# The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst (HBO - whole series spoilers)



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

http://www.hbo.com/the-jinx-the-life-and-deaths-of-robert-durst#/

Anyone watching this show? We've watched the first 3 chapters so far.

I'm sure I heard of the case at the time, but since forgot it - but it's fascinating and I'm trying not to spoil myself by reading up on the case.

I've read that it is the Serial Podcast for TV  I'm not sure I'm into it at that level - though I did stop listening to Serial because I didn't think it was going to go anywhere.

The one thing that has struck me is how dark his eyes are... they are like pitch black - like the demons you see on tv shows. That right there makes me think he is guilty.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

I've watched the first four eps and am really enjoying it. Episode 4 is great. I know a lot has to do with the editing and filmmaker's point of view, but he sure looks guilty as sin to me! 

Looking forward to the final two episodes.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I've only watched the first two so far. I'm hooked. Well made documentary. I know how it ends, and it's still must-see TV.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

This is very, very good. Started watching a couple of days ago and I couldn't stop until I was all caught up. Can't wait for the finale.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I'm watching. I'm through #4 so far. Good show!

I remember seeing this story on Dateline and shows like that, but the interviews with Durst take it up another level. I've also always liked Jeanine Pirro and enjoy her commentary.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I am watching and liking. Totally reminds me of "The Staircase".


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

So, Robert Durst was arrested today for the Susan Berman murder. It would seem like the film's getting the misspelled Beverley Hills letter may have been the catalyst? If so, I wonder the field day the defense will have on chain of custody. 

But good for HBO for an amazing real time catch up to events 30 years in the making. Has there ever been anything like this?


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Looking forward to E06. 

I was glad to hear, this morning, that he was arrested for Susan Berman's murder. Hope he doesn't get away with another one.

I wonder if they will ever find his wife. When he killed the old man and cut his body into bits I have the feeling it wasn't the first time. 

The guy needs to stop getting away with murder already! Susan was his really good friend, too. Methinks she knew too much and he saw her as a threat. He got greedy. He got away with killing the old guy. His wife's body (parts) will probably never be found. He was on easy street. But I guess he probably didn't see any way out of (allegedly) killing Susan too. That might be the one that brings him down.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> So, Robert Durst was arrested today for the Susan Berman murder. It would seem like the film's getting the misspelled Beverley Hills letter may have been the catalyst?





sharkster said:


> Looking forward to E06.
> 
> I was glad to hear, this morning, that he was arrested for Susan Berman's murder. Hope he doesn't get away with another one.


Was just coming here to post this. It's gotta be the Beverley Hills letter, right? Kudos to the filmmakers and HBO if true. This is the kind of street justice investigative journalism we expected from Serial, but was never delivered 

I wonder if HBO will put an epilogue on the episode, mentioning today's arrest?


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Statement from Doug Durst. Seems the family has had enough of this too:

"We are relieved and also grateful to everyone who assisted in the arrest of Robert Durst. We hope he will finally be held accountable for all he has done."


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

GoPackGo said:


> Statement from Doug Durst. Seems the family has had enough of this too:
> 
> "We are relieved and also grateful to everyone who assisted in the arrest of Robert Durst. We hope he will finally be held accountable for all he has done."


He will hate Doug even more now.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Crazy finale. I just heard that the bathroom confession was 2 years ago and they just discovered it!? But when, I wonder, did they turn the letter over to the police? The timing of the arrest is incredible.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Crazy finale. I just heard that the bathroom confession was 2 years ago and they just discovered it!? But when, I wonder, did they turn the letter over to the police? The timing of the arrest is incredible.


I just watched it already. Couldn't wait.

Yeah, that was great but way too short. That last part in the bathroom I was thinking 'Really? He didn't remember being mic'd?' He seems smarter than that.

I didn't know this was so long ago, however. I just figured it was pretty recently. Since the episode ended so far from the end of the hour I was hoping for some update stuff. Oh well.

I just hope he doesn't slime away this time. They need to quit with the bail already.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

Wow! Just finished it. On the one hand, he seemed pretty smart - he left no trace of Kathy, yet he screwed up disposing of Morris Black's body... and he sent the cadaver letter. And he can't remember when he's mic'd and keep is mouth shut.

I'm beginning to think he's not smart enough to kill Kathy and get away with it...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

sharkster said:


> Yeah, that was great but way too short. That last part in the bathroom I was thinking 'Really? He didn't remember being mic'd?' He seems smarter than that.


