The Jinx: The Life And Deaths Of Robert Durst

[myname2use4now]

Juries in LA arent known for their intelligence. IMO, they come in second only to Florida juries in the "wtf were you thinking" category.

*snip

That is one thing though that I have oddly questioned, is Robert's knowledge of the law/criminal procedure. Would it occur to any other criminal to keep the head? And some of the other things he did to get away with these murders. I can see why he would think he's the smartest person in the room.

Compared to Galveston, LA and FLA look like a brain trust when it comes to jury pools. That juror was a complete moron. As for the missing head, I totally believe it would have shown a shot to the back of the head. Hardly self defense but indicative of rational premeditation.

[Guest]

That juror WAS a moron. Did anyone else catch the headline on one of the papers on the production room table? It said, "Ex Juror New Durst Best Friend." I have to believe it was the mouth-breather they interviewed. I guess Bob was paying him a handsome salary.

I wonder if the police were able to extract DNA from the seal of the envelope?

[sleekandchic]

If Bob Durst weren't a murdering, narcissistic psychopath who's snuffed out at least three people -- because they were inconvenient to him -- thereby sentencing their friends and families to a lifetime of mental torture and profound loss -- I'd feel really sorry for him. It really goes without saying that Bob is a nutjob.

But in the end, the climax of the series tonight, and Mr Jarecki' s legerdemain overall, leave me with a bad taste in my mouth and highly suspicious of HIM.

This crap of leaving a live mike attached to Bob seemed ridiculous to me during the first interview and, tonight, when it happened again, I didn't buy it for a second. As far as the interviewers were concerned, the meeting was over. Bob got up to leave; Jarecki called out to an assistant, "please get Bob's bag." Nobody had any idea that Bob was going to stop off in the restroom. Common sense says once they all said goodbye, whoever had been in charge of miking Bob to start would have been there to remove the mike.

I would be a defense attorney's dream I guess because I could easily come up with non-incriminating reasons for the stuff Bob muttered to himself in the john. Nothing he said proved his guilt to me. Not to mention, he didn't give anybody permission to bug him in the bathroom. As far as he was concerned, the interview was over.

The block lettering and misspellings on the envelopes did SEEM damning, but good attorneys can definitely argue that Bob had arrived for his preplanned visit to Susan, found her dead and did not want to get involved for obvious reasons. Sent the letter to the BH police out of concern. Kept up the lie of never being there and not writing the note because of past suspicions on him.

And while the show' s forensic document examiner seemed to find consistencies in the handwriting exemplars, the note addressed to Susan and the one to the BHPD, my own eye told me differently. Which means, the defense can easily get their own expert who will say the note to the PD was not written by Bob.

For me to have faith in a documentary and its presentation of facts and conclusions, I need to trust the integrity and goodwill of the filmmakers, and, with The Jinx, I can't.

I do believe Bob's decision to do this show was all about ego and playing a Big Game to mindfuck a lot of people. Maybe it will end up that the Player got played.

I keep going back to two moments: when Bob the Fugitive got busted for shoplifting a $2 sandwich and when Bob talked about the time he spent in the Galveston jail. He said his fellow prisoners couldn't have been more respectful of him. They called him Mr Durst, he said.

On some level, in some dark recess of Bob's twisted mind and heart, I think he wants to be caught for something! I think he himself believes he deserves to be locked away. And if his fellow prisoners will give him the respect he DESERVES? All the better. He's just trading one prison for another, really. I don't believe he's ever felt free in the free world.

All.that.money. And his good-for-nothing family could never get the boy/man the help he needed? Think of the misery that could have been avoided!

Edited March 16, 2015 by sleekandchic

[starri]

 

This crap of leaving a live mike attached to Bob seemed ridiculous to me during the first interview and, tonight, when it happened again, I didn't buy it for a second. As far as the interviewers were concerned, the meeting was over. Bob got up to leave; Jarecki called out to an assistant, "please get Bob's bag." Nobody had any idea that Bob was going to stop off in the restroom. Common sense says once they all said goodbye, whoever had been in charge of miking Bob to start would have been there to remove the mike.

IANAL, but I don't think documentary filmmakers/journalists are capable of entrapment.  The Jodi Arias case had numerous interviews submitted into evidence, most notably 48 Hours, and I think the correspondent for CBS News may even have testified.

