'The Jinx - The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst' on HBO (1 Viewer)

[Ken H]

LA County Deputy DA Ethan Millius continues the prosecution argument.

Returns to the Morris Black murder case.

How do you know if a story is a lie? Durst is not a pathological liar. He lies because he has a motivation.

Four ways to know if a story is a lie
1) Does the story make sense?
2) Is it supported or refuted by independent evidence?
3) Has the person telling the story repeatedly lied?
4) Motivation to lie or tell the truth?

Durst lies because he is trying to hide from the fact he committed 3 murders.

He told the truth about the relationship with Kathie, in The Jinx to Anthony Jarecki, how he emotionally and physically abused her, because the facts won’t let him get away with the lies.

Durst admits he lies under oath. He admits he lied to the Galveston jury. He admits he lied about several things in this trial, upon further questioning says five lies.

Asked if would tell the court he didn’t kill Black, Durst says no. Because the facts back up he did kill Black.

There is tons of evidence. It’s just a question of if you look at everything and you understand its importance.

For example, the story about how he learned about Susan Berman’s death as told in the Morris Black trial, and how the story was completely different when he told it in this trial.

Millius uses the undercover police officer character in the Quentin Tarantino film Reservoir Dogs as the example of how to make his story believable, by practicing over and over. The story has to be the same every time. Durst did just that with his testimony for the Morris Black trial. Recorded phone calls show Durst asking friends to evaluate his testimony, is it good enough to be believable? He reviewed his testimony with a hired jury consultant and used his advice. All to help him get acquitted. Practice the story over and over.

This is how Durst got acquitted for the Black murder.

But, Millius gives numerous examples of the complete differences between what Durst testified in the Morris Black trial and what he’s testified in this trial about the murder. The stories Durst tells is are totally different.

Arguments in a trial are like an Egyptian pyramid, the base of everything supports the rest of the structure. Durst’s pyramid is inverted and it’s all based on believing Durst, which based on the known facts of the case, and the way Durst lies, is impossible. Once you understand that Durst's testimony is the only evidence that supports his stories, then you know the stories he tells are not true.

Durst was known to be in fear of the new investigation of Kathie’s death. Both the defense and prosecution know this and have stated it in court. The difference is the prosecution knows why Durst was afraid; because he knew he killed her.

Millius finishes this portion of the prosecution closing argument. LA County Deputy DA Habib Balian will resume after a break.

 

[Ken H]

LA County Deputy DA Habib Balian returns to continue the prosecution’s argument.

Says Millius did his own drawings, the pyramid drawings were good, imaginative; Durst’s imagination is where his testimony comes from.

Durst’s playbook, how to get away with murder:
1) Get rid of the body
2) Make it appear they are still alive
3) Make it appear they walked away from their life
4) Eliminate witnesses
5) Change your lies when necessary.

Besides Susan, is there anyone else he trusted with the truth? He had two best friends, Susan Berman and Nick Chavin. From the start, Chavin was reluctant to discuss Durst. Lewin was persistent. Why was it so hard for Chavin to discuss Durst? His best friend killed his other best friend. He didn’t deny he had info, that he knew his best friend killed his other best friend. Without even realizing it, he admitted he knew.

Lewin asked Chavin, forgetting about Bob for a second, do you want to see that person held accountable? It took Chavin quite a bit of time to actually want to talk about what he knew.

The prosecution called Chavin’s wife Terry to help push Nick to tell what he knew. She said she knew her husband would eventually tell the truth.

The defense tried to make Chavin look like a liar, claiming the dinner never even took place where Durst told Chavin he did it.

Susie Giordano testifies she knew that Chavin and Durst had the dinner. Spoke to them while they were at the dinner.

Durst called Giordano while in jail for this trial and is concerned about Chavin. She said Chavin was concerned about why everyone (lawyers) wanted to speak with him.

She told Durst she was 100% positive Chavin was 100% in his corner, which Durst was happy to hear. So why is he so very nervous about what Chavin will say? Because Nick holds the cards.

And then Durst calls Chavin the very next day, asking Chavin about the dinner, to figure out what Chavin might say. Chavin came into court still caring about Durst, but told the truth and testified that Durst told him “I had to. It was her or me. I had no choice.”

Durst continued throughout the trial coming up with ‘fantastical excuses”. He’s been running from the truth for 39 years. 39 years. In this trial he had a choice. For him the choice was easy. It was the truth or me. Durst had no choice.

Fortunately it’s not his decision. You (the jury) are responsible. You are the arbiters of the truth. On behalf of the people of California, I ask you today to determine the truth. Don’t let him run from the truth any more. Find him accountable for killing Susan Berman, for lying in wait with a firearm, putting it in the back of her head and pulling the trigger. Find him accountable and render fair and just verdicts in this case.

Deliver verdicts of guilty on all counts. End his running. He has gotten away with murder for too long. It’s time to end.

LA County Deputy DA Habib Balian finishes the prosecution final argument.

Court takes a brief recess before defense lead council Dick DeGuerin begins the closing argument.

 

[Ken H]

Dick DeGuerin begins the defense closing argument.

Roaches in the soup. Body parts. Really?

Nine days of beating up an old man not capable of defending himself. I wouldn’t blame you for hating him. I don’t. I’ve known him for 20 years. I’m proud to stand here and defend Robert Durst, along with Davis Chesnoff, Chip Lewis, our sick friend Don Ray, and Lauren Childress.

A year and half ago when we started this, we didn’t know what our fates were holding for us. We asked you then to pay attention to what we thought would be a 4 month ordeal and has turned into a year and half ordeal. You didn’t sign up for this but you had no choice.

I thank you.

But I wouldn’t blame you after hearing what you’ve heard for five months, for hating Bob Durst, but making Bob Durst a liar doesn’t make him a killer. They have to bring evidence. Direct or circumstantial, this case is about Susan Berman.

Prosecution objects to referral of evidence as not true. Judge Windham tells jury they decide if the evidence is true or not and follow your own recollections.

DeGuerin continues. This is a circumstantial evidence case.

Prosecution wants to approach the bench, judge Windham says no.

Mr. DeGuerin continues, the court tells you that circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence, but if circumstantial evidence leads you to more than one conclusion, you must, you must find the accused not guilty.

This case is supposed to be about Susan Berman, but we’ve heard months and months of evidence about a case in Galveston, in which I represented Bob Durst, and which 12 good citizens found Bob Durst not guilty, and there was a lot more evidence than what you heard here.

Their goal and what they must prove is Bob Durst killed Kathie Durst and that Susan Berman made the call.

The prosecution demonized Bob Durst to disguise the weakness of the evidence.

I said it’s my honor and I’m proud to represent Bob Durst. I’ve taught law school for 25 years and tried to teach the honor of defending against the power of the state.