Not the first time he had accidentally talked into an open mic...

The NY Times article said they began talking to prosecutors in early 2013 but only discovered the recording two years after the interview (e.g., recently).


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> But good for HBO for an amazing real time catch up to events 30 years in the making. Has there ever been anything like this?





mooseAndSquirrel said:


> The timing of the arrest is incredible.


I was kind of surprised that the final episode ended with no explanation of Durst's fate, so I quickly went on the internet and found out he was arrested for Susan Berman's murder... yesterday! I agree that the timing of that is just unbelievable.

Such a well made and compelling documentary.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I know how it ends


Oh yeah? Do tell.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Fofer said:


> Oh yeah? Do tell.


And just when you think you know how it ends...


----------



## celluloidlout (Jul 26, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Crazy finale. I just heard that the bathroom confession was 2 years ago and they just discovered it!? But when, I wonder, did they turn the letter over to the police? The timing of the arrest is incredible.


The timing doesn't make any sense. Either the NYT is factually incorrect about the two years after discovery or the filmmakers held it back. Or maybe they have been working with the police/DA/FBI for some time.

Any professional sound tech wouldn't let someone walk away with a live mic. More so, in this scenario, you'd might willing let him and continue to listen. That audio feed is going somewhere and there is always a professional listening. The filmmakers new what they had before he even left the building. This notion of "discovering" the audio after the fact is hogwash.

I'm a bit troubled by the timeline presentation of the filmmakers and worry they may have inadvertently given him a defense. Of course, at this point we don't even know if either the letters of audio will be admissible. It's going to be fascinating to watch this unfold and learn what the filmmakers actually knew, when they knew it, and how involved law enforcement was.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

I wonder what that juror thinks now of Durst. Chris Lovell, was shown during the documentary defending the jury of acquitting Durst of the Galveston murder. He also apparently became friends with Durst, and visited him in jail after the trial.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...met-with-Durst-five-times-in-jail-1966408.php

I wonder if he still thinks Durst is innocent.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I don't think that the bathroom recording is the smoking gun the media is portraying it to be. The handwriting is what will get him convicted, if anything. The recording could easily be portrayed as him playing out a future conversation with investigators where they accuse him of killing everyone, since he has been shown to rehearse what he might say before in this very show.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

I don't think that the bathroom recording will be admissible in court and I doubt that the prosecution in LA is counting on it as evidence against him. Honestly, I wonder if the tape will help Durst if he goes with some sort of insanity defense. After watching the documentary, my guess is that he is either insane or he is doing things to try and look insane. Either way, I bet that is his defense for the murder charges, and the bathroom recordings may be evidence of his insanity.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

astrohip said:


> And just when you think you know how it ends...


I watched the entire series in one sitting last night. I saw your post from a week ago, and just had to ask.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Oh I don't think the bathroom talk will be his demise either. But it seems like it could be elemental because it's not like he didn't know he had a mic on. Maybe he forgot, but that's on him. He was there and, assumably, conscious when he was mic'd up before the interview.

Anyway, the writing is certainly a HUGE issue. When Jarecki showed him the cadaver letter, one or two episodes back, Durst actually said on his own that whoever wrote that letter (the cadaver one) was the killer. He just didn't know that the letter he had written Susan some time back, with the exact same writing and the same misspelling, would turn up. 

Looking at it, I don't know if it's enough though. I don't know what else they have for evidence. I'd like to think that he doesn't get away with these two, like he got away with that other one. If he gets out, I bet Jarecki is watching out for him. Durst seems to kill whoever gets in his way.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

It's clear that he won't get bail this time.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

And burping is the new blinking. 

#mustseetv


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I came across this interview with the filmmaker:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-j...-on-robert-dursts-apparent-murder-confession/

Right away, they ask him about the timeline, and he's very vague about the timing of the second interview and how long after the bathroom comments were discovered.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I fully expect there now to be a followup documentary about the making of this documentary. And what it means with regards to ethics and legalities of documentary-making.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

markb said:


> I came across this interview with the filmmaker:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-j...-on-robert-dursts-apparent-murder-confession/
> 
> Right away, they ask him about the timeline, and he's very vague about the timing of the second interview and how long after the bathroom comments were discovered.