 

I wish the Times had chosen not push out a notification on their iPad app, because I go to bed and wake up very early, and usually catch the show on HBO Go Monday evening.  I get that this was just too big a bombshell to sit on, but I could have purposely avoided other sources.  When it was the first thing I saw when I woke up and went to check my email, it made the thing anticlimactic.

 

Not that it wasn't jaw-dropping anyway.  But for me the bigger moments came when Jeanine Pirro, handed the two "Beverley Hills" letters let out a quiet "Oh, Jesus," when she realized what she was looking at, and then later when confronted with the letters and his maintaining that he'd only written one, he wasn't able to pick out which was his handwriting.

[myname2use4now]

Sleekandchic, I totally agree with your post. But let's not forget when he said that he lied to the NYPD regarding the disappearance of his wife because he only wanted to get them off of his back. He readily admitted to that and that doesn't hat doesn't help. But, if Douglas Durst gets involved in this because as far as I'm concerned, he knows more than he's admitted so far, then I can see the Durst family closing ranks and hiring the best attorney's that money can buy. Based on that, there's enough wiggle room from what we, the audience, knows for there to be a possibility that he gets off...again. But still, just how compelling was the last episode? It left me speechless.

[ktwo]

I keep going back to that fucked up story of Seymour showing little Bob his mother about to plunge to her death, and how everything that followed was set in motion in that moment. [/snap analysis]

FWIW, Doug denied that ever happened in one of the older articles about the family that's been linked somewhere here. Doug claimed that the kids were at a different house nearby, with another family member or friend, the night their mom died. I will try to find the link.

[sleekandchic]

It was definitely compelling and riveting tv, for sure! I just wish I had more faith that the filmmakers were honest in how they did things.

Here's an example of what I think of as Jarecki and Associates' trickery (but if I'm misunderstanding something important, I hope someone tells me):

Tonight we saw Bob Durst's arrest for violating a protective order that his brother Douglas had won against him. That order was precipitated by Bob's original visit to Douglas' s townhouse, which had been arranged by and filmed by the documentary. Evidently, Douglas did not want the visit to happen again..

But, as we witnessed tonight, Bob did return to the townhouse a second time. He was wearing shorts and a polo and carrying a backpack. He held on to the steps' railing, dragged himself up to the front door, lingered a few seconds, then dragged himself back down. This violation of the protective order is what got him arrested.

And we had a bird's-eye view of the incident. How and why? Even if I give the benefit of the doubt and say that the incident was filmed by the townhouse' s own security system, it still begs the question of how Jarecki got hold of it. I don't think it's likely Bob's attorneys turned it over to the filmmaker. For what purpose? After all, it was proof that Bob had broken a law. And it's doubtful to me that Douglas' s people would have given the footage to Jarecki.

I think it's more likely that the filmmakers sent Durst back there, hoping to set off a confrontation. They had somehow prearranged a camera setup to capture the event. But no such admission was seen tonight.

Why else would Durst call Jarecki to alert him that his attorneys would be calling Jarecki to discuss that incident? I think we got a heavily edited version of that particular phone call. And, then, on camera, Jarecki addressed his colleagues to discuss using that phone call as a leverage-rationale for why Bob might change his mind and actually sit for the second interview, which he had already definitively rejected. So, on camera, all the pieces were made to fit the Big March to the huge reveal tonight.

I guess the townhouse incident is not that big a deal. But to me it's another illustration of games being played with the truth. And I think it's significant that those related charges were dismissed in December.

I don't know. I think the Durst gajillions are what has kept him out of prison all his life. Listening to the interviews with certain jurors, certain NY police detectives, Susan's stepson (before THE letter was found) made me very open to the idea of very purposeful malfeasance and bribery and big money changing hands. To me, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Durst and Jarecki are somehow, someway, feeding off each other for each one's selfish purposes. And so, of course, the truth gets lost in the sauce. It's all just a Big Game, isn't it?

IOW, I fully expect a future explosion of relevations to occur, effectively giving Bob Durst another get out of jail card or acquittal.

[blixie]

 

Not to mention, he didn't give anybody permission to bug him in the bathroom.

 

He did give permission to wear the mike, and it was never removed, AND he's already experienced a "hot mike" moment. Also I'm just wondering if it was public restroom, if you could really have an expectation of privacy?

I don't think Bob "wanted" to get caught, I think he wanted to rub it in the faces of everyone that he got away with it all, that he was smarter than Jarecki, certainly still richer than everyone, thus untouchable legally. When he said "he was right, I was wrong" I assume he was recalling what his lawyer warned him about: talking will screw you.