Pictures were awful. Evidence was clear, tons of evidence that proved he did not kill Morris Black.

Objection about the large amount of evidence comment in the Black case. Sustained, and DeGuerin continues.

The whole Morris Black case was brought up to discredit Bob Durst. I have to ask you please not let your emotions rule your logic.

Susan Berman was killed 9 months before Morris Black died, so the prosecution theory doesn’t make sense that Durst killed Berman to keep her from talking.

Where, when, how, that’s reasonable doubt. What’s the evidence? Remove the emotions. Look at the lack of evidence. If you’re asking yourself what happened to Kathie, that’s reasonable doubt. You can’t guess.

The Jinx recordings are reviewed. DeGuerin says one of the comments, “I don’t know what’s in the house” shows Durst didn’t know Berman was dead.

Abortion is a very controversial subject, again brought up to demonize Durst.

DeGuerin is referencing all the evidence and how they can be construed differently than the prosecution claims.

Prosecution has shown Bob’s treatment of Kathie was atrocious. But many marriages have this problem and there are no killings.

You can put the evidence into proper perspective.

There was no motive for Bob to kill Susan Berman.

Circumstantial evidence that Kathie is dead, no when, where, how. So what did Bob do? Monday morning he takes the dog to the vet, goes the city, no evidence of Kathie, goes back home, goes house hunting, and on Tuesday the school calls. Now he starts to worry, on Wednesday he calls Gilberte, and calls the police, who tell him to check with her boyfriends, he has to make the report in person. The next day he turns it over to the police. What else are you supposed to do?

You can tell from 14 days on the stand his compass doesn’t point north. He’s unusual.

He called the police in South Salem, they found nothing unusual.

Odds and ends DeGuerin wants to talk about.

A lot of people who knew Berman said she was fabulist. She made things up, different things to different people. She always wanted to make herself more important. She did take on a roll as Bob’s PR person, when Kathie went missing. But no one said she would give up someone’s confidence, because of the code of the Mafia. Her father was in the Mafia, but she was 6 years old when he died.

I have to say about Lewin badgering Durst for 9 days on the stand.

Everybody has heard the trick the question "have you stopped beating your wife", false premise. Same false premise question "if you killed Kathie would you tell us?" Sole purpose was to make Bob Durst look really bad. And I’ll give that to Mr. Lewin, he made Bob Durst look really bad.

But just like the Galveston jury did, I hope you can separate your antipathy of Bob, toward Bob, from whether the prosecution has actually brought you the evidence.

I want to talk about the evidence, about Nick Chavin, and his testimony. He got mad didn’t he, when Lewin was questioning him in 2015? Lewin asked, did Bob Durst confess to you, Chavin said “no, he didn’t confess”. And when Terry Chavin said her husband told her Durst confessed, Chavin said “no, he didn’t”. Lewin says then why would Terry say that? Chavin says “do you know where Terry works”, Lewin says yes, at the Durst Corporation. And Chavin says “that’s not the way Durst talks” referring to the quote “I had to do it. It was her or me” . “And the reason I don’t want to testify is because my company depends on doing business with the Durst Corporation”. Lewin says then it would put you in good with Douglas, but Chavin says “yes, but it would make me a liar”.

If you have questions about how, when, where Kathie Durst died, the prosecution hasn’t proved their theory.

If you have questions if Susan Berman made the call, my college David Chesnoff will show you on Monday how it’s impossible she made the call.

If you have those questions, or have two or more reasonable conclusions about where the circumstantial evidence leads you, you have to say not guilty, whether you like him or hate him, if you think he’s a bad person or not, liar or not, you have to says not guilty, it’s your duty to say not guilty. The state hasn’t proved its case.

If that’s the way you feel, to maintain that, not to compromise, you will remember this verdict. You may forget me, you may forget Mr. Lewin, I can’t imagine, you may forget the judge, but if you surrender a reasonable doubt just to get a verdict you won’t be able to live with yourself.

We’ll be here until the cows come home, I had to get something in about Texas, and we’ll be with you, no matter how long it takes.

The judge tells you the verdict has to be unanimous, but he doesn’t tell you that you don’t have to reach a verdict.

Thank you.

DeGuerin is finished. Judge Windham says the trial will reconvene on Monday, and the jury is dismissed. David Chesnoff will continue the defense final argument on Monday.

 

[Ken H]

Then the fireworks started. A solid 15 minutes of them.

After the jury is gone, Lewin goes absolutely ballistic, stands up, waving his arms and hands. shouting, says DeGuerin is unethical and unprofessional, and says it's misconduct with the defense saying there was evidence in the Galveston case they didn’t see, Judge Windham finally says stop shouting, I'm addressing your tone, sit down, Mr. Lewin sit down!

Judge Windham says he upheld the objection. Tells Lewin he just wanted him to breath a little bit, he can rise now, and that Lewin has the last word in this argument anyways (with final argument rebuttal).

Lewin goes on, he objected three times, that DeGuerin said “Galveston is here to prejudice you and I believe it should not have been admitted to this case”. Lewin claims this is beyond misconduct, and (regardless of) the fact I know the court thinks this case is overwhelming and the Durst will be convicted no matter what, and has said the defendant has no credibility.

Lewin continues, the man got up there and said three things that he should not have. The worst thing I’ve heard in 30 years, saying the court admitted evidence they should not have. If I said that you would be irate; Windham says I don’t get irate.

Chesnoff asks "what are we doing here”, Windham puts his hands up and waves, and says no thank you, and lets Lewin continue.

Windham says it was not unduly prejudice and was legally admitted evidence, he had to weigh it out and he cautioned the jury not to be swayed by bias. But it is true that the evidence is powerful and compelling, so the defense characterized it as prejudice. The way DeGuerin said it is wrong but the idea is admitable.

Lewin goes on, they can say I'm a small time caveman lawyer, they are going to get it back in rebuttal. A millionaire client with seven lawyers shuttling in and out of court, and then say they are a small time legal team? That's fine.

Lewin says they can criticize the fact the evidence was admitted but can’t call it improper. He says DeGuerin can’t say there is no direct evidence. That is a lie. We want the court to instruct the jury. It not a cure to say Mr. Lewin can clean it up later in reubttal. It was wrong.

Chesnoff gets his chance to speak. He says the pictures (from the Black case) were introduced to inflame the jury. After five months the court has made rulings I disagree with but I don’t scream and yell it’s unethical or improper, and I wish Lewin should give the octogenarian practitioner at the highest levels (DeGuerin), the respect he deserves. I’m really, really tired of it. It's really galling. Chesnoff’s voice was starting to crack with the last statements, he seemed really upset at Lewin's attitude toward DeGurein.