> [Filmmaker Jarecki] also clarified that he and his producing partner Marc Smerling discovered the bathroom audio tape of Durst 'months' after the interview was first conducted, not two years later as reported Sunday night by the _New York Times._


http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/robert-durst-the-jinx-andrew-jarecki-confession-video-1201453492/


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

NY Times interview with Jarecki has dates:

Second interview: April 2012
'Confession' audio discovered: June 12, 2014


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

So when Jarecki "clarified that he and his producing partner Marc Smerling discovered the bathroom audio tape of Durst 'months' after the interview was first conducted, not two years later as reported Sunday night by the _New York Times_," was he referring to that NYTimes interview, or a different one?

Because the _Variety_ article in which he clarified it was "months" and "not two years" just came out today, too.

I'm guessing we'll learn a lot more about the _actual_ timeline soon. The fine line between entertainment and reality is being precariously skated on here, and many folks are now curious to know just how manipulated this presentation all was, and how long Jarecki (and police) knew what they know.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Jarecki had to refer to notes to arrive at the June 2014 date. Perhaps in other (eariler?) interviews he was nonspecific because he hadn't reviewed those notes.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Fofer said:


> http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/robert-durst-the-jinx-andrew-jarecki-confession-video-1201453492/


In the interview I linked, Jarecki also said "months", and when they followed up about the "two year" account, he said it was "many months" but did not refute the NY Times account.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Here's a pretty complete timeline:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat..._robert_durst_s_interactions_with_andrew.html

So, second interview in April 2012. Robert Durst arrested for violating restraining order on August 16, 2013. That does not match the order in which is was portrayed in The Jinx.

Also, after getting questioned about the discrepancies in interviews today, Jarecki cancelled his remaining appearances.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

markb said:


> Also, after getting questioned about the discrepancies in interviews today, Jarecki cancelled his remaining appearances.


What are you alleging here?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

For what it's worth, the NY Times was reporting "two years" before today's (according to the Slate timeline) interview with Jarecki. So today's interview may be later than the others.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> What are you alleging here?


I didn't read markb's comments as "alleging" anything, other than stating the facts as reported.

However, there are discrepancies in the timeline, and it appears that Jarecki and his crew heard these bathroom confessions a long time ago, which raises significant questions about legal responsibilities when it comes to this sort of thing, as well as ethical boundaries when it comes to piecing together a true crime drama for the sake of entertainment.

If Jarecki had this information for a long time, but sat on it and timed it so as to maximize its impact for the HBO show, some would argue that Jarecki now have some 'splaining to do, that's all.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> For what it's worth, the NY Times was reporting "two years" before today's (according to the Slate timeline) interview with Jarecki. So today's interview may be later than the others.


Well it remains noteworthy that in his interview with Variety, above, he specifically clarified differently.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Jarecki has stopped giving interviews but the stated reason is that they (clearly, IMO) will be called as witnesses in his trial. The interviews were stopped by Jarecki's lawyer. markb seems to be saying thy clammed up as soon as (and because) people started pointing out discrepancies.

I've read that they turned over the info about the audio as soon as they heard about it last June. It doesn't appear to do anything for the timing of the HBO documentary.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Fofer said:


> Well it remains noteworthy that in his interview with Variety, above, he specifically clarified differently.


But was that before or after the NY Times interview where he says "Let me look at my list" before giving June 12? Was he just going from memory in the other (earlier?) interviews?

I guess I'm looking for the thread of consistency in the statements where others are looking for inconsistency. Two years is not inconsistent with "many months." We'll probably never come to agreement.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> markb seems to be saying thy clammed up as soon as (and because) people started pointing out discrepancies.


I'm saying he clammed up after getting questioned on the timeline discrepancies (and not really answering the questions). That part is fact. I also speculate that there's some connection.

The second interview with Durst was portrayed by the film as having happened after Durst was arrested for violating a restraining order. But according to the NY Times, these two things happened in the opposite order.

I don't know why Jarecki would intentionally edit the film that way. He doesn't have to be a genius to realize he will get caught. But I also have trouble understanding how such a mistake could me made.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> But was that before or after the NY Times interview where he says "Let me look at my list" before giving June 12? Was he just going from memory in the other (earlier?) interviews?
> 
> I guess I'm looking for the thread of consistency in the statements where others are looking for inconsistency. Two years is not inconsistent with "many months." We'll probably never come to agreement.


