
What was Hora up to?
In order to make the washing of the CRX
sound merely wacky, as opposed to sinister, Reiser is willing to assert that it
was his normal practice. Hora – knowing this about Reiser -- is gambling
that the jury will conclude that Hans is simply trapped in an escalating
pattern of lies, the falsity of which are ultimately revealed because of their
innate absurdity. This is why DuBois has spent so much courtroom time
trying to show, in effect, that what we might consider to be absurd is Reiser’s
norm.
Hans was then required to go through the motions of throwing
a replica car seat into a hypothetical dumpster. Hans was repeatedly
pressed for details about the location and the manner of disposal. Why?
Because the DA hopes to demonstrate with rebuttal evidence that Hans is
lying. He may be able to do so if, for example, the business that Hans
has described does not exist or that its managers deny that there was a
dumpster where Hans claimed or that no car seat was left … you get the idea.
Hans was questioned about when he unbolted the car seat
before disposing of it.
Hora: So you unbolted it in the morning and dove around all
day?
Hans: I don't remember when I unbolted it. I unbolted it
before I got there at Tom's Hardware and Auto. These memories are all very
vague. This was a long time ago.
Hora: How many seats in your life have you throw in a
Dumpster?
Hans: One.
Hora: This one CRX seat, right?
Hans: Right.
A good cross
examination is memorable and ties into an obvious argument. This was a
good cross examination.
Hora also elicited an admission from Hans that he was in
In another exchange, Hora bated Hans into describing why he
was acting so evasively. It didn’t go well for Hans.
Reiser: The police were my concern.
Hora then asked the police were "the most compelling
concern" that Hans had on the days is question (September 7 and 8 –
recalling that by then he knew that Ellen, Nina’s friend had focused suspicion
on him and that he had already consulted with Bill Dubois)
Hans: And Nina and my kids, yes.
Hora: What did you do with respect to your concern for Nina
on the 7th and 8th?
Reiser: Nothing.
[][][]
Then in the afternoon session, Paul Hora returned to the
email exchanges between Hans and Nina. Recall the pending trap I
mentioned in my last post. The exchanges so far dealt with the couple’s
child custody disputes and were otherwise unremarkable.
I am expecting that the DA will gradually sneak up to the
key exchange when Nina writes:
“When you give me a hard stare and … that you are very good
at combat, your request that I drop domestic-violence charges against you, it
very much sounds like another threat. When you give me a hard stare and … that
you are very good at combat, your request that I drop domestic-violence charges
against you, it very much sounds like another threat.”
DuBois will be alert for this moment and sparks will fly…
MELTDOWN?
In other testimony later yesterday, Hora pressed Hans about
the hard drive issue. The result was potentially cataclysmic for the
case.
I’m quoting extensively from the live blog
of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Henry Lee here as it as was updated after
Reiser has confirmed that his home computer was vital to
him, containing among other things all of his emails and the novel Hans was
writing.
HORA: You lost your novel?
HANS: Yeah, I think it might be in
HORA: What else was on the hard drive on this computer that
was important to you?
HANS: …. My e-mails. My home directory.
When first questioned, Hans said he removed the hard drives
between September 6 and 8. Recall that September 5 is when Ellen, Nina’s
friend didn’t pick up the children.
HORA: Why are you saying things and you know they're not
precise?
HANS: Because I'm a fool.
Reiser’s best guess is that he removed the hard drives at
night.
HANS: I was being inaccurate as to the precision of my
memory. There is a possibility that it was in the night.
Then the
bombshell:
Hans now says that he gave the hard drives to DuBois.
They were in bankers boxes along with other personal effects.
From this point forward, the defense attorney’s license to
practice law hangs in the balance as does a mistrial in the case.
HORA: If you examine the hard drive--
HANS: I really can't, can I, if I don't have them?
HORA: When did you give him the hard drives?
HANS: I don't know.
HORA: Do you have a best estimate?
Reiser claims it was between September 7 and 15th.
HORA: What were they going to see on the hard drive that you
didn't want them to see?
HANS I don't think that anybody would particularly want the
government going through their hard drive.
HORA: Why did you think if you removed this on Sept. 7,
Nina's missing, nobody knows where she is, according to your testimony -- you
don't know either -- why did you think police would be searching your house and
your computer on Sept. 7?
HANS: I was told by my attorney that as the husband, I would
be the primary suspect.
HORA: In what?
HANS: The disappearance of my wife.
DuBois rejected reporters questions based on the gag order.
