quote:Dick is not Rusty Hardin. Dick is a good lawyer, but I think Chip Lewis is actually better (notice the video from the documentary used a clip from Chip's closing in the Galveston trial). Dick is better at marketing and landing the high profile cases, but he isn't nearly as good as people on here seem to believe. Dick has lost plenty of cases against good prosecutors. In fact, he never beat Kelly Siegler despite 7-8 high profile cases between them.
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.
Robert Durst HBO thing
33,549 Views |
251 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Milwaukees Best Light
quote:
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.
ah, didn't know that. which makes the sandwich stealing even weirder. I think he likes to see what he can get away with.
quote:
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.
Agree. he's a good lawyer, has defending some big cases.
quote:she was a bit bull of a prosecutor. I watch her show Cold Justice too. She's a tough cookie. I remember that case of the woman who killed and buried her allegedly abusive husband. Stabbed him like 100 times or such and Kelly had a bed in the courtroom straddled on top of one of her aides and mimicked the stabs. she's definitely dedicated!
In fact, he never beat Kelly Siegler despite 7-8 high profile cases between them.
Agree completely with you about DeGuerin and Lewis.
DeGuerin definitely is equally as good at marketing himself and being out there to land these types of cases as he is a lawyer.
DeGuerin definitely is equally as good at marketing himself and being out there to land these types of cases as he is a lawyer.
You have to imagine the the prosecutor in LA will be a little more prepared to deal with a case of this magnitude than the folks in Galveston.
quote:
You have to imagine the the prosecutor in LA will be a little more prepared to deal with a case of this magnitude than the folks in Galveston.
Agree, and I still argue that they have to have some other new evidence other than the letter and the footage from the interview.
That's a definite possiblity. However, I do wonder how much Durst's apparent attempt to flee (motivated by the hbo series) forced their hand to make an arrest before they are ready.
And let's not give LA prosecutors too much benefit of the doubt on competence.
And let's not give LA prosecutors too much benefit of the doubt on competence.
quote:No joke, RE: OJ Simpson trial...
And let's not give LA prosecutors too much benefit of the doubt on competence.
quote:
Any way to watch this if you don't have HBO?
I was wondering this to. I may have to sign up for HBO just to see the series. It may be a while before HBO releases it.
if you sign up for HBO and then watch it within 2 days or something, you can call your provider and remove it and see if they pro-rate the month you purchased it for for just 2 days.
Or you could call and ask if they have any offers for a free month of HBO just to see. And if they immediately say no, then say "well xx(if you have direct, say dish, vice versa, or cable, pick one) and say "they are offering to buy out my contract and give me a deal that includes all premium channels for 6 months free" or some bull****, and see what they say.
Usually the "2 months free hbo/showtime" stuff are the quickest "bonuses" they'll pull out to give you if you put some pressure on them.
Or you could call and ask if they have any offers for a free month of HBO just to see. And if they immediately say no, then say "well xx(if you have direct, say dish, vice versa, or cable, pick one) and say "they are offering to buy out my contract and give me a deal that includes all premium channels for 6 months free" or some bull****, and see what they say.
Usually the "2 months free hbo/showtime" stuff are the quickest "bonuses" they'll pull out to give you if you put some pressure on them.
quote:Eh, I sometimes talk to myself like that when I do something stupid, but generally not out loud.
That was pretty amazing. Its like he has multiple personalities and they all talk to each other and that is what we heard.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
quote:I mutter sometimes and out loud too (if no ones around) talk to my pets all the time too. I'm not a serial killer though... But I have been to B E V E R L E Y H I L L S, though...
Eh, I sometimes talk to myself like that when I do something stupid, but generally not out loud.
You know, I didn't care for the original police detective they interviewed throughout either. I don't' think he really gave a **** when the wife went missing and is still making excuses now. Just didn't really seem to care. I know it was the early 80s and yes, adults are allowed to go missing if they want, but after a while and with all the prodding from the friends you'd think he'd start caring and he didn't. just excuse after excuse.
