Hans Reiser Trial: March 18, 2008

Henry K. Lee is liveblogging the Hans Reiser murder trial. See all his Chronicle articles on the case here and all his blog entries here.

3:45 p.m. Prosecutor Paul Hora wrapped up his first day of cross-examination of Hans Reiser by asking the defendant to confirm a series of e-mail exchanges he had with his wife, Nina, in 2005, a year after she filed for divorce. Hora had Reiser read aloud the e-mails he wrote Nina.

Nina sent Hans an e-mail on Sept. 11, 2005. Reiser today at first asked for a copy but then said Hora had magnified the e-mail on the screen to the point where he could read it without any glare getting in the way.

In the e-mail, Nina said the children referred to how they were playing ShadowMagic. "I wanted to remind you that ShadowMagic is one of the games which we specifically discussed during mediation with Dr. Hodson, the evaluation with Mrs. Smernes and court hearings and that children should not be allowed to play this game. It has also come to my attention that your secretary has been ordering copies of credit-card statements in my name. I would like to discourage her to do so because it is illegal. I have provided you with all the documents you have requested so far. If you need more papers please submit a request through your lawyer and I will provide whatever is needed promptly. Take care, Nina."

In an e-mail Nina sent to Hans on June 20, 2005, she wrote, "Hans, please don't take it as an offense, but we need to make some major progress on the custody/support issues before we can seriously discuss Egypt, let alone a trip together. My focus is on being able to pay rent and children's school and finally get to the point when I can study to be a doctor and you have Namesys. Nina." Hora asked if Reiser had included a link in an e-mail to his wife to an Egypt tourist company. "Seems like it," he said.

Hora next flashed onto the screen an e-mail exchange between Hans and Nina on July 20, 2005. Nina wrote, "Hello Hans, children and I waited for you at the police station 'til 5:45 tonight. I asked the policeman on duty to make a note that you did not show up. I talked with your mother several times during this time but she did not know where you were. I understand that you can't call me directly to let me know when you are unavailable to pick up the kids, but I request that you notify my lawyer or at least your mother because I am in contact with her. I spoke with Beverly later and apparently you had no emergency or other important reason to miss this night with children," she wrote, referring to Hans' mother, Beverly Palmer. "It is not 'in the best interest' of our children to spend 45 minutes at the police station waiting for you and then go back home. Nina." The e-mail was cc'd to her divorce attorney, Shelley Gordon.

In response, Hans wrote Nina in an e-mail, "I asked Mom to call you to try to arrange for me to pick them up later. But you did not answer your cell phone. I regret that this happened to the children's evening. Hans."

In court today, Reiser asked Hora a number of times, "You'll let me know if you want me to comment" on the e-mails. But Hora, at least for now, simply wanted Reiser to authenticate the missives. Reiser started reading the e-mails he wrote very quickly, prompting requests for him to slow down. Many witnesses read quickly while on the stand and slow down when told to do so. But they usually don't slow down the way Reiser did. For a short while, at least, he'd. read. each. word. he. wrote. like. this.

On June 29, 2005, Nina wrote Hans in an e-mail marked, "This is confidential for your eyes only and is for settlement discussion purposes." "Hans, you have asked me several times to honor our prenup. Before marriage, we agreed that you'll get the business. I'll get the kids and you help me with becoming a doctor. You now propose that I/we split custody 50/50, you won't help me become a doctor and you get the business. Do you see the inconsistency?"

In response, Hans wrote, "You don't want the kids except as a bargaining chip. They interfere with your career. Give them to me 2/3 until you become a doctor, and it will be much easier for you to become a doctor. Why do you want to make (their son) and I unhappy? Why do you want to send (their son) to bed most nights with an acid stomach? I don't want (their son) to live with me because I need him. I want it because he needs me. What you propose satisfies my rights and needs but it does nothing for him. Think of him a little instead of thinking of us. I never expected him to want to live with me. It was a complete surprise to me that he did. His needs must come first. Do you agree? It so happens that what you need to become a doctor (which is to only have the children 1/3) corresponds to what they need and want. Let your needs and theirs be satisfied. Let our children grow up to become wealthy and privileged. That means let me stop fighting and start making some money. And let them grow up with private tutors and making childhood friends in Silicon Valley as it becomes ever wealthier in the next 25 years. You know the amazing thing is that we settle this, then during the next 10 years I will start moving in the circles of the very wealthy in Silicon Valley because of the fame from my work. (Actually, if I could just get a break from this divorce and have the time to do it, I could already start moving in the elite social circles in Silicon Valley). And so even though our kids will only be moderately well off, their friends are likely to be very wealthy, and when they get into young adulthood they will absorb some of that wealth I am sure. Let them have these social advantages you and I never had. Your terms are in your interest and not in their interest. Propose some more moderate proposal please if your heart is not in going back to Russia. Even your attorney does not think $6,000 a month is reality based. Let's find a potted plant to mediate and discuss things, OK? Why do you think I will settle for what you are proposing? Because you love the children more than you hate me."