 

Having said that yeah I'm still not convinced they have enough to get beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial. If the tape isn't admitted, then it's down to in California and handwriting (and I guess motive). If it IS admitted I could see a good lawyer of which Bob still retrains, arguing that ramble was a sarcastic comment re: his perceived guilt, not an earnest confession.

[Jaded]

Could the police have released the footage of Bob returning to his brothers townhouse?

[terrymct]

I had the feeling he was talking to another person in the bathroom.  Only, um, he was alone.  Combined with the groaning, it was really weird.

 

It felt that way to me, too.  Is he hearing voices?

[hendersonrocks]

That juror WAS a moron. Did anyone else catch the headline on one of the papers on the production room table? It said, "Ex Juror New Durst Best Friend." I have to believe it was the mouth-breather they interviewed. I guess Bob was paying him a handsome salary.

 

YES! I totally noticed it, and thought the same thing. I wonder if they were really expecting people to pick up on it, because that table had a LOT of papers on it.

 

I don't think Bob "wanted" to get caught, I think he wanted to rub it in the faces of everyone that he got away with it all, that he was smarter than Jarecki, certainly still richer than everyone, thus untouchable legally.

 

One interesting tidbit I never knew until last night (which I learned as I was reading this interview with Jarecki* from when the series launched, which then led me to the Google for more info) is that Jarecki is also from a family of immense wealth. As in, his dad is a billionaire. It's interesting to theorize--as this interviewer did--whether Bob felt more comfortable talking to Andrew because of their shared socioeconomic background, given what we know about his discomfort with us "normal" folk. 

 

*Side note: the first question of that interview is eerily prescient, and it's interesting to read Jarecki's answer. 

[hendersonrocks]

Here's this morning's Good Morning America interview with Jarecki, where he (kind of) explains the timing of the interview (three years ago, he says--and that it was years after their first interview) and what's happened with law enforcement in recent months, including that 1) there was no coordination, and 2) he and his family have been uncomfortable as the end of the series came close.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-jinx-director-jarecki-no-deal-over-timing-of-durst-arrest/

Edited March 16, 2015 by hendersonrocks

[blixie]

 

The funniest part of this episode for me was when Jareki  and some other guy were talking about whether or not Durst went to Spain, and they were like "yeah he probably went.  He's usually very truthful".  And then the guy behind the camera goes "Are you guys fucking kidding me?"  I was like THANK GOD there is at least one person with a brain in that room.  Durst is a freaking lying serial killer.  I have no doubt he's killed more than the 3 people he's linked to.  His old age and hubris hopefully have done him in.

 

I think what it is for me is that Durst is...blunt, that reads as "truthful" and this could have been part of what lead those Galveston jurors (and his one lawyer if he wasn't bullshitting, saying he believes him) to buy into the defense story. Like he doesn't seem capable of gilding the lily (no one every tells the whole truth, his story about the abortion, openly admitting he didn't give a shit about socializing with Kathie's mom, admitting he chopped up Morris). He doesn't engage in the type of charm/manipulation that a lot of other killers employ even when "caught". He admits to enough unsavory things that are indisputably true to make you think he's not capable of lying about having murdered someone with intent.

[FuriousStyles]

The townhouse security footage puzzled me too.  How DID Jarecki get his hands on it?  The most likely scenario to me is that Doug provided it.  He didn't want to get directly involved in this documentary, but perhaps he wanted to show people that Robert is crazy and really is after him, so he sent Jarecki the tape.  I can't imagine the filmmakers being able to set up their own camera right above Doug's front door.  As sophisticated as his security team must be, there's no way they'd allow anybody to set up anything.

 

As for the live mic.  Meh.  I'd give the fellas the benefit of the doubt on that one.  Those guys were legit scared of Robert Durst at that point.  After the big reveal, I'm sure they all wanted to get the fuck outta there (I thought the interview ended kind of abruptly...lol), and maybe in their haste they forgot to get the mic.  Robert Durst is the devil to me.  He could very well snatch your heart right out of your chest.  I surely would have no intention of coming within 5 feet of him just to remove a piece of plastic from his shirt.  

[Jaded]

If the footage was used in court against Durst during his trespassing hearing couldn't it have become public record? Isn't that how the news media gets things like crime scene photos and etc?

[pasdetrois]

The Jarecki involvement is a bit fishy to me. He's probably trying to walk the lines between delivering a notable documentary with a big reveal and selectively helping law enforcement.