An attorney who comes into possession of physical evidence
relevant to a murder case has an obligation to turn it over to the
prosecution. An attorney may not destroy or conceal physical
evidence. We know that the DA has not seen the hard drives. DuBois’
best defense is that the drives were hidden in the bottom of the bankers box wrapped in dirty underwear.
I hear a ticking bomb….
HOT
POTATO
In this morning’s session, Hans Reiser asserted that he
personally handed his hard drives to attorney William Dubois and expressed
confidence that the drives were still in his attorney’s actual or constructive
custody, unaltered. When confronted with a search warrant that
specifically addressed computer hard drives, Reiser simply averred that he
personally hadn’t been served.
At this moment, late AM, DuBois has not yet addressed the
issue in open court, although we can be certain that there are ongoing
discussions behind the scenes…
WHAT
WAS THAT?
Note –
The Reiser trial is not in session for various reasons
starting tomorrow (March 21) through March 31. The case resumes on April 1, a
Tuesday, with defendant Han Reiser still undergoing cross examination.
Let’s talk about that computer and its “secret witnesses” –
those two hard drives.
If - as the prosecution alleges - Hans Reiser killed Nina
Reiser on
As soon as time permitted - presumably at night while the
children were nestled in their little beds - a killer in Reiser’s situation and
with his personal skill set would have turned to his computer. One might
expect urgently conducted research, especially into places and methods of body
disposal.
No one would have yet known that Nina was even missing, let
alone dead, so Hans (in this scenario) would have felt comfortable at the
keyboard -- getting his bearings and making plans. Even if he was clever
enough not to leave some “Dear diary, I killed Nina” entry, his data searches
and downloads would have left incriminating traces. As an expert, he
would have eventually realized that merely deleting files on a hard drive
doesn’t prevent a forensic computer expert from recovering them. At some
point, he would have remembered that dark night at the keyboard: The hard
drives must be removed! They must be kept out of the hands of the “government,”
– referring to that dark power that was complicit in making Hans’ divorce a
living nightmare. Or so the prosecution will argue.
But Hans -- even if innocent – would recall: He had
threatened Nina, making dark references to his
martial arts capabilities, using e-mail. Even an archetypical “geek-brain’
might notice that such an e-mail might be ‘misconstrued’. MUST hide that
evidence!
Now let us place ourselves in the position of Bill DuBois, a
well-connected criminal defense lawyer with roots in the DA’s office. One day,
Bill is given cash by a quasi-famous and somewhat loopy computer guru while
under investigation for killing his “missing” wife. After Bill takes the
retainer, his new client returns bearing hard drives: “I am innocent”, he says,
‘but if these fall into the wrong hands, my life’s work is destroyed.
Please keep them in a safe place.” What’s a poor defense lawyer to do? The
guy hasn’t even been charged. Dubois keeps the hard drives in a safe
place.
Flash forward. First some background. The rules
have changed in criminal defense practice. There was a time, long ago,
when the defense could conduct an investigation in the complete confidence that
nothing would ever be turned over to the prosecution. In fact I remember
arguing in front of the California Supreme Court (unsuccessfully) against
reciprocal discovery. But the rules changed and now the defense must give
the prosecution advance notice of the witnesses it intends to call and their
interviews.
But one rule has remained intact from the very beginning: If
you come upon actual physical evidence of a crime (this usually comes up in
reference to a knife or gun), you (meaning the defense) are not allowed to
squirrel it away in some safety deposit box forever. In fact the defense
runs a serious risk of sanctions if it comes into possession of this kind of
evidence and seeks to withhold it from the other side. “But what about
self-incrimination and attorney/client confidentiality?” you ask. That
relates – for the most part – to confidential statements, not weapons or
individual writings.
So here’s the bottom line:
For various reasons, I feel confident that Bill DuBois will
avoid the most serious sanctions, maybe all of them, assuming for purposes of
this discussion that he has in fact been harboring Reiser’s hard drives these
last 17 months. But they must now be produced.
In the scenario where Reiser has actually lied about giving
them to DuBois, a serious legal conflict will erupt, possibly generating a
mistrial. I’ll not go there in any depth yet, because I don’t know enough
about the circumstances. But keep in mind an elementary principle: An
attorney cannot simultaneously challenge his client’s credibility and continue
to represent that client. And a judge faced with this kind of
irreconcilable conflict might be forced to declare a mistrial.
And what about today?
The DA returned to Hans’ disposition of the car seat, then took up the question when and how did Hans first learn
that his wife was missing. According to Hans, it was Tuesday, Sept. 5 at
But Hora then asked Hans if he was aware that the school had
called him much earlier –
Hans: I really can’t tell you where I was when the message
was left.
