So much for the idea that Silicon Valley doesn't understand the Legislative or Regulatory process, turns out that some don't even get the Judicial system either.
I began my forays into the tech community as a 13 year old Linux geek, so it's disheartening to see someone as important to the F/OSS movement such as Reiser meet such an end, but even more so when I see the weakness of the prosecution's case, and the Roger Clemens style idiocy that Reiser showed by actually taking the stand in his own defense, and proving once again that trade groups should include basic civil rights and civics lessons in seminars for tech entrepreneurs.
I have no idea if Hans Reiser killed his wife. Her body hasn't been found. The State couldn't actually prove that she was dead, much less that he caused her death. As Wired News notes:
In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead. By the time prosecutor Paul Hora rested his case February 14, he had called some 60 witnesses, but presented mostly circumstantial evidence demonstrating animus between Reiser and his wife, and suspicious behavior by the defendant following Nina's disappearance in September, 2006.
The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.
In his 11 days of testimony, Reiser offered lengthy and verbose explanations for every piece of circumstantial evidence. But Reiser's version of events often drew disbelieving head shakes from jurors -- and occasional smirks from the trial judge.
Reiser's case, at least to this writer's, is in one way a microcosm of the landmark Federal Antitrust case against Microsoft. Gates squirming under the camera lights at deposition, Reiser offering detailed, geeky explanations for every bit of circumstantial, even silly pieces of "evidence" brought in front of him. He just didn't know when to keep his mouth shut. The state presented a weak case. No body, no scene, nothing. Some detectives following Reiser while he tried to avoid unmarked cars following him (I'd probably get creeped out by that, too). It looked like the prosecution hadn't really proved anything at all, until Reiser made a classic Valley mistake, commonly made in Washington hearing rooms, but found just as often in courtrooms across the land: he took the stand in his own defense:
As the prosecutor rested his case, it seemed far from clear that the circumstantial evidence would be enough for the jury of seven men and five women to find Reiser guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Throughout his cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, defense attorney William DuBois aptly painted a picture of Reiser as a misunderstood computer nerd, so inattentive to social cues, and so slavishly devoted to logic, that his innocent behavior could be easily misinterpreted as evidence of guilt.
From his seat at the defense table, Reiser seemed to offer supporting evidence for that so-called "geek defense" in the form of his own actions, frequently quarreling with his attorney, and interrupting DuBois' cross-examination...Reiser couldn't explain why, following his wife's disappearance, he suddenly drove through the Sierra Nevada mountain range to Reno, to sample casino buffets. And he admitted taking evasive maneuvers while walking and driving to determine if he was being followed by the police, something he attributed to his innate distrust of authority, amplified by the books he read when authorities began investigating him.
He bought those books about murder investigations, he said, because he wanted to know how police behaved. "I was under investigation by the police," he said. Reading up on their techniques was only logical, he testified.
"I have a compulsive tendency to say things that I know are true that people don't want to be true," Reiser said at one point.
As testimony wrapped up April 14, Reiser offered his assessment of the proceedings in front of the jury. "This whole thing is silly," he said from the stand.
"What do you mean, the 'whole thing'?" DuBois asked.
"The whole case."
Does anyone recall Gates on the video 10 years ago? He got a lucky break when the judge involved had to recuse himself. No such luck for Hans, who will spent at least the next 25 years in prison, where perhaps he can design a better system for tracking inmates or a database for record keeping.
This is really, really sad. Not just because someone might be dead, but because we value people for their uncanny understanding of things we cannot comprehend and gladly accept their products, but castigate them when they can't conform to our expectations, which they cannot comprehend.
I can sit in Hans' shoes and understand the A->B->C paths he took that made him look guilty. I can understand how a jury might have thought he was pulling their legs, this awkward, arrogant programmer who even bought David Simon's book
Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets (on which an NBC show (one of the best "cop shows" ever), as well as HBO's The WIre were largely based.) to learn about police tactics once he became a suspect. To him, it all is natural and logical. To a jury, emotional. His best bet would have been to keep his mouth shut.
So, another tech pioneer is brought down by a lack of understand of government. Not quite the usual fare for this space, but it's so unusual that I'd be amiss if I didn't report it here.