Nina wrote Hans this e-mail on June 2, 2005: "Hello Hans. School year at Grand Lake Montessori ends on June 10, but there is a summer program at school which starts June 20. The cost is $460/child/per two weeks, which is about $1840/month total. Another option is to leave kids at home with a babysitter. I know a very good babysitter who has been helping me with children during the last six months." Nina provided the babysitter's name. "She is well-educated and kids love her. She charges $7/hour/per child which is a very good price. This comes to approximately $1,680/month, which is a little cheaper."

In response, Hans wrote of the babysitter, "Is she into S&M? Lesbian? I don't trust your selectional abilities. Ordinary people cannot educate genius children. It does not work. I remember them trying with me, and it went badly."

Nina wrote Hans back. "Hans, I can't pay for child care alone when you have not paid child support for three months. If there is no child care, I can't work, which leaves me unable to provide food and shelter for our children." She suggested they share an equal part of summer childcare. "It comes to about $800 or $900/month for each of us." Nina asked Hans for feedback. "I've also suggested to you that there is a way to reduce child care costs. If we agree that children spend 2.5 months with me and 2 weeks with you this summer, you can take them on a trip as you wanted and I will take them to Russia where the cost of living is not as high and we can stay with my parents. I have no intention to abduct children from you and will leave all necessary legal documents with trip itineraries for you. I calculated the length of time they can spend with each of us based on current custody arrangements."

On July 2, 2005, Hans wrote Nina in an e-mail marked "For settlement discussions only and confidential for your eyes only."

"It would be so nice if I could ask you what your real fiscal circumstances are, but that is the effect of repeated lies isn't it? I have no idea how to actually know what your finances are. I have complete confidence in your ability to fake it beautifully. Oh well, do you like working for a living for the first time? Are you working for a living or did you embezzle enough to last for a long while? Or did you spend what you embezzled sufficiently prudently that you still have it or did you blow it all already somehow? Wow, you know, I would say some words about how if you had been faithful we both would have made so much more. But you would not understand them anymore than my former employees who lied on their timesheets could have understood that if they worked. I don't think you are evil because you are shrewd. I think you are evil because you cannot help what you are. Oh well, Hans."

On June 24, 2005, Nina wrote Hans, "Hans, do you understand that it's not appropriate to talk to a child who s/he wants to live with? It HURTS them. (Their son) wants to live with BOTH of us. Not with just you. Do you know that after coming back from you he throws tantrums and cries how much he loves me? He does it because you create loyalty conflicts for him. He loves BOTH of us. It is our job to explain to him why we can live together in a way which won't hurt or give him a negative impression about either one of us. There are many very honorable reasons why some men do not live with their children. Of course, I will never tell the kids something like 'Daddy does not love you, he abandoned you and sold you for his business.' Even if it was true, I would NEVER do it because it HURTS the KIDS and I care about them. We can include what we tell the kids in the agreement if you would like."

In response, Hans wrote, "You don't get it. I don't lie. I was not asking you to lie. I was asking for a reality, one in which he lives with me most of the time so that I can supervise his education, which I hope will not be the alienating fiasco that mine was. You can't discuss with him why he needs to read the great scientists, the original with him, like I can. You can't give him the world-class scientific education that I can because you are not an internationally famous scientist. There is a difference between the way the best in the world teach and what he gets at GLM (Grand Lake Montessori). You can't even appreciate how alienating it is for him to be tutored by people not as smart as he is. You cannot understand that while YOU need a classroom setting to study, he needs anything but. You don't understand that what he will need in 6-24 months is to be left alone most of the day with an hour or two of talking about what he reads and supervised selection in what he will read. What he needs is an education..unlike other children...Once he's over the reading hill," their son will have been educated more than any school could teach him, he wrote. "Other children aren't like that. He is. You cannot raise him effectively any more than my mother could raise me. Don't put him through that. I hated school just like he does. It was such a waste of my time. And, oh, what I might be today if I had been left to my father to educate. You can teach him other things, but not to be a man. He needs to be a man. You think he needs to be a woman, but.."

