Hacker News Reader

Comment by mardifoufs | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe he did. He's just angling for his next parole date as he got denied this year.

That's very possible. Some of his phrasing sounded like he hoped the parole board would be reading it: I accept responsibility for my crime, I'm using the skills I'm learning in prison, etc. etc.

Still, if you asked me about my own sins, I might say similar things: I accept responsibility for acting like a jackass, I'm using the skills I've learned from mentors and through meditation and mindfulness, etc. etc. I'd be completely earnest about all that. I've behaved poorly in the past, decided I wanted to be a better person, and genuinely try to do that. If I want people to take me at my word and believe that I'm trying to be better, I have to take him at his word until proven wrong.

(One of my sins was unnecessary cynicism. I have the luxury of it not mattering to me whether he's sincere or not, and I think it's a healthier mindset for me to accept stories like his at face value than to default to mistrusting everyone. I'm not naive, though. The people in his life need to weigh that a lot more carefully than I need to.)

Some of his phrasing sounded like he hoped the parole board would be reading it: I accept responsibility for my crime, I'm using the skills I'm learning in prison, etc. etc.

This is true; but it also struck me as being very similar to things I've heard from recovering addicts going through 12-step programs -- I'm an addict, I'm sorry for all the harm I caused through my addiction, I'm learning skills to help me overcome my addiction, etc. -- so my hunch is that it's there as a result of the anger management program he's going through in prison.

Definitely, and I hope for his sake that's the actual explanation, and that it's sincere.

That is, while we're talking about a specific person here, that person is someone I have zero connection with. I hope all the Hanses around the world are working on themselves with good intent. That's obviously untrue, but I can still wish it.

Would there be anything he could say?

Honestly? No not really. Not until he gets his parole I guess. The stakes are way too high for him to be honest. He might very well be, but the phrasing is just very "list checking" to me still. As someone else said, it's like the generic stuff you learn from therapy (at best, if we assume he's honest).

I get that, but at the same time it seems like a bit of a dystopia if there is no path to this person being rehabilitated despite his sins (i wanted to say "forgiven", but that seems like a whole other thing i guess). I don't know, maybe he doesn't deserve to be treated like a normal person ever again. But then is he just condemned forever? Is there no way for him to obtain grace for lack of a better word? How horrific that feels.

Hell, i dont know. Maybe there are no good answers in the face of such things.

He was denied two years ago.

He planned the murder of the mother of his kids, I'm pretty sure he can plan well in advance for a parole hearing. I wouldn't put anything past the likes of Hans Reiser or Peter Madsen.

Was there something I missed? I just reread his wikipedia page, and it seems to confirm the crime-of-passion narrative that I remember from 15 years ago. That said, I would not disagree with your character evaluation.

He hid the body for 2 years.

A crime of passion does not normally include studying up on body removal, ways to hide further evidence and not owning up to the crime for years because you - wrongly - believe that you can't be convicted if the body can't be found. This was premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.

Premeditation means planning it beforehand.

The books were purchased after the deed was done.

A crime of passion can be covered up without making it premeditated.

I'm not going to split legal hairs here, merely point out that 'sudden strong impulse' (a requirement for 'crime passionel') is incompatible with subsequent testimony by Reiser claiming that he had 'killed their mother to protect his children'.

That's one of the problems with all of the Reiser defenders: they are usually unaware to what degree Reiser has incriminated himself.

I take offense at being called a "Reiser defender". I think we can all agree that he's a creep, a manipulator, and a murderer. I don't hear anyone defending him.

The guy strangled his wife. I don't think that's the kind of thing you premeditate. He's also a liar; I wouldn't read too much into his attempt to manipulate his later civil jury. The crime-of-passion narrative would still find for the plaintiff, so he made up some nonsense that the jury saw right through.

Those things happened after the murder, and don't necessarily preclude a crime of passion. When someone does commit a crime of passion, they don't always just come out and confess as soon as they're clear headed again.

Reisers' own evidence precludes a crime of passion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/software-guru-ordered-pay...

What part of that article supports your point? The only thing I see there is that he made up multiple different stories to try to explain her absence.

That he claims that he killed her to protect his children. You don't make up a reason like that on the spur of the moment while involved in a crime of passion.

"His defense essentially was that he killed his wife to protect his children from her."

That he made up different stories at different times is besides the point, the point is: you can't believe a word he says either way so any defense of a crime of passion is just as baseless as this one, though this one is actually much more believable and fits the evidence available. All of it points to a very smart guy who killed his wife because he thought he could get away with it but failed at that (and not for lack of trying) and who now thinks he can present himself as 'a changed man' when really he isn't.

"According to a later confession by Hans Reiser to authorities, on September 3, 2006, Nina Reiser dropped their two children off with Hans Reiser at his mother's house, where he was living at the time. The pair got into a heated argument over Nina Reiser taking the children to the doctor, with Nina referencing that she had custody over the children, and so was free to do as she wished. Defense lawyer William DuBois later said that Hans Reiser alleged that Nina Reiser was fabricating illnesses in the children. Hans Reiser hit her in the face and strangled her to death."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

I do not read this as planned, but as "Handlung im Affekt", dunno the English term.

He later made the argument that he killed her to protect his children.

California is comically light on crime, I'm sure he'll be out within 2-3 parole hearings.

... He's spent 15 years in prison (the original sentence) and has been denied a parole already. Not sure what i'd describe as "comically light".

I was talking about the state in general, it's a liberal state that is soft on crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com