 

I agree that the Durst millions have protected Bob Durst. I suspect they and he have spread a lot of cash around. Even jurors may have subconsciously deferred to the wealthy white man, in hopes of a payoff (such as a job).

 

I also suspect Bob is psychologically disassembling, and perhaps has done so for a long time. It's very possible he has delusions that he is able to mask. And his age is affecting his abilities too.

[Primetimer]

The Jinx joins the true-crime hall of fame -- and not because of the bathroom confessional, either.

Read the story

[spaceghostess]

Durst in the men's room = Martha's "fuck" snapshots

[spaceghostess]

The Jinx joins the true-crime hall of fame -- and not because of the bathroom confessional, either.

http://previously.tv/the-jinx-the-life-and-deaths-of-robert-durst/39309/"> Read the story

Thanks for this excellent last chapter, Sarah. Your recap/critiques -- as well the astute input from commenters on this forum -- hooked me up with ideas and sources I probably wouldn't have sussed out on my own.

 

Edited to correct heinous alliterative crimes.

Edited March 16, 2015 by spaceghostess

[TexasGal]

But, as we witnessed tonight, Bob did return to the townhouse a second time. He was wearing shorts and a polo and carrying a backpack. He held on to the steps' railing, dragged himself up to the front door, lingered a few seconds, then dragged himself back down. This violation of the protective order is what got him arrested.

And we had a bird's-eye view of the incident. How and why? Even if I give the benefit of the doubt and say that the incident was filmed by the townhouse' s own security system, it still begs the question of how Jarecki got hold of it. I don't think it's likely Bob's attorneys turned it over to the filmmaker. For what purpose? After all, it was proof that Bob had broken a law. And it's doubtful to me that Douglas' s people would have given the footage to Jarecki.

I think it's more likely that the filmmakers sent Durst back there, hoping to set off a confrontation. They had somehow prearranged a camera setup to capture the event. But no such admission was seen tonight.

I could see Jarecki asking for the video from Durst's attorneys, and them agreeing, as a tit for tat for him providing the footage of the original visit to his brother's townhouse.  The quality, with that fish eye lens effect, sure seemed like legit security camera footage.

 

Man, when he came in for that follow up interview my stomach was in knots.  And then it looked like Jarecki's hands were shaking as he was handing over the letter and copies of the envelope and the cadaver letter.  Yikes!  

[NumberCruncher]

That juror WAS a moron. Did anyone else catch the headline on one of the papers on the production room table? It said, "Ex Juror New Durst Best Friend." I have to believe it was the mouth-breather they interviewed. I guess Bob was paying him a handsome salary.

It was that juror: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Logs-show-juror-met-with-Durst-five-times-in-jail-1966408.php

Sometimes it just has to be said...that guy = moron.

[Guest]

I think it's more likely that the filmmakers sent Durst back there, hoping to set off a confrontation. They had somehow prearranged a camera setup to capture the event. But no such admission was seen tonight.

Not like I don't believe a lot of this series involved a lot of set ups, but that was definitely security camera footage and likely obtained from the courts since it was used in the case against Durst.

 

When I initially watched the last scene of the episode, it seemed like none of the statements Durst was uttering in the bathroom were connected to one another -- just some stream of consciousness rambling. So when he said, "What the hell did I do?" followed by, "Killed them all, of course" -- I actually thought the former referred to him questioning why he consented to the intervew at all and the latter was meant as sarcasm, "Oh, WELL, I killed them ALL...OF COURSE I DID!" I didn't read a confession into his words (though now I can see how they can be construed as such) so I can see how, if the LAPD has no other evidence besides the letters and his "confession," he could easily be acquitted yet again.

 

I actually can't believe this series took three years to make! It's not like there was a great deal - if any - investigative work done. It seems like it all hinged on the letter (that was found by chance) after talking to Susan's stepson. Also, I don't think it was as awesome as the critics are saying. Yeah, it had its moments, and I thought it was pretty decent, but, to me, it was a few steps above an episode of Vanity Fair Confidential.

 

It was that juror: http://www.chron.com...ail-1966408.php

Sometimes it just has to be said...that guy = moron.

Thanks for the link! And...yeah, MORON with money on his mind, apparently.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Guest

[editorgrrl]

I actually can't believe this series took three years to make! It's not like there was a great deal - if any - investigative work done. It seems like it all hinged on the letter (that was found by chance) after talking to Susan's stepson. Also, I don't think it was as awesome as the critics are saying. Yeah, it had its moments, and I thought it was pretty decent, but, to me, it was a few steps above an episode of Vanity Fair Confidential.