Hans continued, "You find the man you are looking for, and he will not make you orgasm. Such a pity that I only understood at the end what you needed sexually. Oh well, there will be a next wife. I hope she is just less extremely female, or at least I think I hope it. A pity you are not here now to talk to late in the night like we used to when we needed to get up early."

In response, Nina wrote, "You are creating a situation which leads us to prolong conflict and disputes over the company. Why do you do it?"

Hans replied, "I do it...The problem here is that you think you can smile at me and I will forget. Those who anger slowly, cool slowly Nina."

Hora asked Reiser today what he meant by that.

Reiser said only, "What the words said."

3:15 p.m. The jurors haven't filed in yet after the mid-afternoon break. Hans Reiser is on the stand. He spoke into his microphone and asked court reporter Annie Mendiola, "Excuse me, Annie? Could you read me the last question? I don't want to have the jury waiting." He was told he would have to wait.

After the jurors returned, prosecutor Paul Hora resumed his cross-examination of Reiser by asking him about Namesys and where the file system was.

"That's like asking where cyberspace is," Reiser said.

Hora asked where the code for his program was, and Reiser again said the prosecutor didn't understand how his software worked with that question. He offered to "save time" by discussing money and licensing issues his way, but Hora said he'd try other questions, including what part, if any, Nina had in Namesys in light of the divorce proceedings.

"My opinion is that we had an agreement she owned none of it," Reiser said. Hora asked if it was true that the agreement was that Reiser would get Namesys and Nina would get the kids and that he'd support her so she could become a doctor in the United States before the two "go our merry ways."

That was at the beginning of the marriage, Reiser said. But that sounds like that was during the divorce, the DA said. Reiser said in response that Hora was not a family-law lawyer.

Hora asked if Reiser "intentionally decreased the value of the revenue" of Namesys as part of the divorce proceedings to keep money away from Nina, and Reiser said, "I would have liked to have enough revenue to be able to decrease it."

"How smart are you?" Hora asked.

"Not very," Reiser said.

"Are you a genius?"

"No, but I can fake it."

"What's your IQ?"

"I haven't taken an IQ test."

"You claim to be world-famous, right?"

Reiser said he's had the occasion to write that on papers, yes.

Hora commented that he'd never heard of Reiser's file system before. He asked if the reason Reiser has described himself as a world-famous, internationally-renowned scientist was because he believed he was such a person. Reiser said yes.

"Still do?" Hora asked.

"I think the word 'renowned' is no longer appropriate," Reiser said.

2:05 p.m. Prosecutor Paul Hora has begun his highly anticipated cross-examination of Hans Reiser.

"Good afternoon, Mr. Reiser," Hora said.

"Good afternoon, sir," Reiser replied.

"Let me begin by asking if you're willing to admit, here and now, that when you (previously) testified you willfully concealed the fact that you routinely removed the battery from your cell phone after Nina disappeared?" Hora asked.

"Yes, and I feel badly about that," Reiser said.

"And that was a willfully false or deliberately misleading statement of a material fact, do you agree?" the prosecutor asked.

"Yes," Reiser responded. The defense contends that Reiser was only talking about whether the battery in his phone was in on Sept. 28, 2006, the day Oakland police detained him for a DNA sample; the prosecution is suggesting that Reiser habitually did not have the battery in his cell phone after Nina disappeared).

Hora turned to Sept. 18, 2006, when Oakland police said they saw Reiser and his judo friend, Artem Mishin, driving erratically from a downtown Oakland Juvenile Court hearing, through Berkeley via San Pablo Avenue and ending at a restaurant on Solano Avenue in Albany. Hora, confirming Reiser's testimony earlier today, asked if it was true that part of the reason they drove in that fashion was that they were looking for a bar. Reiser agreed. Hora then asked Reiser if he indeed had said he didn't want to go into the the second part because he didn't want to contradict Mishin. Reiser agreed again. He began repeatedly looking over at his attorney, William Du Bois, at the defense table.

"Don't you think people here evaluating the testimony of Artem have a right to know whether he's telling the truth?" Hora asked.

That's when the verbal judo between the DA and Reiser began. "Calls for a legal conclusion," Reiser said, looking at Du Bois.

"What's the second part?" the DA asked.

"Of what?" Reiser asked.

"The part you won't tell us about on direct examination," Hora said. "I want to hear the contradiction."

"Can you give me a nice, simple well-defined, complete question without any references to other questions?" Reiser asked.

"What was the contradiction?" Hora asked.

"OK," Reiser said. "Can you give me a sentence in which you use the word 'contradiction' so I can understand it?" Reiser asked.