The months/years thing is a different issue, but related because the "two year" info was how people figured out the order of event in The Jinx was wrong. You're right, "many months" is not inconsistent with "two years", but two years is inconsistent with the order things were portrayed in The Jinx.

It seemed to me that Jarecki was trying to avoid admitting to the screwed up timeline by being vague about the number of months.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Haven't watched it, but now that I know the "spoiler" (ending & real life events afterwards), I still may watch it via HBO Go... Maybe something to watch while walking on the treadmill..


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Will be interesting to see of this is allowed into evidence. Will be an interesting story to watch right there.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> Haven't watched it, but now that I know the "spoiler" (ending & real life events afterwards), I still may watch it via HBO Go... Maybe something to watch while walking on the treadmill..


I binged the last four episodes yesterday & today. Very addictive, well made documentary. Wanted to finish so I could follow the news hoopla.

You won't regret watching it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I rewatched the finale with an eye toward the timeline and agree that events surrounding the restraining order were not as depicted in the program.


markb said:


> I'm saying he clammed up after getting questioned on the timeline discrepancies (and not really answering the questions). That part is fact. I also speculate that there's some connection.


"After" as in later in time, sure. No argument. But the connection between the two would be speculation as you say.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> I've read that they turned over the info about the audio as soon as they heard about it last June. It doesn't appear to do anything for the timing of the HBO documentary.


I think they did. The did multiple interviews yesterday morning, but cancelled interviews last night.

The arrest was on Saturday.

So the idea that they aren't talking because of the arrest isn't quite true.

Also, the police in LA have said that anything in the documentary had nothing to do with the arrest.

I wonder if that's because of the whole issue with the filmmakers being "agents of the police" and how that might hurt the case against Durst.

Jarecki has admitted working with the police. I just don't know where the line is drawn on whether he was their "agent".

I'm pretty sure they would try and draw the line before that, but if the letter was turned in to the police first, and then Jarecki goes out to interview Durst asking about the letter, I don't know.

That seems iffy.

-smak-


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

After binging on the HBO docs I was compelled to watch "All Good Things" starring Ryan Gosling & Kirsten Dunst. It depicted a couple of angles which I hadn't picked up on in the documentary.

Spoilers from "All Good Things" movie:


Spoiler



After Kathie went missing, the doorman in their downtown NY apartment had reported seeing her arrive in the evening and leave in the morning. At first it seemed to be Robert (whose movie character name was David) dressed as a woman in order to fool the doorman into becoming an alibi witness, but was later revealed to be Robert's friend Susan (movie character is Deborah) wearing a blonde wig!

Another part I hadn't anticipated was that it showed Morris Black (movie character was Malvern Bump) who murdered Susan Berman (Deborah Lehrman).


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I watched the movie (on Netflix) Monday night. It also was implied in the movie that


Spoiler



"David" left his wife's body in the trunk of his car for his father to deal with. At least that was my interpretation of that scene.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I watched this 'All Good Things' movie last night on Netflix, also -

(as to the movie)



Spoiler



In some ways it was almost comical, what with some of the names (like the Berman character was named Lehrman but rhymed with Berman, and the name of the Morris Black character was weird, etc.

I think they took a LOT of liberties, what with David's relationship with Malvern Bump (really? Reminds me of a Fargo character) and him commissioning MB to go to CA and kill Susan, er, Deborah. Also the thing with Deborah posing as Katherine leaving the hotel in the blonde wig, etc.

It was interesting enough that I didn't want that time back, though. Already knowing so much of the real story, it was fine. Had I just happened upon it, knowing nothing of the Durst story and the parallel to that, I would probably have thought it was just a bad version of Fargo. 



Thanks to the poster who introduced the movie here. I had no idea about it so I found it last night. Tried to watch it on Amazon Prime through my Tivo but their software is so wonky (both on Amazon and Netflix) that I just went to Netflix through my Roku3. It's a LOT faster. But I do like the new Tivo search thingie.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I remember seeing the movie mentioned in the show, but didn't realize until this most recent episode that Jarecki actually directed it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

When the documentary mentions Durst's Vermont health food store it uses a still image apparently from the movie. Not sure how I feel about that.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Learned today that Durst has been living in Houston last few years... about three blocks from me.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

sharkster said:


> Thanks to the poster who introduced the movie here. I had no idea about it so I found it last night. Tried to watch it on Amazon Prime through my Tivo but their software is so wonky (both on Amazon and Netflix) that I just went to Netflix through my Roku3. It's a LOT faster. But I do like the new Tivo search thingie.