[][][]
I’ll return to the balance of Hora’s
cross examination this afternoon in later posts, but we can expect several
things at this point:
(1) Hans will be on the stand (April 1)
for some time yet,
(2) DA inspectors are working hard over the break to find
evidence that will contradict Hans’ testimony so
far,
(3) if the hard drives are recovered,
something damaging to Hans’ case will be uncovered – or – if they are NOT
recovered, that very fact will be damaging to Hans’ case.
Do we have a shift in momentum to the prosecution? Of course. Will it be enough?
REISER FRIDAY
FOOTNOTES
For yesterday’s ongoing cross
examination of the defendant, I have nothing to add to Henry Lee’s excellent
account – both print and blog (the former ran today
in the San Francisco Chronicle) except to add the observation that the
problem (from the defense point of view) with the Reiser case has, from the
beginning, been Mr. Reiser himself. Links: blog
- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=37&entry_id=25076
and print http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/21/BA5HVN9TV.DTL&hw=reiser&sn=004&sc=226 .
This is a recent e-mail exchange re the hard drive issue.
Mr. Gaskill:
The matter of the missing disk
drives is something that makes me especially appreciative to have an
expert providing legal analysis of the case. I expect the possibility that they have been in
the custody of the defense attorney,
even though identified as items sought
in the search warrant, is unusual. Is it unheard of? In other
words, is it a bombshell rather than a mere red flag?
Assuming the disks are found and
there is no mistrial, will the prosecution be allowed to reopen its case
to introduce
new evidence, even though they have rested?
Thanks for all the insight you
have provided into this case.
My answer was Yes, Yes and Yes.
In all likelihood, if new evidence important to the
prosecution case surfaces late because of defense misconduct the court would
allow the DA to reopen. However, is the matter has been submitted to the
jury, all bets are off – too late is really too late. But in this case,
because the DA and court have been alerted to the hard drive issue, i.e., that
they may still be recoverable, the DA will not rest the prosecution’s case
until the issue is resolved.
MR. DUBOIS AND THE
CLIENT FROM HELL
Poor Bill DuBois: We can imagine his early joy when
Hans Reiser, a putative millionaire, a marginally famous software guru, arrived
in his office, cash in hand, seeking legal assistance because OPD thinks he killed poor Nina, his estranged wife (that
manipulative mail-order bride from Russia, still “missing”).
Ah the lure of publicity, of a lurid drama, of fame even,
and the not-trivial consideration of hard cash-in-hand (an all too rare
resource from those criminal defendants who are not members of a drug cartel).
Flash forward to the mid-week chastisement by an irritated
Judge Goodman for DuBois’ earlier demonstration and Bill’s current contention
that the court has improperly admonished Mr. Reiser – in public.
Poor Mr. DuBois was then admonished himself for merely
“standing up to the judge” for berating Hans.
I suspect that Bill knows better. May I let you in on
the secret? A client from hell expects at least the appearance of a spirited
defense for his money; this creates the dynamic in which the attorney may feel
impelled to perform a certain amount of courtroom fire and brimstone in the
interests of “client control”.
But DuBois must feel ill used by now, having given the last
full measure of devotion to his client’s perceived interests by – assuming that
current reports are to be believed -- he actually took possession of those
hidden hard drives seventeen months ago. DuBois will have placed
his grip on the license to practice law at risk; he is on fragile ground here,
and for what? The client is happy? The court is happy? Bill is
happy? No, we can be certain that no one is happy… Except
possibly Paul Hora.
The best that can be hoped for from the defense perspective:
that the belatedly recovered hard drives contain nothing incriminating. This (I
believe unlikely scenario) would give credence to the claim that the client
from hell was merely paranoid and possibly innocent at that.
Mr. Reiser is on the witness stand TUESDAY, April 1, once
again. He won’t be excused (in my opinion) until the hard drive issue has
been resolved.
I wish I had better advice for the defense team, here.
It reminds me of the classic anecdote told in ethics classes. The
attorney is relaxing in her 3rd floor offices, enjoying the breeze from the
open window. Her client, having leaped from the 96th story without parachute
flies past the attorney’s window, shouting, “What do I do now?”
The attorney shouts back: “Don’t jump!”
Monday,
CAUGHT IN A WEB?
Hans Reiser resumes his testimony tomorrow. Will his growing
testimonial inconsistencies become the web that eventually traps him? DA
Hora has skillfully exploited Hans’ tendency to babble, his seemingly
uncontrollable tendency to wander off topic and his (almost congenital)
aversion to direct “yes” or “no’ answers.
