Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jun 2008 15:53 UTC, submitted by sonic2000gr
Permalink for comment 318411
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-08-17
As far as I can see, the article doesn't clearly state who approached whom or what Reiser has admitted. The article didn't leave me with the impression that Reiser has admitted to knowing where the body was or even that there was a body. Then again, neither did it leave me with the impression that the prosecutors approached Reiser.
Clearly the prosecutors and the author of the Wired article wants us to believe that the first case is true, however they don't provide any information to back that up - which makes me automatically think the second case is more likely. Surely if Reiser approached the DA, the DA would make sure the press knew that - likewise Reiser would only admit to the body once the deal was in place.
I certainly don't see the article provides positive proof of Reiser's guilt - but neither am I saying that he is definitely innocent - just that nothing so far has convinced me of his guilt. Neither does the information that juror no.7 disclosed lead me to especially trust judgment of the jurors (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reiser-juror-de.html) - he just sounds like a Daily Mail reader (sort of like a British Fox News).