Lewin says yes DeGuerin was given slack, and he's 80 and from Texas. but today’s performance was unethical and out of bounds, but is it really going to matter, I don’t think so, but the court should not allow it. And as far as respect, people earn respect, and DeGuerin’s shenanigans today gets him the respect he deserves, which is not much.

Lewin continues, I don’t hear the court disagreeing and telling me I’m wrong, and they are saying I don't think it's going to hurt you, but it still shouldn’t be allowed.

Judge Windham will take the matter under advisement, will look at what Lewin sends him later, and will get back before the trial reconvenes on Monday.

Lewin better be in good health because he really blew a fuse today, and could easily have some kind of issue with that kind of outburst, considering his middle age and by his own words being overweight.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 13, 2021

Court begins with California Superior Court Judge Mark Windham ruling on the issues from late Thursday after the jury was released, regarding lead defense attorney Dick DeGuerin’s comments during his final arguments, the prosecution's objections, and Windham admonishing DeGuerin. Windham asks if anyone has anything else to say. Speaking for the defense, David Chesnoff has nothing more to say. LA County Deputy DA John Lewin will wait before commenting.

Windham begins. Arguments may be wrong but not improper.

The objection is, there is no evidence, and I overruled that, it’s an argument about the state of evidence.

The people do a great job of assessing the state of the evidence and the defense does a great job of addressing the emotional weight of the evidence.

I did not admit into the record evidence that was prejudicial and I limited it.

So DeGuerin is free to argue that it’s been ruled that way because it is prejudicial, it is true that there is some evidence from Galveston not heard here. But that's only because the defense and prosecution did not present it as evidence. Otherwise it would be in the record.

Cannot argue facts outside the record and I upheld the objection Mr. Lewin made. DeGuerin changed his direction and comments.

Windham will tell the jury DeGuerin erroneously told the jury that evidence wasn’t presented, and that any and all evidence from Galveston could have been admitted.

Windham asks Lewin for comments.

Lewin says there were lots of things that he objected to that he hasn't said. Chesnoff says the same. Windham was glad, didn’t want to have each side interrupting and objecting to each other.

Lewin says DeGuerin can’t say there is no direct evidence. Windham disagrees, and again says "but you Mr. Lewin, have the last word", referring to the prosecution final argument rebuttal.

Lewin says he disagrees with allowing DeGuerin to say that allowing the Galveston trial evidence is improper, and there is evidence that I (DeGuerin) know that shows the verdict was right and you didn’t see it. It’s Prosecutor 101, it’s Defense Attorney 101, you cannot refer to things outside the evidence and you cannot talk to the jury about evidence being erroneous. We ask the court to make a stronger statement.

Windham asks Chesnoff if he has anything to say. He says he purposely did not interrupt the prosecution and he did that because he did not want to be interrupted either. He says he does not want to say things that are not allowed, and brings up a specific issue about testimony from Mella Kaufman saying Susan Berman had lots of enemies.

Lewin replies you can’t bring up that up, Windham agrees and Chesnoff asks can he say "that’s what she said" but there was no police testimony or evidence that proves that", and Windham says he will allow that.

Lewin rebuts, the problem is DeGuerin says 3 times "in my opinion", and "I am aware of the evidence in Galveston, and I know you haven’t heard it."

More discussion about what’s a correct way to present the arguments and what’s not, what’s allowed and what’s not. Lewin wants the judge to tell the jury that what DeGuerin did was wrong about all this, and Windham says no.

The issue is finally settled, for now, and the jury is brought in. '

Another extended disagreement, over 30 minutes between the prosecution, defense, and the court. You can bet no matter how this turns out, no matter what the verdict is, there will be appeals made by someone.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 13, 2021

Defense attorney David Chesnoff resumes the final argument.

Thanks the jury, and court personnel for all their help and work.

I have 40 years of defending people against the power of the state. People across the spectrum. It’s no different with Bob. The job is to make sure that every American has the protection of the constitution.

Comments have been made about this expensive defense team. If you notice, the prosecution, has 5 lawyers in court, they have multiple policeman as well, all paid for by the tax payers. So the idea that somehow Bob has hired a team of people, they also have a team as well, and that’s why he needs one. All this against this immense power of the government. That’s why we have a jury system, to protect people against that power.

I’m reading more than I normally do because I’m reviewing more than 5 months of evidence, so I'm reading so much I’m sorry.

I still get butterflies; I still can’t sleep the night before, in this case the weekend before. It’s a huge responsibility. I take a deep breath and I remember, I remember. We are all cloaked in these proceedings by the Constitution and many people have died defending it. The greatest document known to the world, the US Constitution, which guarantees everybody, everybody, a trial like this.

This is not Russia, not North Korea, not China, not Iran; it’s the United States Of America. People have died to protect the Constitution, and the Constitution is what governs these proceedings.

It permits a judge to rule on evidence. It permits us to cross examine, which is in the Constitution, that permits the person accused of a crime to confront the witnesses against him. That’s in the US Constitution. That’s what makes the butterflies go away. It’s why I can make this presentation to you. It’s why you will understand at the end, that you must find Bob not guilty.

References poem by noted defense lawyer Jerry Spence, about the judicial process. Five months, we work before and after the trial, as has the prosecution. Mr. DeGuerin and I have been away from our homes. And the judge has been in the middle of this, fair trial we have enjoyed.

I stated in the opening that you and I share a huge responsibility, because we have Mr. Durst’s life in our hands. And before we go on, I want to sincerely and deeply thank you for your service. You’ve dedicated your life to insure Mr. Durst gets a fail trial. And on behalf of Mr. Durst, for that we are very thankful. You’ve been taking notes, day after day, you’ve paid attention, and it’s remarkable. I’ve said I’ve been doing this over 40 years and I’ve never before seen people show more citizenship and more love for the jury system and Constitution.

Since the trial began many things have changed in our world. If any of you have been impacted by COVID, or lost a loved one, I offer my sincere condolences.

Despite these challenges, what remains is the Constitution, your good faith efforts.

I want you to recall what I said at the opening statement. No evidence is no evidence. Which means the lack of evidence is why you should be acquitting Bob.

The prosecution had a theory here, but they never put the meat to the bone. They told you how they believed things happened, but they never produced real evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their theory.

There is no evidence that Mr. Durst murdered Susan Berman or Kathie Durst. This is a case with no real forensic evidence. This is 2021 and you heard no evidence that Bob Durst killed Ms. Berman.

As you know there was a trial in Galveston, and the state takes exception to the decision made by the jury there, and they have given you a theory why they were wrong.

No evidence is no evidence but to be clear, we don’t have to prove Bob’s innocence. We have no burden. They do.
That is what the founding fathers envisioned. That’s why the jury system is so important.