Observers in the room have begun to report telltale juror
body language – such as turning away from the witness or exchanging knowing
glances - when this defendant is at his least credible. At this point we
may be picking up the early signs of a divided jury, one split between those
jurors who are making excuses for Reiser’s terrible testimony as the
idiosyncrasies of an emotionally crippled Geek and those who see this behavior
as the evasions of an arrogant killer.
The tie breaker, if it ever emerges in this long, long
trial, will not come directly from Reiser’s testimony but from extrinsic proof
– in the form of a clear rebuttal to something Hans has said under oath.
One illustration: The guilt-leaning jurors are thinking that
Hans really, really didn’t want the CRX car seat to
be subjected to CSI-style forensic analysis, and the defense-leaning jurors are
still making excuses. Hans has been nailed down on this via cross
examination: He tossed the chair into a dumpster, not an oil can, not a
wrecking yard, not a refuge pit, and he did so (if he is to be believed) at a
specific time and place. Evidence that the disposal could not have
happened as he has testified it did will be a powerful blow to the defense, a
possible tie breaker. DA Paul Hora’s goal in
cross examination is to multiply the number of opportunities for this kind of
clear refutation, because he knows that internal inconsistencies in Hans’s
testimony may not be enough…
THE
APRIL FOOL’S DAY SESSION WITH HANS
This is a snapshot of Reiser’s testimony. I’ll have some
comments at the end of this interim posting, and more after DuBois’ redirect
tomorrow.
SCHEDULE
In a non-jury session on March 26, the defense announced
that it will call a DNA expert tomorrow (presumably interrupting Reiser’s
further examination if necessary). Other defense witnesses will include
Nina’s boyfriend, Anthony Zografos, Ryan Gill, a
“missing persons” investigator, and the OPD officer
who took young R’s original statement.
THE CALL FROM ELLEN
Hans resumed his interrupted cross examination by confirming
that Ellen, Nina's friend – the one who had picked up the children at school
when Nina didn't show and Hans' mother was unavailable -- had called Hans at
9:21 P.M. on Sept. 5. Reiser says he took the call at Mark's house, the residence
of his Mom's boyfriend. Recall that this was the phone call monitored by OPD with Ellen's consent, the call that ended when Hans
said 'I need to talk to my lawyer”.
Q: Did Hans say that? Hans: “I can't recreate the
wording."
WASHING THE DRIVEWAY
Hans agreed that when he returned to the
Hans testified that he had washed the Exeter driveway on
only two occasions, both because of tree droppings – September 3 was the
second. Did he do a better job washing the night of September 3rd? Hans could
not recall.
WASHING THE CRX AND THAT AWFUL SMELL
Before examining Hans about what he washed or otherwise
disposed of that night, there was this set-up exchange:
HORA: And you're saying you didn't commit any crime when she
was at
HANS: That's correct.
HORA: Had nothing to hide that afternoon, right?
HANS: That's correct.
Then Hans was asked about washing the interior of the CRX with a hose, requiring the use of a siphon pump to
remove the water. That exchange elicited this unexpected gem:
HANS: The thing you haven't asked me if after the siphon pump, the smell remained, and it was a fiasco.
I can imagine a
number of jurors thinking: Smell? You don’t suppose….
There followed a series of questions about the smell – What
was it? When did Hans notice it? And so on.
Hans settled on spilled milk, probably on the carpet in
front of the passenger seat but permeating the CRX.
Hans was unspecific about when he first became concerned about the smell, but
presumably he didn’t want his mother to complain.
HORA: Did you try to clean it?
HANS: Yes.
HORA: Did you also hose out the back of the car?
HANS: Uh no, but I did clean the back of the car.
HORA: So you didn't spray any water in the back of the car?
HANS: No, but I think some water got back in there.
THE MISSING TRIM
ASSEMBLY
In related questioning Hans revealed that he had removed a
“trim assembly' from the rear of the CRX because it
smelled.
Where did Hans dispose of it?
Hans was unable to say, except that he put it in a trash
receptacle somewhere in
There was a long exchange about Hans’ long postponed plans
to make the CRX more comfortable - apparently that
project became more urgent on the evening of
THAT FINAL DIVORCE DISCUSSION
In a separate line of questioning, Hora took Reiser through the events on September 3 from the time
Nina arrived until just before her departure. Some
highlights:
MORE
In follow up questions, Hans said he only slept one night in
the CRX after the seat was removed. He moved a red
box of documents from the Exeter house to a rental car at some undetermined
point.
Han