 

According to the official website, The Jinx took almost ten years to make. (The description for this episode begins, "Nearly a decade has passed since the filmmakers began investigating Robert Durst and his alleged crimes.") That includes the time Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling spent making All Good Things, a 2010 drama based on Durst's life starring Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst. 

[Pallas]

Thank you for this, hendersonrocks!  It does help clear up the timeline.  And the irony that the audio clip -- like the envelope to Susan -- went so long undiscovered, and so nearly remained that way. Two buried, smoking guns.    

[Sarah D. Bunting]

Thanks, spaceghostess!

[sleekandchic]

I wonder if the police were able to extract DNA from the seal of the envelope?

That would be great, but I wonder if Bob was too smart to lick the envelope?

In this episode, I think it's when Jarecki shows the photocopy of the Beverly Hills PD envelope to Bob, I thought man, that thing is filthy! Then I realized it had been dusted with black fingerprint powder. In fact, many prints were now visible on the thing. So either the BHPD was incompetent and missed Bob's prints, or else Bob was crafty.

In fact, in Jarecki' s recreation of the mailing of the letter, the Bob lookalike holds the envelope with a tissue or paper towel in his hand. Conjecture by Jarecki or inside info? Who knows?

So it wouldn't surprise me if Bob knew enough not to lick the envelope or a stamp. Does anyone remember where it was postmarked?

Thanks to all for the replies concerning the film footage of Bob's second trip to the townhouse. I still want to know why Bob's lawyers wanted to talk to Jarecki about the second visit. If he wasn't involved, what could he offer the attorney to shed any light? Jarecki didn't seem surprised when Bob conveyed his lawyer's request in that phone convo.

Edited March 16, 2015 by sleekandchic

[Guest]

The Jinx took almost ten years to make.

Whaaaaaaa??? Dang! So I wonder if Jarecki was in it for the long con, making All Good Things as some sort of honey pot to lure Durst in and then to finally get him to speak on the record? (Yeah, no. That totally didn't happen.)

[gesundheit]

I cant get over the info little bro Dougie provided about how Robert had several dogs by the name of Igor that he killed, and said those dogs were his way of "practicing". I mean, that is classic psychopathic/killer behavior.

Wait, what? I think I missed a scene! And this completely disproves my theories that he sent the "cadaver" letter because he likes dogs. Curses!

 

So it wouldn't surprise me if Bob knew enough not to lick the envelope or a stamp. Does anyone remember where it was postmarked?

I would imagine the letter was tested for DNA back over a decade ago and didn't yield anything useful. 

 

It was amusing to me how much he really did seem to believe that block lettering would make the envelope indistinguishable from any other handwriting. He stuck to that when asked to compare the two. Of course you can't tell! It's in all caps, which always looks the exact same for some reason! (Except not at all.)

[gesundheit]

I'm honestly still confused about how there were never any charges relating to his various disruptions of justice, though. Both in the Morris Black investigation and the search for Kathie. He's admitted he lied that she was safely in NYC, meaning any search for her was completely derailed in the wrong direction even if he hadn't been responsible. 

 

Anyway. I do hope they have more to go on that what we've seen and surmised. This guy's been the opposite of jinxed so far.

 

[Edited to say that I've since looked it up and yes, he did serve time for evidence tampering and bond jumping in the Black case. Still hope he would for Kathie.]

Edited March 16, 2015 by gesundheit

[editorgrrl]

I cant get over the info little bro Dougie provided about how Robert had several dogs by the name of Igor that he killed, and said those dogs were his way of "practicing". I mean, that is classic psychopathic/killer behavior.

 

Wait, what? I think I missed a scene! And this completely disproves my theories that he sent the "cadaver" letter because he likes dogs. Curses!

 

You didn't miss anything. Doug's allegations about Bob killing dogs were in the New York Times—not on the show.

“Before the disappearance of my sister-in-law, Bob had a series of Alaskan Malamutes, which is like a husky,” Douglas Durst said. “He had seven of them, and they all died, mysteriously, of different things, within six months of his owning them. All of them named Igor. We don’t know how they died, and what happened to their bodies.

 

“In retrospect, I now believe he was practicing killing and disposing his wife with those dogs.”

 

What led him to that conclusion, Douglas said, was that Robert turned the word “Igor” into a verb and inflected it with a menace: “When he was in jail in Pennsylvania, he was recorded saying, ‘I want to Igor Douglas.’"