Mr. DeGuerin has described, and we’ve all seen Bob doesn’t pick up cues, he’s ill, old, awkward, rude, crude, responds differently than most people would, but he’s still a person entitled to the same protections as someone who doesn’t act like Bob.

We’re not asking you justify or accept any of his boorish or crude behavior that you’ve heard. Instances of domestic violence between any couple is terrible, no one is going to argue with that. It doesn’t mean someone killed somebody. Being crude and physical with your wife is terrible but is not evidence of homicide in this case.

You heard Bob testify for hours. Bob didn’t have to; he wanted to tell his story. Mr. Lewin questioned him day after day with impunity, asking him anything he wanted, yes there were inconsistencies, one, as with most people, two, he’s elderly, and three, Mr. Lewin kept going and going and it would lead to some inconsistencies.

And on the crucial question he was unequivocal he didn’t (kill anyone).

Remember what the jury instructions were - Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider if the differences are important or not.

It’s uncontroverted that Bob was told by Andrew Jarecki things to say to promote and sell The Jinx. And you did not hear from the prosecution or Mr. Jarecki, who they could have called to refute that. Where was Jarecki, why did he say it wasn’t true? The only evidence you can consider is what Bob said, that he was directed what to say, and if they wanted to refute that then bring Jarecki, let us cross examine Jarecki. and Jarecki didn’t have the courage to come to court.

We believe the pictures of Morris Black were shown to you to inflame you. The pictures were terrible. They say that Bob kills witnesses. What evidence is there that Black knew anything? None, they have a theory. They have no evidence and that’s why they show you the pictures. Nothing, absolutely nothing. Just to get you to believe by showing you emotionally charged pictures. To make him into some kind of monster. What proof was there that Morris was a threat to Bob, let them get up and show the proof.

He had a gun in Texas, but there is no proof that Bob had a gun in California. You’re (the jury) way more responsible than that.

But he’s only charged with killing Susan, but we’ve spent an enormous amount of time on Kathie Durst.

Another red herring is Bob killing Douglas or Najami. Never happened, no one ever got hurt.

They want you to overlook their lack of real evidence. Not theories, not speculation, not emotion, but real evidence. In over 40 years Bob has never been charged by Jeanine Pirro or any other Westchester DA.

The Special Circumstances charge does not apply because Susan Berman didn’t witness anything. In 40 years not one investigator, police, prosecutor in New York, California, or anywhere, questioned her.

There is no proof that Susan Berman made that call.

It’s been shown that Susan Berman was a liar. No one ever talked to her, even though she told Bob she had been contacted. He sent her the money before she lied about this.

I will go over the Mella Kaufman testimony (later).

Susan got money from other people. But she also had another side. He sent money not from threats but from affection.

Susan Giordano got money from Bob, she used the money to pay off her children’s student loans. She had a platonic relationship with Bob. The only thing that mattered was she sent Bob money. It’s legal to send money in the United States.

He gave money to the Altmans, to buy a car. They came to visit him in jail, presumed he was innocent. Just friendship. This support was over years. Nothing nefarious like the prosecution suggests.

It was not a secret that Bob was coming to visit to Susan in LA. They never fought or had arguments. No evidence is evidence. They never showed anything that Susan Berman ever had a strained relationship with Bob. Just a theory, that she had something on him. Nothing that ever showed Susan Berman ever threatened him. Zero.

Susan and Bob bonded over the years. You heard stories that Susan told her friends she called the school. Most of them never told the cops. Susan was also privy because she became the self appointed spokesperson. Just as Bob knew the dean at Kathie’s medical school got a call, Susan might have also known. She wove that critical detail into her own grandiose story of providing an alibi. There is no evidence that Bob killed her.

You’ve also heard Bob was involved in the case in Galveston, and there was a result there. In spite of the evidence there of the dismemberment, if you take a step back you can see the difference between the death and the dismemberment. If Bob is such a premeditated murderer, why was there so much evidence? There is no forensic evidence in Kathie’s case or Susan’s case.

What the prosecution is doing here is making up for the fact the LA Police Department and the LA District Attorney completely failed in the investigation of Susan Berman’s murder. And they waited years, after Jarecki made movies, to charge him.

I think it’s nonsense that Bob killed Morris just because he could ID him. Other people in Galveston knew who Bob was. Did you ever hear any evidence that Morris was shaking him down or extorting him? They say he had information. What information? Let them prove that theory. No, there was no evidence, just theory.

All the detectives with chances to present evidence and they didn’t give it to you, and that means they did not prove their burden.

Their entire theory is flawed and belied by the real evidence.

The court takes a recess.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 13, 2021

Judge Windham resumes the trial by saying, ladies and gentleman, before we continue, on Thursday Mr. DeGuerin erroneously argued there was evidence the Galveston jurors heard that you were not privy to. You are not to consider why that jury reached the verdict it did. You are to evaluate the evidence that was presented in this trial for the limited purposes that I have given to you already. Mr. Chesnoff, you may continue.

Attorney David Chesnoff continues the defense final argument.

Bob did not kill Kathie Durst, therefore there was no great secret held by Susan Berman that threatened Bob.

The evidence shows there was an extensive NYPD and NY State Police investigation, two of the most renown police organization in the world.

Bob Durst was never charged with any crime in the disappearance of Kathie Durst.

He went directly to the police asking for help in finding his wife. Came without an attorney, brought a magazine and showed the police his family, this is who we are in NYC, help me find my wife.

They hired private investigators, offered a reward, $100,000. That’s a lot of money then, it’s a lot of money now.

We understand Kathie’s family has unanswered questions. So does Bob. So does Bob. So does Bob. (Yes, Chesnoff said it 3 times)

I don’t say this to be critical of Mrs. Durst. It’s undisputed she had serious alcohol problems and had cocaine issues. She had boyfriends. She had issues in school. I’m not telling you that to be mean. The reality was she had issues.

The police were given free access to Bob’s house. They did not fine one piece of evidence to present to you. The NYPD investigated for two years.

Chesnoff continues to review the evidence and consistently points out the fact there is no evidence that Bob Durst did not murder Kathie Durst.

No phone records Bob had talked to Susan Berman. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Susan Berman was a witness (due to the phone call).

No evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

More review of evidence that the defense says does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing in the 52 boxes of Bob’s belongings in Susan Giardano’s basement.

Detective Becerra of the NY State Police says under oath he did not find any evidence, after being tasked to open up a cold case investigation by NY Westchester County DA Jeanine Pirro.

Judge Windham adjourns the trial for lunch.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 13, 2021

Defense council David Chesnoff continues the final argument.

You heard earlier from Dr. Elizabeth Loftis, a psychologist and distinguished professor at the University of California.

The state attempted to diminish the science of memory. Dr. Loftis is an expert, and the highest ranking woman doctor on the list of most 100 eminent ranking psychologists of the 20th century.

