LawAg05In reply to LHIOB 2:04p, 3/9/15

quote:

---

quote:

---

Susan Berman Case Being Re-Opened

---

Not surprised at all. That letter with the misspelling and timing is HUGE. Add that to the motive he already had to keep her quiet about his wife's murder AND the opportunity (he was in CA at the time then flew back shortly after the murder).

I bet he gets charged in the next year or so.

---

When you speak out loud, ypu shpuld ALWAYS expect that someone can hear you. Just because you think you are alone in a public bathroom doesn't mean you should expect privacy. People are overheard all the time.

As for evidence of him killing Berman, here's what i can recall.

1. Killer wrote Beverley, he wrote Beverley.
2. His handwriting matches the killer's.
3. He was in CA when Berman was killed.
4. Phone records show him heading towards her, then his phone beomg turned off leading up to her death. His phone was never off orher than this time.
5. He left CA the day after Berman was killed.

Only a jury of idiots would acquit. Too bad he's already had 1 jury of idiots.

6. No signs of forced entry in the Berman home. Meaning she let in the person who killed her i.e. she knew him/her.
7. Motive - Berman was about to talk to the NY DA about his wife's death.
8. What could Berman tell the NY DA about Kathy Durst's death? I'm guessing it is the location of the body:

quote:

---

Durst had known Berman, a writer and daughter of a known Las Vegas mobster, since they met at the University of California in the 1960s. When Durst's wife Kathie went missing in from their house in New York in 1982, Berman asserted Durst's innocence to the media. In the series, Jarecki seems to be hinting that Berman helped Durst hide Kathie's body.

He asks Durst about his habit of making collect calls to his family company, the Durst Organization. Soon after Kathie went missing, a number of collect calls were made to the [Durst Organization] from an area known as the Pine Barrens in New Jersey. This heavily-wooded land had the reputation of being a dumping ground for the bodies of Mafia victims.

"And what connection is that?" asks Kevin Hynes, the assistant district attorney on the case. "Well, Susan Berman who was very friendly with [Durst] at the time, had a lot of connections and a lot of friends in organized crime."

---

Source

That last episode was the most gripping thing I've ever seen on television...fiction can never come close to real life for heart-pounding, suspenseful "entertainment." Hopefully, justice is served this time around.

(Quotations used due to the nature of this show, while entertainment, striking me as a bit different than the typical documentary where all the facts and conclusion are foregone. We all had a prosecution's case laid out in front of us before a jury gets a chance to make a verdict. Amazing.)

I agree. I don't think I have ever actually gasped before, and I did at least twice during the course of this show.

So intense.
I think they did a good job building the tension. You could tell how important the director thought this interview was and he wanted to get it right and generate the right reaction.

I'd love to see a timeline of when the interviews were conducted, the time between the first major sit down with Durst, and then the follow up with the evidence, etc.

The whole miniseries was extremely well done. But I binged it all last night. Now I'd like to see what sort of timeline went into the making of it.

Jarecki discussing the timeline

http://uproxx.com/tv/2015/03/the-jinx-post-mortem/

Thanks!

I watched the first five episodes and will watch the finale tonight. Did they say how they knew the original letter was actually from the killer? I just can't remember that detail. What's the proof that the killer was the one who wrote the letter, and what would be the killer's motive to point police in the direction of a murder?

Here's a plausible scenario. What if Durst goes to the house, sees Berman on the floor dead, freaks out and flees the scene? He then comes to his senses, decides the police need to know, but knows with his past he might be implicated. He writes an anonymous letter and drops it in the mail so the police know there's been a murder.

Again, if it was stated how they knew who wrote the original letter, disregard this whole post.

quote:

---

Here's a plausible scenario. What if Durst goes to the house, sees Berman on the floor dead, freaks out and flees the scene? He then comes to his senses, decides the police need to know, but knows with his past he might be implicated. He writes an anonymous letter and drops it in the mail so the police know there's been a murder.

---

Oh I agree completely that it's going to be a very tough conviction if the only new evidence is that letter.

IMO, it'd be easier to get him off the LA murder than Galveston with just the letter.