[FineWashables]

I think little brother Dougie will do anything he can to help put Bob away.  They spent quite a lot of time -- I think it was in episode 2 -- on how the two brothers have always hated each other.  Doug has nothing good to say about Bob.  Bob has nothing good to say about Doug.  So while I'm not questioning Bob's guilt, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the bits Doug has contributed, perhaps including the dead dogs, were every bit as fabricated as Bob's alibis.  I don't see the Durst family closing in to protect Bob.  Will Doug benefit financially if Bob is sent to jail for life? 

[Pallas]

Listening again to the bathroom monologue...to me it begins as a dialogue between Durst the corrupt, unsparing judge, and Durst the frightened miscreant.  It ends that way, as well.  Here's the full transcript, as it played out but divided into sides: 

Persona 1:  “There it is. You’re caught. "  

Persona 2:  "You’re right, of course. But, you can’t imagine."

Persona 1:  "Arrest him."  (Meaning, that's what the world/Seymour/Douglas/Jarecki will or would say now.)   

Persona 2:  "I don’t know what’s in the house. Oh, I want this." (I think "this" may be prosaic: a towel, or some medication -- something needed in the moment.)  "What a disaster.  He was right. I was wrong. And the burping. (He vomits, or tries to.)  I’m having difficulty with the question...What the hell did I do?”

Persona 1:  “Killed them all, of course.”

"Killed them all, of course" is not a confession but rather, a confirmation. An off-hand, "so what," statement of the obvious. It's in the tone, which has been called sarcastic, but I hear as both proud and dismissive. Sarcasm usually exaggerates the implied fecklessness or wrong-headedness of the straw-man's imagined response: the voice goes up or at least, modulates, satirically.  

"Killed them all, of course," is delivered as a mordant aside, with a tough-guy's hard-boiled brio. That's Durst burning his imagined tormentors, everyone who knew what they knew as well as he did -- yet couldn't lay a hand on him for 30 years.  For nearly half his life, and the deaths of at least three people who got between him and himself. 

[shipperx]

Wouldn't Durst's lawyers have the security footage as part of discovery for the trespassing case? Getting that footage was probably part of the negotiating leverage Jerecki spoke of when talking about their cooperating with Durst's lawyers by sharing their own film footage.

And yeah I side-eye Jerecki a great deal. I also laughed at the discussion of Madrid with Jerecki et al saying that Durst was being truthful. It was a sign of how far down the rabbit hole they had gone because behind the camera guy was right. Are you kidding me?! Durst is a narcissistic pathalogical liar... But of course (eye roll) he wouldn't lie to THEM. (And inevitably he was. Of course. ). Which also makes me rather doubt Durst's characterization of his mother's death even before reading his brother state that Durst wasn't even there. Why did Jercki fail to state the counter point when apparently Doug Durst's statement was in the New York Times before the episode aired. If he was being 'open minded' why not have both views stated?

I also don't believe Durst keeps those photos for sentimental reasons, unless one intends 'trophies of his kills' as 'sentiment.'

And while I think it possible his family's wealth and influence (and possibly his father) help disincentivize the initial investigation of the 1st wife's death, I don't see how they would benefit continuing to do so. How much more could the family's rep suffer after admitted dismemberment? In fact Dougie seems (understandably) to be quite nervous about his killer brother coming for him. Seems that at this point even they would feel safer with this dude locked up.

Edited March 16, 2015 by shipperx

[editorgrrl]

I also don't believe Durst keeps those photos for sentimental reasons, unless one intends 'trophies of his kills' as 'sentiment.'

 

I didn't get a good look at the photo of Bob & Susan Berman, but perhaps Bob liked the way he looked in it.

 

Speaking of trophies, I had assumed Bob kept Morris Black's driver's license as a trophy. According to this 2004 article, the prosecutors had an entirely different take:

After deliberating for about 26 hours, a Galveston County jury on Nov. 11 found Durst not guilty of killing his neighbor. Durst claimed that on Sept. 28, 2001, Black pulled a pistol on him in his apartment, the two struggled for the gun and Black died from a bullet wound to the head when the weapon fired accidentally. Prosecutors maintained that Durst murdered Black to try to assume his identity.

[wittier]

I felt that Jarecki was doing the wrong thing with the harassment of Doug Durst and the Durst Security people. Maybe Jarecki is in Bob's thrall or trying to earn points with Bob, but Doug has very good reason to be scared of Bob. There's little reason to believe that Doug wouldn't want Bob behind bars rather than have to live in fear with a cadre of bodyguards wherever he goes.