"What was the second part of the reason for the erratic driving besides going to the bar?" Hora asked.

"Um, I prefer not to answer that," Reiser replied. "But I will do so if directed by the judge."

Judge Larry Goodman asked Hora if he wanted such an instruction, and the prosecutor said, "Please." "You can answer that," Goodman told Reiser.

"I had discussed with Artem, well I had told him I thought we might be being followed. He thought I was paranoid. And I didn't raise the subject up too much after that, because when people think I'm paranoid I don't push it," Reiser said. Mishin was "dismissive" about Reiser's claims that they were being followed, the defendant said. "I wasn't confident that we were being followed, but I was looking around as we were going through to see if we were being followed."

Reiser confirmed that he didn't want his car seized and reiterated that he didn't want his friend to "think I was a wacko."

Hora asked, "But you knew they had a lawful search warrant for it," referring to the car.

"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. Du Bois can direct me.." said Reiser, again looking at his attorney seated at the defense table. "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."

"And not information about where Nina is?" Hora asked.

Reiser gave the DA a withering look. "Your question is ridiculous," he said.

Hora asked another question with regard to how Reiser may have been feeling,and Reiser accused the DA of being imprecise. Hora said he'd ask a clearer question, and Reiser said, "I'm not sure you'll be able to." Du Bois jumped in at that point, asking the judge to "strike that last part of the answer as non-responsive." "All right," the judge replied.

Hora walked toward Reiser on the stand. "Mr. Reiser, you weren't playing these games when he was asking these questions," Hora said, referring to Du Bois.

"Ask your question," Reiser said simply.

Hora turned to Labor Day weekend 2006. Reiser confirmed that he and his wife had a disagreement over who would have custody of their children that weekend. Hora put onto a screen a letter written by Reiser's divorce attorney, Greg Silva, to Nina's divorce attorney, Shelley Gordon, that dealt with the disagreement.

"Can I see it?" Reiser asked Hora, referring to the letter. Hora said he'd be able to hand him the letter later if needed. Reiser then said he could squint from the stand because he wanted the jurors to be able to read from the screen. He spent a few moments reading the letter. "Are you reading it twice?" Hora asked after a long pause. "I can't read and listen to your question at the same time," Reiser replied. "I'm not very good at that. Forgive me." Reiser later said there was a glare on the screen. Hora promptly brought the letter to Reiser on the stand. "I don't want the sun in your eye to get in your way," the prosecutor said. "Thank you. This is much easier," Reiser said.

Then came a series of questions and answers in rapid succession about what may have transpired between Hans and Nina in his house on Sept. 3, 2006.

"Was there an argument?" Hora asked.

"We talked about the divorce," Reiser said. Hora asked the question again.

"I would say there was a negotiation," Reiser said evenly, looking over at Du Bois.

"Were there raised voices?" Hora asked.

"No," Reiser said.

"Was there a sudden quarrel?" the DA asked. Reiser said no again.

"Did your passions get aroused?" Hora asked.

"No," Reiser said before adding, "Well, maybe not. We cared about what we were discussing."

"Were you calm speaking to Nina that afternoon as you are here now this afternoon?" Hora asked.

"That's a good way of putting it," Reiser said.

"So I'm accurate?" Hora asked, and Reiser said yes.

"You had no reason to be upset with her, right?" Hora asked.

"We were in the middle of an acrimonious divorce," Reiser said.

"Did you strike her?" Hora asked.

"No, I did not," Reiser said.

"Did you apply any physical force?" Hora asked, and Reiser said no.

"Did you assault her?" Hora asked, and Reiser said no again.

"Did you touch her?"

A pause. "Probably not."

"Did she provoke you in ANY manner whatsoever that afternoon, provoke you to attack, assault or hit her?"

"No," Reiser said. "We did, however, have a contentious divorce that we did discuss."

"She didn't provoke you in any fashion whatsoever to an act of violence?" Hora asked.

"That's correct," Reiser said.

"So you certainly didn't kill Nina in any fashion?" Hora asked.

"That's correct," Reiser said.

"And you certainly didn't kill Nina in a sudden quarrel?" Hora asked, and Reiser agreed.

"I certainly didn't kill Nina," Reiser said simply. "I did not murder Nina," he added.

Hora recited a litany of legal terms, asking if Reiser committed murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Reiser said no on all counts.

"I didn't commit any form of manslaughter or murder," Reiser said.

"Have you studied up on the various forms of homicide, in your homicide research, after Nina disappeared?" Hora asked.