Thanks for the info that it was available on Prime.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

http://nypost.com/2015/03/20/judge-believes-robert-durst-left-severed-cat-head-on-her-doorstep/


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Learned today that Durst has been living in Houston last few years... about three blocks from me.


Ok, that WOULD be pretty freaky!


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I just binge watched and am about to watch last night's 48 Hours on the Durst arrest.

Surprised to hear the 2nd interview was in 2012, I somehow or other thought it was last spring.

The other thing I don't understand?
If Robert Durst is persona non grata at The Durst Organization 
- how in the hell is he still worth $100 million dollars?

and sorry... Douglas Durst comes across as a dick.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Cainebj said:


> If Robert Durst is persona non grata at The Durst Organization
> - how in the hell is he still worth $100 million dollars?
> 
> and sorry... Douglas Durst comes across as a dick.


I Guess he got some kind of a inheritance. Yes Douglas does seem like an entitled jerk.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

If read that Robert was paid $65 million to be ousted from the organization. 

Douglas does seem like a jerk but he also seems miserable and tired and terrified of his family name constantly being sullied by the crimes of his sociopathic brother. 

Douglas didn't agree to be included in the documentary, didn't like the previous film either, and had a contentious relationship with the filmmaker. The only real footage Jarecki had of Douglas talking was from the deposition after Robert was arrested for the murther and dismemberment of Morris Black. So I think its inevitable we'll see him in that imbalanced light.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Fofer said:


> If read that he was paid $65 million to be ousted from the organization.


Correct, and he sold some property in 2014 for ~$21 million.

http://t.co/LPYDGgUxn9


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I just finished. Fortunately I'd avoided the recent news coverage.

Wow! Much more satisfying conclusion than Serial. (For which I don't fault Serial. Completely different timelines they were working with.)

A couple of things that struck me:

When they were talking about his disposal of the body in Texas they mentioned dragging it out in a sleeping bag. Durst: "good god, that's ridiculous."

Yes, Bob. THAT is what's ridiculous in this scenario.

Jarecki leading up to the final interview: he's dreading how "cold it's going to be". I can't even imagine having to maintain your demeanor in that situation.

Durst mentioned making her get an abortion. Damn.

Now don't get me wrong: if a couple gets married agreeing not to have kids and then one person changes their mind, that's trouble. But to "make" a woman abort a wanted pregnancy? There's no coming back from that.



dthmj said:


> I wonder what that juror thinks now of Durst. Chris Lovell, was shown during the documentary defending the jury of acquitting Durst of the Galveston murder. He also apparently became friends with Durst, and visited him in jail after the trial.
> 
> http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Logs-show-juror-met-with-Durst-five-times-in-jail-1966408.php
> 
> I wonder if he still thinks Durst is innocent.


I wonder if in the years since the trial he's convinced himself Durst was innocent so he didn't have to consider that he'd let a murderer go free.



astrohip said:


> Learned today that Durst has been living in Houston last few years... about three blocks from me.


Did you meet any weird looking, mute women?


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Robin said:


> When they were talking about his disposal of the body in Texas they mentioned dragging it out in a sleeping bag. Durst: "good god, that's ridiculous."


Also in episode 3, when Kathleen's Durst's case is reopened in 2000, Durst says the police were searching the cottage and lake for "body parts."

Not a "body," but "body parts." How would he know that?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Robin said:


> Did you meet any weird looking, mute women?


He's moved on to those full-head latex masks.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

dthmj said:


> Wow! Just finished it. On the one hand, he seemed pretty smart - he left no trace of Kathy, yet he screwed up disposing of Morris Black's body... and he sent the cadaver letter. And he can't remember when he's mic'd and keep is mouth shut.
> 
> I'm beginning to think he's not smart enough to kill Kathy and get away with it...


It occurred to me that perhaps he KNEW he was mic'd and is setting up an insanity defense. It was almost like he was talking to a voice in his head... "There it is... You're caught". "You're right of course" "but you can't imagine" "Arrest him"... "Oh I want this"... "What a disaster" "He was right" "I was wrong"... etc. Sounds pretty nuts.... Not so sure Mr. Durst isn't still trying to be the smartest guy in the room, and be the author of his own fate. From some of his earlier comments to the filmmaker it sounded like he was clued into the fact that this was turning into a hit piece on him.