The motive for the Morris Black murder? We can only speculate but perhaps since Bob and Morris became drinking and smoking buddies that Morris knew Bob's real name and researched him. Wasn't it mentioned that Morris would go to the library to use the Internet? Bob was in Galveston trying to hide from Jeanine Pirro. Morris knowing who he really was wasn't going to last long.

[editorgrrl]

There's little reason to believe that Doug wouldn't want Bob behind bars rather than have to live in fear with a cadre of bodyguards wherever he goes.

 

This. Someone in another thread suggested Doug is throwing Bob under the bus for financial motives. I honestly believe Doug is afraid for his life.

[hendersonrocks]

One more timeline related update, and some big press news too:

• This Gawker post (which I linked to a while ago in the episode thread) keeps getting updated as new information about when the various interviews, cooperation with authorities, Durst's warrant & arrest, etc. took place becomes clear. It's...messy. And might be creating some problems for Jarecki & Smerling. The New York Times is saying that the bathroom mic interview took place in 2012, so it did happen before the trespassing charge (i.e., was presented out of order on the show).
• Perhaps relatedly, perhaps not: they have now shut down all press interviews. They're saying it's because they might be called as witnesses, but it seems kind of weird Jarecki would go on Good Morning America *today*, be grilled about the timeline, and then shortly thereafter realize maybe that wasn't the best idea. Official statement below.

Given that we are likely to be called as witnesses in any case law enforcement may decide to bring against Robert Durst, it is not appropriate for us to comment further on these pending matters.

 

We can confirm that evidence (including the envelope and the washroom recording) was turned over to authorities months ago.

 

Edited March 16, 2015 by hendersonrocks

[FineWashables]

 

I also don't believe Durst keeps those photos for sentimental reasons, unless one intends 'trophies of his kills' as 'sentiment.'

I honestly think this guy is batshit crazy enough to miss his wife even though he killed her.  I'm sure he believes he had no choice -- the way she acted, she made him do it.  Hear that all the time from domestic abusers, don't we?  And then they show up with flowers because they're sorry but it's not their fault -- the woman provoked them, but that doesn't mean they don't love her.  I think this is the same kind of thing.  Damn that Susan, she ruined everything: Look at how happy we were before she changed from the woman I married into someone else.  This photo is my proof.

[Guest]

I am also curious as to what kind of half-assed sound guy they hired who didn't immediately hear Durst muttering to himself in the bathroom? They only "discovered" that audio years after the fact? Apparently Jarecki took "no one tells the whole truth" as an admonition.

 

Unintentional hilarity: after the evidence confrontation in the conference room and before the bathroom "confession," Durst can't help, even at 4 pm, long past lunchtime, to pass by an offer of a free sandwich. It's always hilarious what the super rich are so super cheap about.

[pasdetrois]

 

Man, when he came in for that follow up interview my stomach was in knots.  And then it looked like Jarecki's hands were shaking as he was handing over the letter and copies of the envelope and the cadaver letter.  Yikes!

Murder is never funny, but I kind of laughed at Jarecki's oh-so-casual approach to what amounted to  "blah, blah...photos...blah, blah...here's an envelope, did you kill Susan?" It was clear he was extremely nervous but trying to play it cool. He had no idea how Bob was going to react once it dawned on Bob that Jarecki had betrayed him. And then after that: "...want a sandwich? where's Bob's bag?"

Edited March 16, 2015 by pasdetrois

[Guest]

Perhaps relatedly, perhaps not: they have now shut down all press interviews. They're saying it's because they might be called as witnesses, but it seems kind of weird Jarecki would go on Good Morning America *today*, be grilled about the timeline, and then shortly thereafter realize maybe that wasn't the best idea.

Oh, that doesn't sound shady...at all. If I learned anything at all from years of Judge Judy watching, it's this: If you're telling the truth, you don't have to keep your story straight. So, now Jarecki says it wasn't "two years" before the bathroom recording was "discovered," it was "many months."

 

Surprised he cancelled his interview with Jimmy Fallon. I can't imagine that would be anything more hardball than performing a duet of "Don't Go Breaking My Heart" with him.

 

Durst had a .38 on him when he was arrested in New Orleans. Turns out they might keep him there to face local gun charges. Yeah, because that trumps first degree murder with special circumstances. Ugh.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Guest

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

Oh, that doesn't sound shady...at all.