She testified about the characteristics of false memory, including the effect of leading questions in a trial, leading to distorted, false memories.

Susan Berman was known to exaggerate, and all the witnesses that testified what Susan Berman told them what Bob Durst said, was false memory.

(Durst has a coughing spasm from drinking some water, but gives the court a thumbs up he is OK.)

Mella Kaufman’s testimony is based on what her step mother Susan Berman told her. Susan’s exaggerations tormented her as she grew up. Susan was prone to call people idiots. But Mella knew Bob gave gifts to Susan, and was touched in a sentimental way.

The prosecution tried to argue Susan would never open up the door to her house without knowing who was at the door. That’s not true. After the murder and after the police sealed the house, two people went into the house, her manager and one of her girlfriends, the house was not the steel trap it was made out to be.

Bob was very supportive of Susan after her husband died. The people want you to believe “her rock” was the one who killed her. The man who gave her money.

The prosecution brought witnesses that were Bob’s friends. Susie Giardano, the Altmans, Doug Oliver. Why? To disparage him.

Nick Chavin. Now, Mr. DeGuerin discussed Nick Chavin. The prosecution claims Mr. Durst confessed to him. The evidence shows this is not the case at all. This is another example of the prosecution relying on alleged statements, and not anything scientific or anything forensic.

Mr. Chavin was interviewed by the DA and the police numerous times, I believe it was 10. He repeatedly denied Mr. Durst made any kind of confession, including the statement “It was her or me.” He told you on the stand he is a liar.

His wife came from a long line of liars. Objection, sustained.

The prosecution harps on the fact Mr. Durst is a liar. But they want you to believe a confessed liar himself, and a biased witness for the case.

Mr. Chavin and his wife was threatened by the prosecution. Objection, sustained.

They were badgering his wife, I guess I can’t say what I said but….

Judge Windham stops him and tells the jury to disregard the comments.

Chesnoff reviews the lack of evidence the police found at Susan Berman’s house. There was no forensic evidence that Bob shot and killed her. How does this compare to Galveston? There was evidence everywhere, blood, body parts, that Mr. Durst killed Morris Black, because he did, in self defense. Susan, Kathie, there was nothing. It’s consistent with Bob being innocent. Because he didn’t have anything to do with killing the two women. But there was evidence in Galveston because he did kill Morris, by accident. That’s why there is evidence, because he did it. He did it. Accidentally, when they were fighting. But you can make your own determination about Galveston.

The autopsy showed Susan had bruises on her hands and thighs, but this was not followed up on by the police. They said it came from falling. This was a botched investigation. Now let’s blame it all on Bob, that’s what we always do. The people wonder why Bob Durst was running, because it never stopped. You will put a stop to it.

I’m just getting closer to the end here. The prosecution is argued Bob is a wealthy man, and has spent money on his defense. The state has extensive resources, yet they didn’t use those resources in a way to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob committed the murder here.

They are relying on the images of dismembered bodies from Galveston, and on witnesses who waited years to report alleged statements. They are relying on unproven gossipy lie about a call to a medical school.

The prosecution wants you to believe that Robert Durst, in a premeditated manner traveled to LA and flying in his own name with people knowing he’s coming to California.

They want you to believe that Durst planned for a period of time to travel from New York to California under his name for the purpose of killing Susan. That he killed her and left her on the floor. But just to make sure he sent a note so the police could find her, that, he did this. Completely, completely illogical.

And by the way, this conduct is completely inconsistent with whatever their theory is about Kathie, and with the Morris Black self defense case.

The prosecution wants to attack the memory of a sick and elderly man, who may have characteristics that none of us may approve of, in terms of how he interacts, but he’s still sick, and he’s still old, and he had memory issues regarding events from 40 years ago. He was questioned about food stamps and smoking pot, all for no real relevant connection for what we’re all here to determine.

I want to leave you with the following. I want you to imagine that one of your relatives is very sick in the hospital, basically on life support. And a decision has to be made as to whether or not you say enough is enough. So it’s kind of (like) analyzing this. By listing to what the doctor says. You’re going to rely heavily on what the doctor says. And you walk into the room to talk to the doctor and the doctor is Nick Chavin. Would you rely on Nick Chavin to decide that important issue in your life? Or would you run from the hospital room?

They are asking you to rely on Nick Chavin for a life and death decision. You would not rely on Dr. Chavin.

You can’t rely on witnesses who have biases like him, who admit they are indebted to the Durst Organization and Douglas Durst. You can’t rely on doctors who watch fictional movies not real science, to decide what to do. That’s what we have.

They have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Durst murdered his dear friend. In fact the've proven she was his dear friend.

They haven’t proven the Special Circumstances. Under the law you must find Bob not guilty. I told you at the start that this is all premised on that document the Constitution. If the Constitution is going to have meaning, this is the time for you to give it meaning. This is one of the times in your life that you will be able to show what it really means to be American. That’s what this is about.

You can’t be biased against Bob because you know he’s in custody. He’s presumed to be innocent. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction. You have to have certitude. You have to say I have certitude they have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise Bob as is a matter of law entitled to be acquitted. And you must find him not guilty.

I don’t get another chance to speak, some of you may be relieved, but I don’t. Mr. Lewin will get the final word. I want each one of you when listening to Mr. Lewin to say to yourself, what would Mr. DeGuerin’s response to that be, what would Mr. Chesnoff’s response to that be? You be there for us. You question it like we would. Please.

I really, really appreciate your service. I meant it when I said that it’s been remarkable to watch you study and pay attention to this. And I just hope that when this is over you’ll let Mr. Durst be in a hospital of his choosing, to live out whatever time he has left.

Thank you very, very much. Thanks a lot.

Mr. Chesnoff concludes the defense final argument.

Judge Windham says thank you Mr. Chesnoff, and we'll take a break, and then Mr. Lewin will commence his closing.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 13, 2021

Judge Windham tells LA County Deputy DA John Lewin he may begin his concluding remarks. Windham also says he understands Lewin will begin them today and finish tomorrow (Tuesday) morning.

Lewin says thank you.

He starts with story about how hard it is sometime to not do what you’d like to (for him eating donuts). And in this case he’s had to restrain himself in the courtroom, because of what the defense has said and done.

We are talking about three people who died.

We take this case very seriously, jokes are the way to relieve the pressure, hopes it hasn’t offended anyone.

We appreciate the jury’s efforts, it's been a very difficult trial.

Shows picture of Kathie Durst. It’s bad enough this man killed her, and killed her. But they demean her, dehumanize her. How many times have we heard she’s a drug addict drunk and sleeps with a bunch of men?

Yes, Kathie had issues, but why? Because Bob beat her, abusing her, it was horrendous.

The defense doesn’t want to demean Kathie, but they do -drug and alcohol issues.