My other theory is that he actually _is_ nuts and it wasn't an act at all.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I think everyone (even his lawyers) agree at this point that he's nuts.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Fofer said:


> I think everyone (even his lawyers) agree at this point that he's nuts.


You think he's nuts enough to choreograph that last scene in the bathroom? It would certainly fit his pathology...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

He's been talking out loud to himself for decades.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

bareyb said:


> You think he's nuts enough to choreograph that last scene in the bathroom? It would certainly fit his pathology...


No, I don't think he choreographed that "confession."

I do believe that was heavily edited for the show, though.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Fofer said:


> I think everyone (even his lawyers) agree at this point that he's nuts.





Fofer said:


> No, I don't think he choreographed that "confession."
> 
> I do believe that was heavily edited for the show, though.


It'll be interesting to see if his lawyers feel strongly enough about it to try and use an insanity defense. Typically that is not a sucessful strategy. Especially if the prosecution can put into the minds of the jurors that he choreographed it. I have a "reasonable doubt" that he's "legally" nuts. He might just be crazy like a fox.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Fofer said:


> I think everyone (even his lawyers) agree at this point that he's nuts.


Don't think so. Dick DeGuerin will represent him again, and try to show that he is innocent. Not insane, but innocent. It's worked every time.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

"Every time" meaning "once."

Will it work again? The evidence is, and the stakes are, quite different this time.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I didn't think it was a confession, I think it was a declaration that it is what everyone believes.

I am going to spoilerize this just in case.



Spoiler



What the hell did I do? - - - referring to what did he do by agreeing to do the interview.

Killed them all, of course. - - - not a confession that he killed them all but he is saying everyone believes he killed them all.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

pdhenry said:


> He's been talking out loud to himself for decades.


Yep.

What kind of social life can this guy have? I'm guessing he spends a whole lot of time talking to himself.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> I didn't think it was a confession, I think it was a declaration that it is what everyone believes.
> 
> I am going to spoilerize this just in case.
> 
> ...


I'm sure that's how they'll spin it, but I don't think any jury in the World (not even in Texas) is going to let him walk again. I'm just flabbergasted that there was never any kind of handwriting analysis done on Durst and the Cadaver letter before now.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

bareyb said:


> I'm sure that's how they'll spin it, but I don't think any jury in the World (not even in Texas) is going to let him walk again. I'm just flabbergasted that there was never any kind of handwriting analysis done on Durst and the Cadaver letter before now.


I heard that LA did analyze the handwriting and said it pointed to another suspect. If so, the defense attorney will have a slam dunk time getting rid of that. And so there's the bathroom confession, which possibly isn't admissible.

So, as crazy as it seems, I think there's a great chance he'll get out of this one too.

I hate that we probably have 2 years to wait for the trial.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I heard that LA did analyze the handwriting and said it pointed to another suspect. If so, the defense attorney will have a slam dunk time getting rid of that. And so there's the bathroom confession, which possibly isn't admissible.
> 
> *So, as crazy as it seems, I think there's a great chance he'll get out of this one too. *
> 
> I hate that we probably have 2 years to wait for the trial.


That would be insane, but yeah, nothing would surprise me. I wonder if Durst will have to sit in Jail for those two years of if they let him out? If I were his Brother, I'd be hiring extra security. I get the feeling that he's still on RD's to-do list.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

bareyb said:


> If I were his Brother, I'd be hiring extra security. I get the feeling that he's still on RD's to-do list.


Andrew Jarecki, too. I'll bet Robert Durst feels quite betrayed by the director, all for a project that Durst himself pitched, to be able to tell "his side" of the story.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Fofer said:


> Andrew Jarecki, too. I'll bet Robert Durst feels quite betrayed by the director, all for a project that Durst himself pitched, to be able to tell "his side" of the story.


Ohhhh.... that sent chills down my spine. Absolutely Jarecki too. Speaking of Jarecki, I wonder how many folks are going to download "All Good Things"? I plan to. It's on Amazon PRIME for free.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I actually ordered the disc (for $7) from Amazon - because it includes some interesting features. Notably:



> Deleted Scenes
> • All Good Things: Truth in Fiction
> • Back in Time: Researching the Original Story
> • Unraveling the Story: Interview with Andrew Jarecki
> ...