I also agree that maybe he'll finally get a jury that is just so ridiculously fed up with him that they'll convict even if the evidence presented isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also will be interesting to see what is and isn't allowed in regards to the disappearance of his first wife, etc. If the prosecution uses that as motive to kill Susan, then they'll be able to talk all about the New York stuff during the trial.

I'm wondering about Susan's "son." The scenes with him on the show were really, really odd. He didn't come off as 100% truthful when interviewed. And it was really convenient to just find that box. I need to re-watch that scene, but the way it shows him in the house was just off. Hopefully it was a reenactment of his reaction that they filmed for the docudrama because it just didn't feel right.

Wonder if the "son" was confided in by Durst about anything that could also have been "new" evidence to open the case back up.

In the end, Durst is a very lonely man who has no friends. He has killed the only 3 people he was ever really close to. Susan's stepson seems to be next on the list of those he had more than just a brief connection with.

Yeah, her son was very odd. Not surprising given his situation. She seemed like she was probably quite odd as well.

I initially assumed he alerted Durst to the letters while they were trying to arrange the final interview. But Durst's reaction didn't seem to acknowledge that. Although he's a nut, so who knows.

Well Durst did pay for some of his college. Great way to keep someone quiet for a while...

quote:

---

I watched the first five episodes and will watch the finale tonight. Did they say how they knew the original letter was actually from the killer? I just can't remember that detail. What's the proof that the killer was the one who wrote the letter, and what would be the killer's motive to point police in the direction of a murder?

---

Presumably the only person who knew there was a dead body in the house was the killer. No witnesses ever stepped forward and Durst denied even being in that town at the time of the murder. Generally speaking, a killer has no incentive to point police in the direction of the body. It actually gives him a greater chance of being caught. So why take such a risk if you are the killer? Well, lets say you have an emotional attachment to the victim and you can't stand to think of their body decomposing over time, partially eaten by a starving dog, etc. In that scenario, it might make sense to send a letter to police which assures the body will be found quickly. And you can simply safeguard against identification with block printing, wearing gloves, and no return address.

quote:

---

Here's a plausible scenario. What if Durst goes to the house, sees Berman on the floor dead, freaks out and flees the scene? He then comes to his senses, decides the police need to know, but knows with his past he might be implicated. He writes an anonymous letter and drops it in the mail so the police know there's been a murder.

---

Durst denied being in the city. He denied writing the Cadaver letter. He has denied both of these things for decades. If this scenario was true, why would he lie?

tldr: Occam's razor.

Interview with Jarecki and his assistant about the filming, and Durst.

Watched the finale and was as blown away by just about anything I've seen on TV. Seriously, one of the best things ever.

Wow! I actually said "oh my god" aloud during the bathroom scene. Just speechless...

Just finished the series. Also speechless. I never could have imagined that there would be such a satisfying ending. Truly one of the best things I have ever seen on TV.

Well done.

Durst arrested in New Orleans today for murder.

quote:

---

Durst arrested in New Orleans today for murder.

---

You mean Saturday afternoon

Thanks for the correction. I thought it was breaking news.

I don't really get the point of this, but it's interesting nonetheless...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/how-did-the-jinx-narratively-manipulate-its-viewers#.evk9d1ZKY5

I lived in Galveston during the trial and followed it then so I was going to be a P1 of this from the get go. I was surprised by how good it was. Damn good. Now I have to follow the LA trial...

quote:

---

I don't really get the point of this, but it's interesting nonetheless...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/how-did-the-jinx-narratively-manipulate-its-viewers#.evk9d1ZKY5

---

Other than pointing out film making techniques the only real info here is that they may have filmed the 2nd interview and the Times Square stuff on the same day.

quote:

---

I don't really get the point of this, but it's interesting nonetheless...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/how-did-the-jinx-narratively-manipulate-its-viewers#.evk9d1ZKY5

---

It's like an entire article dedicated to "filmmakers make films! and edit them!"

Interesting, Louisiana is fighting extradition because they want to file on him too for something.

Durst is waiving extradition and has hired DeGuerin, imagine that!

Dick is going to explain this all away and probably will make the City of LA formally present the key to the city to Bobbie for his troubles.