The defense doesn’t want to demean Berman, but they do- bad friend, blabbermouth, asking for money.

When you hear them say we’re not attacking them, they are.

Three people are dead, it’s not a game, mock court, or moot court, these are real people behind the facts you’ve seen.

COVID has changed everything. Trial has been a crazy journey, started in 2012, almost every detective who started the case has retired. Chesnoff derides the investigation but they turned over every stone.

What happens in these cases, detectives investigate case, have to turn it over to prosecution. I fly to New Orleans, a lot has been said by the defense but Durst wanted to talk to me. Bob Durst’s favorite subject in the world is Bob Durst. I can say Bob Durst has proven this case all by himself.

If I have to get up here and try to prove this case, why? But I have to because I have no idea what anyone on the jury is thinking. The worst thing is to come back after the case and say there was something you missed. For example, no forensic evidence, but Durst was inside the house where Berman was found dead.

I’m going to cover as much as possible with you.

Just because the case is lengthy, doesn’t mean you have to go in to deliberations and re-look at every bit of evidence. This case is simple.

Only two defense witnesses, Dr. Loftis and Durst, and both of those did not help their case. Durst himself said he did not dispute what the witnesses said.

All roads lead to guilty, like a slide. Susan signed her death warrant when she told Bob that NY State Police Detective Becerra wanted to talk to her, and 6 weeks later she was dead.

The defense wants you to disconnect the evidence, but all the evidence is connected. Is there any other way to look at it? No.

But what if Kathie’s death was an accident and Bob involved Susan, was she a witness? Yes. We do not have to prove Susan saw the death (Special Circumstance).

Judge Windham calls for an end to the day’s proceedings. The trial resumes tomorrow (Tuesday), when Lewin will conclude his closing remarks, and the judge will charge the jury.

 

[Ken H]

Tuesday September 14, 2021

Judge Windham reconvenes court and tells LA deputy DA John Lewin he may conclude his closing argument.

Mr. Lewin says thank you.

Another theme of the defense case has been the idea that Bob Durst again is kind of a victim of bad luck, that in essence like the title of the miniseries, he’s jinxed. It’s kinda the idea of poor unlucky Bob, like the old Allstate commercials where someone was constantly having wrecks, they were just the unlucky driver, and it just wasn’t their fault.

Well, if you look, look at how at how unlucky he is, his wife disappeared right before graduating from medical school. He happens to be the last one to see her alive. His friend Susan is murdered just after the investigation is made public and after she has told him she is going to talk to the police. He finds Susan’s dead body, just happens to be in Los Angeles for absurd reasons, and sends a note to the police only the killer could have written. Morris pulls a gun on him for no apparent reason, that’s never been explained, he’s accidentally shot and killed during the struggle, Bob responds by dismembers him. He then sits down with Jarecki, who for some unknown reason decides to frame him. And then his remaining best friend Nick Chavin falsely claims he confessed.

That’s a lot of bad luck.

But you know what, you can really ask instead is it 40 years of undeserved good luck? He has never been held accountable for his domestic abuse of Kathie. He was never held accountable for her death. For the last 20 years he’s gotten way of murdering Susan. For the last 20 years he’s avoided responsibility for Morris Black. Durst is not jinxed, he’s a three time killer who has managed to escape accountability, until this very moment. Until you 17 people, 12 of you who are going to deliberate, decide. You know what; it’s time for him to be held accountable.

Alright, let’s talk about Nick Chavin. So, there’s another thing that both sides agree on in this case, in addition to Mr. Durst committing a lot of perjury. That’s the idea that Nick Chavin provided extremely damming evidence in this case. Now we know in his closing statement Mr. DeGuerin only chose to discuss the July 23, 2015 phone interview, where he was being confronted, Nick was, with the fact that we knew he told his wife Terry that Bob had confessed back in 2014. Now as Nick would later testify, and this is important, he was not prepared for that confrontation, he did not know that his wife had reached out to us and had called. This is in the stipulation by the way. It’s in his testimony and in Terry’s stipulation. She called us, we didn’t badger or threaten her, she called us and told her Bob confessed to Nick and Nick has not told you that.

So we end up confronting him during that July 23rd call and we’re going to get to that in a minute.

But to really understand Nick Chavin you have to have to go back to the beginning. And by the way, all these calls were taped. You don’t have to guess or understand what did we do, what did we say, what improper thing, how did it transpire. You have the unadulterated conversations, you can hear what happened, and what this is, and I told Nick Chavin from the beginning, this is a journey. I didn’t expect that Nick Chavin was going to come the first time we talked to him and say yup, my best friend confessed to murder. And we told him, and you heard it, that our goal is you’ll take that witness stand and tell us what you know.

So what happened back on April 6th, Nick contacted us finally after repeated efforts have failed and he finally returns our calls. From the start of the conversation he very reluctant to provide any damaging information against Durst.

(Audio replay begins) Lewin asks Chavin, tell me what is your memory about what Susan said, about Bob killing Kathie? Chavin says It’s hard for me to say. Lewin says he makes it very clear he has conflicted loyalties. Lewin paraphrases Chavin, it’s not that I don’t have anything to say, it’s just I’m not ready to talk. Nick, can you tell me is it your loyalty to Bob? Chavin says it’s understandable, your best friend, killing your other best friend. If Bob ever admited to you he killed Susan, would you tell us? Chavin says, I would not tell you.

Lewin asks, why, am I being a disloyal friend? Chavin says yes. Lewin says, you just have to figure out a way, you want to tell us this. Chavin replies, right. Lewin says let’s rip the band aid off.

Fast forward to October 30th and that’s the call, that’s when we finally hear what happened.

Chavin says the dinner’s over, we (Chavin and Durst) are walking out of the place, I remembered we didn’t talk about Kathie and Susan, and that’s what he said he wanted to do, we are on the sidewalk and I’m almost panically aware, my objective was really to find out if he killed Kathy and Susan, and we’re outside and I said Bobby, and we are starting to walk away in different directions, and I turn and say, Bobby, you wanted to talk to me about Susan, here it comes gentleman, he looks at me and said ”I had to, I had no choice, it was her or me.” He turned away and started to walk, and I said do you want to talk about Kathie, and he walked away, and I didn’t try to follow him, it seemed like a weird thing to do. And that is the confessional that I got from his lips to me.

Lewin asks how clear are you that the question he was answering was, did he kill Susan Berman, and Chavin says 100%.

One thing, Nick Chavin never perjured himself. Never. He was not originally honest when he was on the phone, but when he was on the stand and under oath, he told the truth. So when they try to talk about Nick’s lying and Nick’s perjury, did not happen.

Things the defense brought up that Lewin wants to address:

The call Kathie supposedly made to the dean of her medical school. How could she make the call if she was dead, where is she? She did not make the call.

