If the post in the Exeter house could testify, it would tell us that over the years it has been touched, bumped and brushed many times, but only once has it been spotted with blood drops at a height of 3 and a half feet from the floor. Nina’s bright red blood was different that all the other marks and smudges on the post because it was deposited partly in drops and because it belonged to a young woman who did not reside in the Exeter house, and who has not been seen dead or alive since September 3, 2006.

The post is saying that – Something bad happened to Nina Reiser aat this place.


If the van could testify, it would tell us that someone drove it very fast on September 3, 2006, jostling the bags of groceries in back, taking it on a trajectory a few miles away from the Exeter house and away from Nina’s place, then carefully parking it in a spot where it would not be towed or noticed for many days. This was someone who exited the car, after removing the battery from Nina’s cell phone, leaving Nina’s purse, ID, credit cards, drivers license, cash and other person effects completely untouched. Someone who took Nina’s keys and locked the van from the outside. Someone who was not mugged or assaulted in the car, someone who got out of the car without calling for help and without any struggle.

The van is telling us: The driver was not Nina.


Among the key “silent” witnesses we must include Hans Reiser.

Where Nina Reiser’s fate is concerned, Hans Reiser’s actions speak louder than his words – and more persuasively. He may be the one competent, living witness who actually knows whether Nina left the Exeter under her own steam on September 3, 2006 and where she – or her remains – now reside.

From the very moment that Hans hid, altered or destroyed potential material evidence – I note that he moved the CRX on or before September 5 and pulled his hard drives on or before September 8 – Hans was demonstrating by his behavior (1) that he knew that he was or would soon be a prime crime suspect and (2) that he had reason to believe that the tings he was hiding might be incriminating.

The closer in time to the evening of September 3 that Hans “acted like a suspect” or as someone who was aware that Nina was “missing”, the more probabitive his behavior as evidence of guilty knowledge.

Arguably, the fist telltales of this nature was Hans’ visit to the children’s school – not to see them, but to nervously inquire whether his mother was on the pickup list. This was followed by his disposal of the CRX before his mother came home coupled with his failure – from the time he saw her at her boyfriend’s house on September until the next morning to say, in effect, “oh, by the way, Nina is missing.”

Even before he was directed to a criminal defense attorney, all of Hans actions telegraphed that he was in damage control mode – they were the actions of someone who clearly was aware as his status as the prime suspect in Nina’s disappearance/murder investigation.

Here is the most important point, in my opinion: From that moment, more than any other adult in the USA, an innocent Hans Reiser would have had a direct and immediate interest in Nina’s safe return. Nothing short of that could avoid a prosecution and possible conviction for murder. A rational and innocent Hans would have figured out where his incentives pointed: Find Nina! Unless, of course, he already knew that the search would be futile, or even incriminating.

So while boyfriend Anthony Zografos was helping circulate 1,000 fliers, Hans was busy hiding his CRX.

When police were aggressively following leads into Nina’s matter, was Hans looking for his wife? He was staying under the radar, cell phone battery removed, trying to avoid the police.

Later when Hans was with another inmate in county jail, a television news report came on. The clip was played for the jury while Hans’ co-inmate testified to Hans’ reaction. When the Channel Two reporter announced that a body had been found in the Oakland Hills near Claremont Avenue, Hans rushed up to the TV, remaining riveted on the story. Then, when the reporter added that the body was that of an African American male, Reiser was relieved.

Most juries most of the time would conclude from this “silent” testimony by Nina’s estranged husband at the very minimum amount to an admission that be believed his wife was dead very, very early in the game.

Many jurors probably now believe that Hans knew from first hand experience that his wife was dead.


I am hearsay and rumor. I am the evil boyfriend. Am a legend in my own mind. Maybe I loaned money to Nina, maybe I didn’t. Maybe I killed her, maybe I didn’t. Why won’t anyone call me as a witness? Because I will dump on Hans and I will dump on the prosecution. Hah, hah, HAH!



On September, 3, 2006, I had a bitter argument, one of many, with Hans. Then, I suddenly left behind everything that was of value to me and never returned. My mother, my daughter and my son have not heard from me in 18 months. No one can find me. Did I do this on purpose, or was it done to me? Come on, this isn’t that hard.

Surely somebody with common sense can figure this out…



Sorry, you can’t read me: I hold too much data and you have too little time to comb though my160 gigabyte haystack to find a few needles.

Leave a Reply