"Yes," Reiser said.

"So you know there's a different level of punishment for different grades of homicide?" the prosecutor asked, and Reiser said yes.

"And you know voluntary manslaughter carries more serious punishment that manslaughter in California?" Hora asked, and Reiser said yes again.

"Did Nina fall down the stairs that afternoon?" Hora asked.

"No, she did not," Reiser said.

"Did she fall on her head?"

"No, she did not."

"Did she trip or fall?"

"She did not experience any injury or fall that I witnessed," Reiser said.

"Did she have a heart attack?" Hora asked. Reiser said no.

"Did she happen to drop dead in your house?" Hora asked. No again.

"Did she bleed?" Hora asked, and Reiser said no.

"Did you accidentally hit her?" Hora asked.

"No, I did not," Reiser said.

"Did you accidentally choke her?" Hora asked.

"Did not," the defendant replied.

Hora asked if in his research, Reiser had researched instances of accidental killings.

"You're asking for a legal conclusion," Reiser said.

"Your research is all I'm asking," the DA said.

"I think there's also negligent manslaughter," Reiser said.

"I'm not going there," Hora said, reminding Reiser that he was discussing accidental killings. The DA asked if it's possible Reiser had accidentally killed Nina without negligence.

"I already told you I didn't kill Nina Reiser," he said.

"Did she inflict harm on herself?" Hora asked.

"No, she did not," Reiser said.

"Did she commit suicide or attempt suicide?"

"No, she did not."

"Did you see anybody else strike her that afternoon?"

"No, I did not."

"Did you see anybody else strike her or assault her?" Hora asked.

"I saw a squeeze-hug," Reiser said, referring to the embrace he said happened between Nina and their son before she left his home.

"Did Nina hit you?" Hora asked.

"She did not," Reiser said.

"Did she apply any physical force to you at all?"

"She did not."

"Did she touch you?"

"I believe she did not touch me."

"You guys did not kiss or hug?"

"No, we did not."

"So you have absolutely had no need to defend yourself from her that afternoon, is that true?" Hora asked.

"That's correct," Reiser said.

"So you didn't kill her in self-defense?" Hora asked.

"That's correct," he said.

"The two of you, you're no match for each other, right?" the DA asked.

"That's correct," Reiser said.

But then he added, "Actually, she did win a tug-of-war with me. I'm sorry to quibble." He then said something about "the state of the law" with regard to tug-of-war and being careful with children the age of her daughter because they're "extremely fragile."

Hora asked Reiser how tall he was and how much he weighed in September 2006, and Reiser said 5 feet 6 inches and 190 pounds, "plus or minus two pounds."

Hora handed Reiser a picture of himself back then, and the defendant remarked that he looked ugly. "I don't want you to comment on your appearance," Hora said. "You are kind," Reiser responded.

Reiser was smiling, but Hora politely said he wanted to be serious -- and repeated that he didn't mean to be insulting with respect to the picture. "I do look fat in that photograph," Reiser said.

"Is that how fat -- I shouldn't say fat -- is that how large you were? Is that photo an accurate reflection of your size?" Hora asked, and Reiser agreed.

Hora turned to Reiser's judo skills and asked when he began studying the martial art. Reiser said he was in his 20s and estimated that he's been studying judo for at least 18 years.

Hora asked Reiser about a Russian national champion in judo and Reiser erupted with disbelief that the DA would ask him about him. "C'mon!" Reiser said, adding he'd only answer if the judge ordered him to do so. But he confirmed the judo master's identity, saying he had studied with him in 2003 and 2004 when he was a brown belt in judo. Reiser commented that when he got his black belt, he was in his 40s and when people are in their 40s, martial arts instructors kind of "find an excuse" to award older students their black belts. The judge, himself a black belt in a number of disciplines, scrunched his eyebrows in confusion. Reiser added that such conferrals are more casual in jujitsu than judo.

Hora asked if choking was part of the ground work in judo, and Reiser agreed. (In his opening statement, Hora told jurors that Reiser was trained in the that "art of choking" and that "when you choke somebody, it's fast, it's quiet and it's deadly.")

Reiser confirmed that Nina was 5 feet 5 inches tall and weighed 114 pounds.

"So you could easily overpower her?" Hora asked. Reiser said yes.

"Did she leave your house and come back?" Hora asked.

"No," he said. "The last time I saw her was when she was driving away in the minivan."

"Did she take her purse with her?"

"Yes."

"Why did you spend so much time (discussing) where she placed her purse?"

Du Bois objected, saying that assumes facts not in evidence, but the judge overruled the objection.