Now about Galveston, the way they talked about the evidence that you didn’t see. If there were evidence that would have helped Bob Durst, with his 7-8 lawyers, why didn’t they present it? Because there was nothing there.

Why didn’t we exhume Susan’s body? For what purpose? She was shot from behind; there was nothing under her fingernails, no evidence. If there was a reason, don’t you think they would have exhumed her? Again the same thing.

Why didn’t we call Andrew Jarecki? They stipulated to Andrew Jarecki’s testimony. If they wanted Andrew Jarecki on the stand, you would have seen him up here testifying. They agreed we read his stipulation in lieu of testifying. Then Bob Durst gets up and tells a story so incredible, so absolutely unbelievable, it would be like me calling a witness to the stand that said the world is flat.

What did the defense do? They put on two witnesses, that was the extent of what they have done, nothing more. If they had relevant witnesses or evidence they would have put them on here, and that’s a fact.

I want to talk about your roll as jurors. Really important. If you get back there and someone says what if, like for example what if one of Susan Berman's father's mafia associates, like Bugsy Siegel’s nephew, came to the door and shot Susan? What you would have to say is, where is the evidence? Anything like this has to be the same.

It’s a tug of war here. The evidence is overwhelming. We have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bob murdered Susan, because she was a witness to Kathie.

We are just about done.

As I’ve said, the evidence in this case is absolutely overwhelming. This is not a difficult job. Based on the evidence you have, this is not difficult. When the defense says they don’t think we’ve proved our case beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to ask yourself, what more could have we given you? It’s the cadaver note that only the killer could have written, it’s out of his mouth, it’s confessions to Nick Chavin, it’s the confessions on the stand. It’s direct. It’s circumstantial. The evidence in this case, not just for Susan, but for Kathie and Morris. This is what we have.

Lewin takes all his documents on the lectern in front of him, straightens them, and puts them on a desk behind him. A graphic on the screen shown documents falling into a pile, that turns into a mountain.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a mountain of evidence. A mountain. This case started back on January 31, 1982, (Lewin walks behind Durst at the defense table, and points at him) when this man, this man killed his wife. I don’t care that he’s old, I don’t care that he’s sick, I don’t care that he’s sitting in a wheelchair, it’s irrelevant. He killed three people in this case. Three people. It is time he is held accountable. The evidence in this case is proven. I want to to be clear, I’m not telling you to convict Bob Durst because he killed Kathie, or convict Bob Durst because he killed Morris. I’m telling you this man murdered Susan Berman. He murdered her. Absolutely. Unequivocally. Positively. That’s what he did.

We’ve done our job on this case. We can’t do anymore. Now it’s going to be yours. It is never easy to convict somebody of murder. And some of you might say, well, he’s old, he’d decrepit, and why does it really matter? It matters because of Kathie, and of Morris, and of Susan. Justice matters. Consequences matter. Do not let this narcissistic psychopath get away with what he has done, what he did to Susan Berman. There’s one verdict in this case, one verdict only, that is guilty. That is guilty of Special Circumstances. Having killed Susan Berman with a firearm. Having done so lying in wait, and ambushing his trusted friend, putting a bullet in the back of her head, which thank God she never saw coming. Doing it because she was a witness. Because he didn’t want to accept the consequences of his conduct. Make him accept the consequences. Go back there and please do your job, do your duty. This is not a difficult case. This is not hard. The evidence is overwhelming. Please. Go back there and make this man accept the consequences for murdering his best friend Susan Berman.

Again I want to thank you all for your time, and your attention, I’m sorry this has gone on for so long, and um, thank you very much.

Lewin concludes his closing argument.

 

[Ken H]

Tuesday September 14, 2021

The trial now moves to the verdict phase. Judge Windham addresses the jury.

Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing you should do is choose a foreperson, who's duty is to organize your discussions and make sure everyone gets a chance to talk in a fair way. It's your duty to talk to each other and deliberate in the jury room. Do not hesitate to change your mind if you become convinced you were wrong, but not just because someone else disagrees with you. You must try to come to a verdict yourself, if you can, but only after you discuss the evidence with the other jurors. Keep an open mind about this case, and openly discuss thoughts and ideas about this case. Stating too strong of an opinion early on or immediately announce how you plan to vote may prevent an open discussion.

Please treat each other courteously. Your roll is to be an impartial judge of the facts, not an advocate for one side or the other. Do not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury, including family, friends, religious leaders or anyone else. Only discuss the case in the jury room and only with all jurors present. No social media, do not use the internet in any way. Exhibits can be called, must request them in writing. Do not communicate with me unless it's written, for the record. A verdict must be unanimous, no coin flipping or similar method. Do not try to interpret my comments about the verdict, it's not my roll to make this decision. Use written ballot slips when voting.

A bailiff is sworn in and now leads the jury to the deliberation area. It's roughly noon in LA, Tuesday September 14, 2021.

 

[Ken H]

Thursday September 16, 2021

The jury has not reached a decision as yet, and tomorrow, Friday, will begin the fourth day of deliberations.

Court TV did a nice summary of what the jury is considering, with all the different verdict options, and general impressions of how they seem as a group. Julie Grant was the host.

Grant said the jury has spent 5 hours and 49 minutes deliberating. I have no idea what this means. How can it have been 2 1/2 days since they were charged, and only deliberated 5:49? I assumed the deliberations would be roughly on the same schedule as the trial, 9am to 4-5pm. I'm going to look into this further.

Chanley Painter is the Court TV courtroom correspondent.

First is the charge of murder. Guilty or not guilty.

If guilty, what type?

Was it premeditated? If yes, then it’s first degree murder. Or if he committed the crime without intending to do it beforehand, it’s second degree murder.

If they convict guilty of first degree murder, then, is Durst guilty of the Special Circumstance charges?
1) Killing a witness (Berman, to Kathie Durst’s death)
2) Lying in wait (ambushing her, she had no expectation he was going to do it)
If he’s guilty of either of these, he automatically gets life in prison with no possibility of parole.

Next, the Firearm charge. Did Durst use a firearm to commit the murder? If they convict him at all, this charge would have to be guilty, as that’s how Berman was killed. If so, he’d get an increased sentence, if the Special Circumstances charges are found not guilty.

The Special Circumstance & Firearm charges were filed by prosecutors because they want to see Durst in jail for the rest of his life.

The burden of proof for all of these charges is the same, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Painter also agreed with the courtroom observer that I’ve been in touch with throughout the trial. It appears the jury gets along with each other quite well, cordial, they have really bonded. She noted there was one juror in particular that always was with different groups of jurors as they moved around the court areas, and seemed quite popular. She was identified as the foreperson, juror number 12, a Hispanic woman in her late 40’s.