Durst had a .38 on him when he was arrested in New Orleans. Turns out they might keep him there to face local gun charges. Yeah, because that trumps first degree murder with special circumstances. Ugh.

Maybe they figure the gun charges might stick....and the murder charges in Los Angeles won't.....

I'm also wondering if law enforcement in NOLA suspect that Durst has committed some other murders and crimes there and are weighing whether or not they have enough to charge him in these crimes. Maybe they're checking his .38 against forensics in some other crimes? We know Durst rented an apartment in New Orleans in the early 2000s while posing as a mute woman named Dianne Winn and that he fled to NOLA while on the run after Black's murder (from multiple newspaper sources). It seems to be one of the towns that Durst likes to occasionally call home.

Edited March 16, 2015 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[cpcathy]

I was nervous watching that interview, like heart pounding nervous! As soon as Bob started burping and covering his face, we knew he'd done it. I've seen my own loved ones lie and have a mini freak out like that.

[sleekandchic]

This finale was obviously a success with me, because I cannot stop thinking about the damn thing!

Did we ever get a logical explanation from Susan's stepson re his reasons for turning over the Eureka!/Bob letter to Jarecki rather than to the police? And, then, when Jarecki held on to the letter for months or years, did Mr Stepson at least inquire about Jarecki' s intentions? Just mind-boggling to me.

[SFoster21]

Louisiana jail might just work for this guy.

[Anne Elk]

After the first couple of episodes, I wasn't sure I wanted to keep watching. I sure am glad I did.

 

I think what Robert Durst really wanted from this documentary is to ensure that if he was going down, so was Douglas. He certainly was forthcoming with a lot of suspicious revelations about the non-investigation into Kathie's disappearance, because he knew that Douglas and the family business looked pretty shady in that whole matter. He couldn't really blame the murders of Susan Berman and Morris Black on Douglas, but he could sure imply that Douglas was complicit in hiding whatever happened to Kathie.

 

Maybe Robert figured he's 71 years old, he's got police in three states gunning for him, he might possibly have a brain tumor. His story is just about played out, one way or the other. All he can do now is try to achieve his lifelong goal of bringing Douglas down. 

 

I think he was expecting Jarecki to be focused on Kathie's disappearance. He wasn't expecting them to zero in on Susan's murder like they did, that's why he was so unprepared for them to confront him with the evidence he left. And I suspect somewhere in all that crazy he does feel kind of bad for what he did to Susan. He still thinks he had to do it to save himself, but they were genuine friends until she got too inconvenient.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Anne Elk

[TexasGal]

I went to law school at the University of Texas, where Dick DeGuerin also attended, and it was good to see that his reputation of being a bad ass defense lawyer is accurate.  From what we saw of the trial, the prosecutors were completely out performed.  They looked like bumbling fools next to DeGuerin and his co-counsel.

 

I thought it was interesting in that one interview where DeGuerin was talking about money being able to buy you a good defense, it seemed like he went as close to the line of saying "Yeah, this guy was totally guilty" as I've ever seen an attorney go about their client.  Well, maybe except for Robert Kardashian's shocked eye roll when OJ was found not guilty.

[Guest]

According to this article in Vanity Fair, Jarecki is still filming. Jinx 2: The Jixening?

 

“Interestingly, just in the last few days, there’s been a flood of calls from people saying, ‘Oh, I should’ve told you this’ or ‘I never came forward,’” the filmmaker said. “We always respond to those things, because you never know what’s going to come out of those types of discussions. We’re always fascinated by it. So we’re still in filmmaking mode, the way we always are.”

[biakbiak]

I don't think that he was surprised at all about them concentrating on Susan's murder which was a big part of the film that got Durst to contact Jarecki in the first place, I just think he didn't think there was any evidence to connect him to Susan's death.

[NumberCruncher]

I thought it was interesting in that one interview where DeGuerin was talking about money being able to buy you a good defense, it seemed like he went as close to the line of saying "Yeah, this guy was totally guilty" as I've ever seen an attorney go about their client.  Well, maybe except for Robert Kardashian's shocked eye roll when OJ was found not guilty.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure DeGuerin knew he was completely guilty as did the judge presiding over the case: http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2015/03/15/galveston-co-judge-recalls-dursts-harrowing-murder-trial/24830997/

Sadly, it seems it all came down to the relative skill/competence of the lawyers involved rather than the weight of the evidence. When you have a defendant with unlimited funds it's not hard to believe the truthfulness of DeGuerin's car lot analogy.