"Because I'm obsessive, and I'm providing testimony under penalty of perjury," Reiser said.

"Except last Thursday?" Hora asked, referring to Reiser's testimony March 6 on direct as to whether he kept his battery in his cell phone.

"And I felt bad about that for a week," Reiser said.

"Felt bad about lying under oath for a week?" Hora asked.

"Yes," Reiser said. "That's why I decided to change my testimony, and I informed my attorneys that I wished to do so, because I felt it was deceptive of me. Even though I could have twisted my interpretation of that. It still would have bothered me. I don't think anybody else would have known. I felt that I had to correct it."

Hora asked Reiser how much Namesys, his computer company, was worth as of Sept. 3, 2006. Reiser said he would have to provide a long answer. Hora said he didn't mind if the answer was "long, short or medium," only that it be a truthful answer.

It was time for the mid-afternoon break.

Several prosecutors stopped by to watch the proceedings today; among them was Chris Lamiero, who went against Du Bois and other defense attorneys in the trial of a group of men charged with killing Newark transgender teen Gwen Araujo in 2002. Du Bois' client, Jose Merel, was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for second-degree murder.

Noon. Defense attorney William Du Bois wrapped up his questioning of Hans Reiser this morning after five days. Du Bois asked his client why police found an article on Munchausen syndrome by proxy on the day he was arrested, Oct. 10, 2006. Reiser believes his estranged wife, Nina, was making up illnesses with respect to their son.

"I'm still interested in Nina's interaction with the kids," Reiser said. "Well, I'm still concerned about Nina. To this day, I'm concerned about Nina."

And with that, Du Bois looked at Judge Larry Goodman and said, "I have no further questions." Goodman dismissed the jurors for lunch. At 2 p.m., prosecutor Paul Hora will began cross-examining Reiser, another highly anticipated part of this trial.

10:08 a.m. Hans Reiser is on the stand for the fifth day. Defense attorney William Du Bois was munching on something when Judge Larry Goodman opened the proceedings. "Thank you, your honor," Du Bois said. "I didn't know you were having breakfast," the judge said with a laugh. Reiser's father, Ramon Reiser, is sitting in the hallway outside, as he was yesterday. Today, he's highlighting passages from a book called "Snakes in Suits: What you see may not be what you see." Two jurors are wearing green.

After his wife went missing, Reiser said he paid a visit to Du Bois' office. Reiser said he had to pay him, and Du Bois warned him about "unethical interrogation techniques" by the police.

Reiser said he bought two books about murder and police investigations from the now-shuttered Barnes and Noble in Berkeley on Sept. 8, 2006. One book, "Masterpieces of Murder" by Jonathan Goodman, was on sale for about $8 and was "worthless" with respect to "understanding how the police work," Reiser said. The other book, "Homicide," by "The Wire" creator David Simon, "had some interesting stories," including one in which Baltimore police officers had planted four weapons on a suspect, not knowing that more than one officer had done so. Reiser gave a convoluted description of this story, prompting the judge to knit his brows in confusion.

"It's an example of police excess in an investigation, is that a fair summary?" Du Bois asked.

"Yeah," Reiser said, adding the book also discussed instances in which police "engaged in a lot of pretty abusive interviewing techniques and so forth with people."

"Well, did this fit into your natural paranoia, reading this book, about police excess in an investigation, that would be exhibit 82A?" Du Bois asked.

Reiser said he believed the book was accurate. Du Bois said of the book, "Did it heighten your paranoia or was your paranoia so high..."

"I had a bad experience with family court with traumatic stress disorder due to violent computer games," Reiser said.

Du Bois turned to the fact that DNA belonging to both Hans and Nina's DNA was found on a pillar in Reiser's Exeter Drive home in the Oakland hills. Reiser testified that he had an idea about how his DNA got there.

Referring to Nina's DNA, Du Bois said, "Even though you don't remember how it got there, what are your ideas on that subject based on your experience in that house?"

Reiser said in the beginning of summer 2006, "Nina cut her hand on a cutting board right about here," motioning toward a spot on his right index finger. Toward the end of that summer, "Nina popped a blood vessel in her nose, and she stuffed a tissue up her nose and sat -- in both cases -- she sat on the couch. It seemed to be a Reiser family tradition that whenever -- especially with the kids and everything -- whenever somebody gets a bleed, they sit on the couch, gather everyone around them for sympathy and then after doing so, they walk and after it stops bleeding or whatever, the parents come by, they walk over to the bathroom and look at it."