If we are talking about annoying people, how about the juror doubling down on saying durst is innocent and has been set up this whole time. That guys ignorance has been crucial to him not being behind bars this whole time.
quote:
You know, I didn't care for the original police detective they interviewed throughout either. I don't' think he really gave a **** when the wife went missing and is still making excuses now. Just didn't really seem to care. I know it was the early 80s and yes, adults are allowed to go missing if they want, but after a while and with all the prodding from the friends you'd think he'd start caring and he didn't. just excuse after excuse.
His reluctance to really engage in the interview tells me a few things:
1) As he said, it was the early 80's. It was a missing persons report, and while the doorman thing about coming back home was made up by Durst's side, they at least had the report that she called the dean of medical school to say she was sick like 3 days after she was last seen. So to him it sounds like she bailed on her husband and not feeling well.
2) It's hard to look at everything we have available to us today, and project back on those times.
3) It's not too out of the box to think he and the department may have been pressured by the Durst family at some point to scale back and not pursue the case. Chalk it up to a missing person who wanted to take off. The Durst family definitely had that kind of pull, and the early 80's was a ripe period for corruption like that.
4) There was still no body, no evidence that she did anything to her, and again, they had a report from the dean of the med school that she called in sick. Hard to really start going super cop when you have literally nothing to go off of.
5) This was over 30 years ago. I'm sure he has been ridiculed time and time again at different stages when the case was brought back up in the news, etc. I'm sure he probably got pretty defensive through those times, and maybe he's just done trying to explain himself, so he did the interview and said exactly what they did, and that's that.
6) Most of his interviews were when the episodes were in pretty heavy narrative and re-enactment mode for the sake of storytelling. All we see is what Jarecki showed us in the episodes that fit with the story they wanted to tell. Possibly he did go more in depth or help explain things, but that doesn't help cast doubt in people's minds when they are watching the story unfold every week on TV. The key to a great mystery story is to be able to cast equal amounts of doubt and trust on everyone important to the case up until you are ready for the reveal.
I, too, was a little dumbfounded with him when I first watched. But after a few days now, I think he probably did his job well enough back then or he was pressured to not investigate too deeply, and that's that.
I agree with most of what you said, Bunk, but...
I get the call, but seems as if it was either Durst or Susan making that call, no way to prove that.
The friends appealed to him over and over throughout the years and he still seemed to do nothing. I know we can second guess and go back, but I was not impressed by him.
Why was the house never searched? wouldn't been different cops, but still. So many missed ops in this investigation. The PIs reluctance even now to discuss it was weird, unless he fears the Durst empire. It's 30 years on? Why not be out and open about your findings? They had to get them through other means.
The PI was hired by the Durst family, could he not have shared his findings with the cops or no? That would've bothered me to keep that information to myself. I realized the cop didn't see it until now, but still.
Agree, but the cop wasn't thorough at all and really didn't seem to go the distance IMO. Others would've not dropped the ball. But I guess he did what he thought he could.
I think Durst killed her at the cottage and either buried her, put her in the water, dismembered her and did either or she's somewhere in that cottage. Why still does no one search? If I was the owner of that house now, I'd have a team come in. I'd want to know.
quote:they took Dursts word for it apparently. I don't think the doorman was ever really questioned (or it didn't seem so). Why? What would that hurt? The PI found that out later. I know he didn't see the PI report until later, but still.
1) As he said, it was the early 80's. It was a missing persons report, and while the doorman thing about coming back home was made up by Durst's side, they at least had the report that she called the dean of medical school to say she was sick like 3 days after she was last seen. So to him it sounds like she bailed on her husband and not feeling well.
I get the call, but seems as if it was either Durst or Susan making that call, no way to prove that.
The friends appealed to him over and over throughout the years and he still seemed to do nothing. I know we can second guess and go back, but I was not impressed by him.
Why was the house never searched? wouldn't been different cops, but still. So many missed ops in this investigation. The PIs reluctance even now to discuss it was weird, unless he fears the Durst empire. It's 30 years on? Why not be out and open about your findings? They had to get them through other means.