The relationship between Durst and the media, and specifically with Andrew Jarecki, is very, very interesting.

Think about this for a moment: Durst _provided audio commentary_, back in 2010, to the disc version of the dramatized film of his story -- a movie that apparently, strongly hints he's guilty of the disappearance of his wife, as well as murder of his friend and murder/dismemberment of his neighbor. He didn't disassociate himself from it, or put out a statement that it wasn't truthful. He cooperated with the filmmakers.

I've read stories that say he hung around the set when the movie was being made. That he enjoyed the attention the movie would bring. And the commentary allowed him a chance to say what parts he think were right and which were wrong.

Again, he followed up later and PITCHED to Jarecki the idea of doing the documentary follow-up that became "The Jinx."

When Durst was arrested last week, police said they found he had two books about himself and his case, along with his other possessions at the hotel.

I find all of this very strange. I think he's smart, crazy, and has a God complex. He's gotten away with murder (literally) for so long, that he's enjoying the thrill and fame/notoriety that comes with it. He's pushing the limits, enjoying the game of cat-and-mouse, and seeing how far he can take it. Yes, it's almost as if he wants to get caught... but not really. Maybe? I don't know.

Crazy, I tell ya.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Really enjoyed the series, and it was pretty obvious to us by the end that Bob isn't dippin all oars, as they say!

Not sure what new evidence they have, but looking forward to see how it all plays out.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Perhaps he IS nuts, but he clearly isn't legally insane. Since he knew what he was doing, in the (alleged) murders, enough to hide evidence, flee, etc, there is no way that this bathroom behavior could constitute a defense of legally insane.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

sharkster said:


> Perhaps he IS nuts, but he clearly isn't legally insane. Since he knew what he was doing, in the (alleged) murders, enough to hide evidence, flee, etc, there is no way that this bathroom behavior could constitute a defense of legally insane.


Oh I agree with that, he's just one of those mummblers 

In fact, we were talking about what would Bob Durst have been had he not been born into money and we both said "homeless guy".


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I hate that we probably have 2 years to wait for the trial.


Based on the medical problems he has and the photos that I saw of him being arrested... I don't think he is going to make it to a trial.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

There's no way he'll get bail. He's the textbook flight risk and even said so in The Jinx.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

I know this thread is a little old, but I just finished watching this and really enjoyed it. Looking up the current status of the case, it doesn't look like much has changed since Bob's arrest in March.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Nothing can happen while Bob is still mid-blink.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

generaltso said:


> I know this thread is a little old, but I just finished watching this and really enjoyed it. Looking up the current status of the case, it doesn't look like much has changed since Bob's arrest in March.


Actually, it has. Durst & his lawyer have reached an agreement with the states of LA and CA, allowing his extradition to CA. I think LA wanted to prosecute on some minor charges (gun possession related?), once those are resolved he will be sent to CA and charged with murder for Susan Berman's murder.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

One thing I didn't understand. During the Galveston trial, the defense attorneys argued that he wasn't being charged with dismembering or disposing of the body or destroying evidence, he was only being charged with murder (which couldn't be proven). So after the acquittal, why didn't they charge him with those other crimes, which he admitted to?


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

generaltso said:


> One thing I didn't understand. During the Galveston trial, the defense attorneys argued that he wasn't being charged with dismembering or disposing of the body or destroying evidence, he was only being charged with murder (which couldn't be proven). So after the acquittal, why didn't they charge him with those other crimes, which he admitted to?


Double jepordy


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

generaltso said:


> One thing I didn't understand. During the Galveston trial, the defense attorneys argued that he wasn't being charged with dismembering or disposing of the body or destroying evidence, he was only being charged with murder (which couldn't be proven). So after the acquittal, why didn't they charge him with those other crimes, which he admitted to?





Barmat said:


> Double jepordy


Only if he had been tried for the other stuff. Double jeopardy only applies for what he was originally charged with and tried for.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Only if he had been tried for the other stuff. Double jeopardy only applies for what he was originally charged with and tried for.


Yeah, double jeopardy wouldn't apply since those would be different crimes. I did just watch All Good Things, and it said at the end that "David Marx" was charged with improper disposal of a body and served 9 months. Not sure if that really happened.


----------