"Thank you for sharing," Du Bois said.

Reiser said it's possible that people deposited their DNA through their spittle. "It tends to fly everywhere," he said. Reiser said one could see from his wedding video that when people walk next to the post, they reach out and touch it. Reiser said he could have reached out and touched the post. "That's enough to deposit my DNA," he said.

Reiser asked Du Bois if he could provide his theory about exactly what could have had happened. Du Bois said he wanted to steer him toward evidence in the case, rather than a theory. "I don't want to discourage you from answering the question," Du Bois said.

"Well, um, so you don't want me to give my cockamamie theory?" Reiser asked.

Reiser said he had no doubt that he's touched that post. "I can go back to my childhood and tell you all the times I stubbed my toes on the steps outside, come into the house and may have walked past the post," Reiser said as Du Bois shook his head. "I'm talking about 2006 now," Du Bois said.

"I would remind you that I've lived in the house with that post for 30 years," Reiser said.

"OK. So you touched the post before in 30 years," Du Bois said.

"There's no possibility that I have not touched the post in the last 30 years of living in that house," Reiser said. Du Bois asked if there was a time Hans and Nina had lived there, and he said yes, in 1999 and 2000, plus she's come over a number of times to have dinner. But going back to a previous line of thought, Reiser noted that at some point he had allergies, so he could have (he wiped his nose) touched that post in that way.

Reiser said after his wife went missing, he slept in his mother's Honda hybrid at one point because he didn't want to be arrested " ' til Monday through Wednesday." He was referring to the fact that he if he was arrested on a Friday, he'd be held over the weekend and that would give investigators more time to build a case before charges are filed. He noticed police surveilling his house and so he didn't sleep there. He acknowledged that he was "very inconsiderate to my mother." He said he's pretty sure he called her during this period.

At one point, Reiser said he "treated myself" to Motel 6 in Fremont for two nights. He said he was looking for cheap motels and knew there some establishments along Interstate 880. But the cheapest rate he found was $49.99. He said he also had stayed at the Durant Hotel, one block south of the UC Berkeley campus, for about $150 a night. He said he would "treat myself to a hotel" before Juvenile Court hearings dealing with his children, as he would "get kind of emotional before the kids' hearing" and wanted to be "bright and fresh."

He said sleeping in cars was not a good way to sleep.

Asked what he was doing in Redwood City on Sept. 12, 2006, when he was ticketed by a Redwood City officer for making a U-turn in front of a bus, Reiser said at first that he had been involved in a business negotiation. But then he said, "Wait. You know, I'm sorry." He's done this several times while testifying. Today, prosecutor Paul Hora grinned and looked at the jury as Reiser hesitated. "That can't have been that date," Reiser said. It must have been the day after that he was doing business. On the day in question, when he was pulled over, Reiser said he got a sandwich at either Subway or Togo's and had bought a map from Fry's.

He said there was a "curious incident in San Francisco" in which he believed undercover officers had pedaled past him on bicycles, their cell phones squawking loudly. Reiser said he didn't think Oakland police officers' cell phones squawk.

Oakland police followed him into a movie theater at one point during their surveillance, Reiser testified. "You recommended 'The Departed,' " Reiser told Du Bois. "I recommended 'The Guardian,' Du Bois corrected. "No, they recommended 'The Guardian,' Reiser said of the police. "You recommended 'The Departed.' " He added, "They had better taste in movies, I'm sorry." 'The Guardian' was better than 'The Departed,' he said, adding that he and an undercover officer chatted about the movie in a theater restroom.

Reiser proceeded to launch into a soliloquy, but Du Bois told his client, "We just have limited time in this trial." Reiser responded, "I'm sorry I'm bankrupting you."

Reiser confirmed that his father had warned him that people other than the police might follow him. But Reiser said, "I didn't think I cared much for his reasoning."

Reiser then said he wanted to give a "more complicated answer" in response to one of Du Bois' questions, but the defense attorney said a yes or no would suffice. Reiser said he wanted to give an answer that was more complicated than yes or no, and Du Bois said, "I know you do."

Reiser said he tried to get Du Bois to agree to release a statement to the media. "How many times did I tell you no, we're not going to release that, and you shouldn't even waste your time on that?" Du Bois asked.

"More than five," Reiser said.

"Did that stop you?" Du Bois asked.

"I didn't release it, so yes, it did actually," Reiser said.

"Was that an expression of how you felt about things?" Du Bois asked.

"Um, the question is vague," Reiser told his attorney. That comment drew giggles from the judge.

