The Out-Lawyer's Blog

Let me paraphrase the highlights of a very long afternoon for Mr. DuBois who felt the necessity of going over everything that has so far been mentioned, giving his – sometimes clueless - client a chance one more time to explain himself.

Reiser returned to his children’s school on the afternoon of Nina’s disappearance, he now says, because he was procrastinating his cleaning job.  He may have seemed nervous because he wasn’t supposed to be the person to pick his children up.

There was a tedious series of questions and answers about Hans’ behaviors with school official and Ellen that afternoon and DuBois was having difficulty getting the expected answers from his client and several jurors were reportedly showing signs of boredom. 

Hans was more concise when he explained how his divorce attorney had advised him that the husband is always the number one suspect in a wife disappearance and that he, Reiser, should immediately get a criminal defense lawyer like DuBois.  We the learned that Reiser took his children to the beach on September 6^th , that he dropped them at school on the 7^th and that his mother was to pick them up from school while Hans was busy with the CRX  - he says it conked out in San Leandro.

To the apparent amusement of some jurors, the defense team projected a number of candid family pictures asking him to identify is children, Nina, and mother.

Han says that a white powder that was found on the Exeter house’s back porch was corn starch, a foot powder.  He claimed that a DA analysis confirmed that. [The jury has seen no evidence of any powder analysis.]

Hans wept when he recounted how his children were taken by child protective services on September 8. He now says that the incident heightened his “paranoia” and prompted him to get rid of the car seat. In Hans’ words, “I just had enough. I just threw it”.

[This may turn out to be a key moment in the case.  Do several members of the jury, having the opportunity to see Hans and measure his demeanor, believe of disbelieve this explanation? It was the disposal of something that – to any reasonable person – could be seen as potential evidence, especially for someone who was on notice that he was the focus of a police investigation.]

But Hans’ removal of the stinking trim piece from the CRX was explained differently. “Well, not only did I not have my kids, but I didn't have a home, and this way I could make something that would make the car a bit of a home.”

Just before the break – precipitated by DuBois’ request for a session recess – Hans was on the brink of potential trouble.  He had just told the jury that he had removed a sleeping bag from the Exeter house after Nina’s disappearance (he says September 8 or 9). 

Was it the same bag that police recovered in the CRX?