The PI was hired by the Durst family, could he not have shared his findings with the cops or no? That would've bothered me to keep that information to myself. I realized the cop didn't see it until now, but still.
quote:
I think he probably did his job well enough back then or he was pressured to not investigate too deeply, and that's that.
Agree, but the cop wasn't thorough at all and really didn't seem to go the distance IMO. Others would've not dropped the ball. But I guess he did what he thought he could.
I think Durst killed her at the cottage and either buried her, put her in the water, dismembered her and did either or she's somewhere in that cottage. Why still does no one search? If I was the owner of that house now, I'd have a team come in. I'd want to know.
I kind of just chalked up the NY detectives demeanor of not giving a sh** to simply being a New Yorker. Actually seemed perfectly normal to me.
quote:I may need to go back and re-watch it, but I thought it was slightly deceiving in which they filmed the sequence of the doorman. They allowed the news reports and stuff to continuously say doorman saw her, and I know the PI later discovered the doorman never saw her.
they took Dursts word for it apparently. I don't think the doorman was ever really questioned (or it didn't seem so). Why? What would that hurt? The PI found that out later. I know he didn't see the PI report until later, but still.
But the detective mentioned(and they put this way later in sequence so it was odd) never even considering the doorman's statement because it was made by a Durst family spokesperson, and they never got that info that the doorman saw her return. I probably need to re-watch it, but I'm fairly certain he ends up saying that. So this tells me that they never considered the fake doorman thing one way or the other.
quote:Does NYC precinct 22 have jurisdiction on a missing persons case enough to search a house in South Salem? It wasn't even proven that she was ever in precinct 22, much less missing after being in precinct 22, or hell, New York City period. The missing persons case was brought to him there, but I don't know how active any LEO would be in going up to Westchester county and sniffing around when he has literall nothing to go off of, and nothing to even suggest the house should be searched. Hindsight is really easy, especially in investigations. This happens to be over 30 years ago, so it's really hard to look objectively at what he may or may not have done.
Why was the house never searched? wouldn't been different cops, but still. So many missed ops in this investigation. The PIs reluctance even now to discuss it was weird, unless he fears the Durst empire. It's 30 years on? Why not be out and open about your findings? They had to get them through other means.
quote:Again, you're watching what the filmmakers want us to see, and only that. We don't know how much the police officer talked to them, and about what. They have a narrative to construct to tell a story. We don't really know if he dropped the ball or not. I'm sure the friends of Kathie probably for years have been saying everyone involved in the case hasn't looked hard enough. They may be right, or they may just really want justice for their friend. But regardless of that, I can't just take what I saw from the interview with the cop in the 6 episodes and be convinced he didn't do enough. I have to acknowledge that the filmmaker could have edited the **** out of his interviews and intentionally not shown more of the conversation in order to build an audience's suspense up of "man, they just let that guy get away with murder!"
Agree, but the cop wasn't thorough at all and really didn't seem to go the distance IMO. Others would've not dropped the ball. But I guess he did what he thought he could.
quote:Agree. She came home from the friend's house and never left.
I think Durst killed her at the cottage and either buried her, put her in the water, dismembered her and did either or she's somewhere in that cottage. Why still does no one search? If I was the owner of that house now, I'd have a team come in. I'd want to know.
quote:
I kind of just chalked up the NY detectives demeanor of not giving a sh** to simply being a New Yorker. Actually seemed perfectly normal to me.
Oh yeah.. Definitely a "no ****s to give" new yorker, that guy is.
quote:I mistyped saying weren't be different cops when I meant would've been different cops, meaning Salem. Couldn't the NY guy have asked their police to search it?
Does NYC precinct 22 have jurisdiction on a missing persons case enough to search a house in South Salem? It wasn't even proven that she was ever in precinct 22, much less missing after being in precinct 22, or hell, New York City period.
But, I see what you're saying and this was one of many cases he had, but after the friends said they tried and tried to get him to do more and he even said on one of the episodes that it was just the same stuff and he didn't see the point of it. He's probably just a jerk NYer as ya'll said. I just didn't care for him, but maybe it is the way he was edited. IMO, I don't think so, though.