Du Bois asked what the statement was, and Reiser said it was a draft of a press release. "But on what subject?" Du Bois asked, adding, "Not a draft of a press release. You never released it correct? It was an unreleased release?"

Reiser agreed. He said the document was about "my unhappiness that the scientific method gets you nowhere in court."

Reiser said he has bad circulation in his legs, so when he slept in his mother's Honda CRX, he had to keep his legs elevated by putting them on the dashboard and exert some "minor muscle tension" to hold them up there.

Reiser said on Sept. 17, 2006, he removed the passenger seat of the CRX and threw it in a Dumpster near Tom's Hardware and Auto near the Bayfair Mall in San Leandro. The prosecutor looked at the jury and smiled. Reiser mentioned this was near Hegenberger Road. A male juror in the back row shook his head vigorously. Reiser corrected himself. "Hesperian. Not Hegenberger. I'm sorry, they both begin with 'H-E' and sometimes I'm confused," he said. Reiser said he felt guilty about using the store's Dumpster and so he "bought a can of oil."

Why did you throw out the seat if it was in good condition? Du Bois asked.

"Um, that was not a seat that you would miss with the depths of your heart," Reiser said. "The seat was not in good condition. Neither seat was in good condition."

Asked by Du Bois to describe "in 25 words or less" why he went to Manteca, Reiser said he went to a storage facility there on Sept. 16, 2006 because the map he bought at Fry's showed that there was a campground there. But it turned out it was just an RV Park where you have to pay a month of rent, he said. A local "nice barkeep" let him sleep in the parking lot. Manteca reminded him of "small towns," he said.

Reiser said he went to the storage center because "I didn't want my car to be seized. I figured it the police seize my car, I wouldn't get it back for six months. Also, I wanted a place to keep my stuff, because I had been moved out of the house. I also had this idea that I could park the car in the storage locker and sleep in the storage locker. But there were a couple problems with that idea. One of the problems is that I discovered on the storage lockers that on all of them, they had 24-hour guards. I just knew, without even asking, I couldn't sleep in the storage locker. Another problem was that it cost too much. I remember it cost $40. The last time I looked at a storage locker was in my 20s. I never actually owned a storage locker. So I did a calculation, and if I wanted to keep my car in a storage locker for six months, that's 6 times $140, that's close to $1000, the car's only worth $2,000, and it's just too much."

Reiser confirmed that he and his judo friend, Artem Mishin, drove erratically on the day Oakland police surveilled them after they left a Juvenile Court hearing. Du Bois asked why they drove in such a manner, and Reiser paused. "Well, part of it was we were looking for a bar." What was the other reason? Du Bois asked. Reiser paused for a very long time. He looked uncomfortable. "I don't want to contradict my friend," he said finally.

"Just tell us why you drove in such an unusual way," Du Bois said.

"No, I'd rather not," Reiser said.

"You have to," Du Bois said.

"Um, well, I don't think I do have to answer that question," Reiser said.

"OK, I"ll ask another question," Du Bois said. "Were the police accurate in their description of how you drove?"

"As to where we drove? Yes," Reiser said.

Reiser said he walked back and forth from the Honda CRX on Sept. 18, 2006 because he believed the police were following him and he was trying to decide whether to remove the two books on police and murder from the vehicle. "It didn't seem like that's what you want on your person" based on the title of the books, he said.

"Why didn't you throw them out with the seat in the Dumpster?" Du Bois asked.

"Because I hadn't finished reading them," Reiser said. "And because, well, I had the arrogance of innocence that I didn't feel that.."

"Well, you didn't have the same arrogance the next day?" Du Bois asked.

"With the car gone? No," Reiser said.

Reiser said he parked the CRX on Monterey Boulevard along Highway 13 because he didn't want the police to seize it. Asked if he had "run like the wind" from there, Reiser agreed. He agreed with his attorney that he had been overweight at the time. He said he ran "because I needed to lose the weight" and that he wanted to lose any police surveillance on foot.

Reiser he doubted that he had routinely kept his cell phone without the battery. He noted that he would have his phone and battery attached while in Juvenile Court to help arrange for witnesses to testify. The battery would be in whenever he had phone calls to make, he said. He acknowledged, however, that he had not been forthright earlier on direct. He had testified earlier that he did not have the battery in his cell phone when he was detained by police for a DNA sample on Sept. 28, 2006. Today, Reiser said he couldn't be sure he had his battery in the phone that day. "I apologize for being deceptive on that point." The prosecutor grinned as Reiser said this.

Posted By: Henry K. Lee (Email) | March 18 2008 at 06:47 AM