When he was arrested, he had a handgun on him. I think they are wanting some sort of charge in Nola based around that

I think the most interesting aspect of that article is that it points out how the actual timeline didn't fit the narrative they tried to tell us in the 6th episode. They edited the episode to make it appear that Durst was arrested while they were still trying to get the final interview and that they were going to try to use his attorney's request as leverage to lock down the interview. In reality, that interview happened at least a year before. In fact, not just edited, but it was almost like they fabricated some scenes where they were discussing how they'd use the arrest leverage to corner him. Editing a documentary is one thing. Reshuffling the timeline to tell a different story and adding some feaux self-interviews to support the new story is something else. It's a bit shady and does make you wonder what else they manipulated.

I agree with that.

I am interested to see how de guerin plays in front of a California jury.

I finished watching all of them last night. I remember these cases from the past.

Durst is one weird dude. I mean damn weird. I find it interesting that his money has never been cut off, seems like the family just wants him away from them so they don't stop him form having any or I guess he has is own accounts.

He's not crazy, but he is smart. he's not quite the dottering dude he appears to be. he might be getting a bit more feeble and he's certainly not all there, but not stone crazy either. he's a serial killer. For all we know they aren't the only three he's killed.

He got lucky in all these cases, nothing happening with the first wife's disappearance, acquitted in the Galveston trial, but I think he's finally caught this time.

that part at the end was very interesting. I don't think he had a clue he was still being taped. also they supposedly didn't even hear this part for a while after filming, don't believe they were trying to entrap at all. throughout this entire thing he's muttered and talked to himself, hell, I've lived alone my entire adult life and I talk to myself too, so I don't think there was anything to that other than habit. Defense might try to come back and say he was putting on a part, but bull hockey.

how anyone, DeGuerin or that Galveston juror thinks Durst is innocent is beyond me. DeGuerin is not dumb, I'm sure he doesn't, but as his attorney can't say that. no intelligent person could possibly believe he didn't do these murders. I do believe he killed Morris Black ICB too, not by self defense, but I see how they didn't prove it.

It was a very well-done series. Hopefully he'll finally go down for these murders, but watch him get convicted and then kick off.

quote:

---

Durst is one weird dude. I mean damn weird. I find it interesting that his money has never been cut off, seems like the family just wants him away from them so they don't stop him form having any or I guess he has is own accounts.

---

Apparently there's a family trust that he has always had access to. He was basically pushed out of the way for his younger brother in the early 90's, and he disowned his father and family after that. He then went off the deep end(if he hadn't already with his first wife's disappearance a decade prior).

In 2006 or 07, he settled with his family to be removed from the family business and trust completely, giving up all power or stock he had in any of it, in exchange for $65 million.

So that's what he has been running around on ever since. He also bought a few high end homes 5 years back or so, and then flipped them for massive profits. So he has definitely had the money to do whatever he wants.

quote:

---

how anyone, DeGuerin or that Galveston juror thinks Durst is innocent is beyond me. DeGuerin is not dumb, I'm sure he doesn't, but as his attorney can't say that. no intelligent person could possibly believe he didn't do these murders. I do believe he killed Morris Black ICB too, not by self defense, but I see how they didn't prove it.

---

Yeah, DeGuerin doesn't worry about if Durst is innocent. it's not his job to make a jury believe he's innocent, only that he's not guilty based on the evidence put forth in the case.

The trial in Galveston was a circus, and many think it was a big joke...and while that may be the case, it was also a classic situation of one side just coming out delivering haymakers and changing the entire flow. Like JFF and the Ags in Tuscaloosa 2012. Before the Bama big money donors even had a chance to sit down in their suite, it was 20-0 A&M. That changed the tune for how the entire game would be played.

quote:

---

They successfully defended Durst and allowed Durst to kill again. Bravo.

---

quote:

---

Hey spoiler alert on that, I had no idea he killed again after Galveston. I remember the Galveston trial vaguely but don't know the rest of his story so it is all new to me.

---

He didn't kill again after Galveston (unless there's another we don't know about)

January 1982: Kathleen disappears (murdered)

December 2000: Susan Berman murdered

October 2001: Morris Black body parts found, murdered and dismembered, wasn't that decomposed, so couldn't have been that long.