So police just raided his home?
Sounds like it.
His best friend, Susan Berman, had mob ties. He shot both her and Morris Black in the back of the head (that's why he took the head of Black, w/o it, the DA could definitively prove how/where Black was shot).
His continued access to money.
Am I the only one who thinks he may very well have been a mob hitman? I mean, the whole family seems shady as can be. And the only one who thinks this might be a possility? When he has to kill a friend, he can't bring himself to mutilate and dump the body, and even sends a note.
Something tells me Black wasn't the first person he mutilated and/or dumped like garbage. A ruthless man who plays this oddball routine. He's definitely smarter than you think. He got the Galveston jury to believe he and Black were buddies.
His continued access to money.
Am I the only one who thinks he may very well have been a mob hitman? I mean, the whole family seems shady as can be. And the only one who thinks this might be a possility? When he has to kill a friend, he can't bring himself to mutilate and dump the body, and even sends a note.
Something tells me Black wasn't the first person he mutilated and/or dumped like garbage. A ruthless man who plays this oddball routine. He's definitely smarter than you think. He got the Galveston jury to believe he and Black were buddies.
Why was his lawyer present for the initial interview when Durst talks to himself during a break, but not at the final interview?
I think he felt like he had a rapport with them by then and wasn't worried about it after getting through the main interview seemingly unscathed. It follows a pattern where he's reasonably thorough about covering up his crimes initially but grows overconfident and eventually gets sloppy in certain ways.
Btw, as someone posted already, the final interview was the same day as their episode 5 video tour of manhattan that initially drew the attention of Douglas Durst's security which led to the protective order and eventually the 2nd stoop visit and arrest at least a year later. Which they then faked as occurring prior to the final interview and pretending it gave them leverage to get the final interview. Both Durst and Jarecki are wearing the same clothes.
That was stupid. The "leverage" part was incidental to the overall plot and could have easily been cut out. They will now be cross examined thoroughly and this fabrication will definitely be a central part of it.
Agree. For someone whose supposed #1 goal was justice and not to do anything to mess up an investigation, they built in an easily identified lie that will raise questions about evidence they surfaced/provide. I'm sure they only did it to add some dramatic effect and end with the "wow!" moment in the bathroom and can explain it as such, but the door has been opened to their credibility paying a price.
So the bathroom confession now has to overcome (1) it took you 2 years to realize it and (2) you doctored the timeline for dramatic effect. Did you doctor the audio to get your dramatic ending and close the deal with HBO? Your movie bombed and lost $20 mill, so is this how you seal a success for the documentary?
So the bathroom confession now has to overcome (1) it took you 2 years to realize it and (2) you doctored the timeline for dramatic effect. Did you doctor the audio to get your dramatic ending and close the deal with HBO? Your movie bombed and lost $20 mill, so is this how you seal a success for the documentary?
That movie lost $20 mil...till its rereleased in theaters thanks to this documentary.
in fairness, AJ said in an interview their goal was to get the interview, not necessarily see justice done. It was a poor decision he will get beat up on the stand over, but the editing of a movie is much different than doctoring a tape for admissibility purposes. Will likely go to the weight not the admissibility. I don't think the raw bathroom audio (or any unedited documentary footage) will be greatly affected by this. Also, the delayed discovery won't matter in the end either. As long as they can prove the footage is authentic and unaltered, that tape should come in.
One of the best endings ever. Amazing stuff. The Pine Barrens also reminded me of one of The Sopranos best episodes.
I don't care how they get the goods on him. Just glad they did, hope it holds up. This guy is guilty as sin and probably committed many more crimes. Hopefully he's going down. Don't care what the filmmakers did or didn't do. If Durst hadn't done it he wouldn't be in this mess. Criminals suck. Screw them.
I think we all agree he should be locked up. I raise the filmmakers fake timeline as an issue because it's one of those things that could be used to generate doubt. This murdering azzhole has had doubt work in his favor for 35 years.
Well, that's fair
Featured Stories
See All