It was also noted the jury was not sequestered and were allowed to go home after each day’s events in court. Judge Mark Windham was very consistent in telling jurors each day before court adjourned to not talk about the trial with anyone, not to look at anything in any type of media, print, online, or on TV, that was about the trial, and not to form opinions when they were on their own.

In 2015, when these charges were filed against Durst, the LA DA's office said they would announce at some point in the future whether or not they would seek the death penalty. The state of California has a Federal Court ordered moratorium on executing prisoners sentenced to death, since 2006. California Governor Gavin Newsom placed a state moratorium on executions in March 2019. Also, LA County District Attorney George Gascón has pledged to not seek the death penalty for any case while in office. Based on all this, it appears Durst will not face being executed. I don’t think this is subject to change in the future without a new trial. Due to the almost certain appeals if Durst is convicted of anything, a new trial may be possible. But, there would also have to be a new LA County DA, and no more federal or state moratoriums, so it does not look like Durst would ever face being executed.

 

[Ken H]

Sources tell me the deliberation time discrepancy is due to not starting until sometime after noon on Tuesday, 1:30pm on Wednesday, not at all on Thursday, and they won’t start until 1:30pm today. So roughly 3 hours a day.

 

[Ken H]

Friday September 17, 2021

NEWS FLASH

Just before 4pm PST today, the jury returned a guilty verdict convicting Robert Durst of murdering Susan Berman, in the first degree. They deliberated about 7 and 1/2 hours total, meaning it took the 9 women and 3 men on the jury less than two hours today to reach the unanimous agreement.

He was also found guilty of both Special Circumstance charges, killing a witness, and using a firearm in the crime. This should result in Durst being sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

Berman was Durst's long time best friend, and had told other friends she helped him cover up killing his wife, Kathie.

The sentencing will be held on October 18, 2021.

Defense lawyer David Chesnoff said they believed there was “substantial reasonable doubt” and were disappointed in the verdict. He said Durst would pursue all avenues of appeal.

The family of Durst's first wife Kathie, the McCormack's, issued a statement calling on prosecutors in Westchester County, N.Y., to now bring the real estate heir to trial for the death of his first wife.

“The justice system in Los Angeles has finally served the Berman family. It is now time for Westchester to do the same for the McCormack family and charge Durst for the murder of his wife, Kathie, which occurred almost forty years ago. They have had interviews, statements, and documents for months,” the statement read. “The closing arguments by the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys should remove any doubt. It’s bizarre and unacceptable that Durst was tried for killing an accomplice before being held accountable for Kathie’s murder.”

Kathie McCormack Durst was last seen on January 31, 1982. Although authorities in New York at the time did not suspect Durst in Kathie's disappearance, it's long been speculated he was responsible for her death.

In another bizarre twist, Robert Durst was not in the courtroom today for the reading of the verdict, as lead defense council Dick DeGuerin told the court Durst had just been exposed by one of his drivers to COVID-19. DeGuerin objected to the verdict being read without Durst present, Judge Windham overruled the objection based on prior Caliifornia legal precedent, and proceeded with reading the verdict.

The verdict was announced to virtually no reaction from either the defense team or the prosecution team, or anyone else in the courtroom. DeGuerin and Chesnoff were motionless, while lead prosecutor LA County Deputy DA John Lewin slightly shifted his position in his chair.

It’s generally thought Durst’s indictment, and now conviction, are entirely due to his decision to cooperate with the making of, and to participate in The Jinx.

 

[Scott-S]

Wow, I was expecting another OJ Simpson repeat. I personally think he is guilty of all three murders. I recently watched the Jinx and found him to be a complete sociopath. Anyone who admits to cutting up a body and dumping in a bay is capable of anything. His brother is lucky to be alive as well.

 

[Ken H]

Monday September 20, 2021

The Jinx producer/director/participant Andrew Jarecki appeared on Good Morning America today, interviewed by George Stephanopoulos.

Jarecki was asked if he was surprised about the verdict, and he says:
I can't say I was surprised, if you watched the trial it was extraordinary, Bob admits that he lied, perjured himself 5 times, in this trial. and he also lied in the Galveston trial, you can't be amazed by it, but it's also gratifying because this is a man who's evaded justice for so long, that all you can do is hope for the families that nothing happens, that they are not going to be surprised.

Stephanopoulos asked about the bathroom confessions, that Jarecki took Durst's words out of context (which he did), and he lied about what Durst said.
Jarecki says it's pretty clear what he says, he killed them all of course, so there's really no moment, he burps, you can literally see it, before he has this strange visceral reaction, so he's feeling like he's really in trouble, and then interestingly he says killed them all of course, so really it was so extraordinary that there was this part you didn't hear, and he didn't say. So I thought that was never a reasonable propitiation.

Stephanopoulos commented like it sure seems like he would have never gone to trial or been convicted, but for your documentary.
Jarecki says it's very strange, it certainly didn't seem 16 years ago that we would discover this evidence. The confession in the bathroom is important but the more important thing is we discovered a letter which was a perfect match to 'The Cadaver Note' that had been written by the killer. Bob, in the interview with me did this crazy thing, and I said what, and he said writing a note that only the killer could have written, and I remember at that time thinking I wonder how important is that going to be, and here we are going into court, and he admits by the way in stipulation he wrote the note, so for dozens of years that he had nothing to do with it, and here he is in the film saying it could have only been written by the killer, so you put those two things together and that might have been all that was needed to convict him.

Stephanopoulos asked had he somehow gotten off again, do think you might have been in danger?
Jarecki says you know I never felt in danger when I was with Bob, he's a very charming guy as some people are who commit crimes like this, but you know there was a moment when I was, before the final two episodes, when Bob knew I had this evidence, I had showed it to him, and it hadn't come out yet, and this is a guy who kills witnesses, and I was aware of that, and I did have security for a period of time, it was awkward but what can you do, I had to get the information out.

Stephanopoulos asks where does this go next for you?
Jarecki says, well I'm always filming, all of this, I mean it's all fascinating for me, so I don't think this story of Bob is over at all, I'm sure they're going to try and appeal, and all that stuff, the bigger question is how did all of this happen, and how did it take 40 years for there to be any accountability, that makes it a very interesting story going forward.

End of interview.

So, obviously, Jarecki completely ignored the question about changing the sequence of the bathroom comments. And, Stephanopoulos didn't bring up the timeline issue of Durst's trespassing and when he was interviewed the second time. I suppose this was expected. I wonder if these issues will resurface?

And yes, you can bet we have not seen the last of Jarecki & company's efforts on Bob Durst.

 

[Ken H]

Tuesday September 21, 2021

As noted above after the guilty verdict last Friday, the McCormack family gave a statement to the media, asking for the Westchester County, New York District Attorney to charge Durst with Kathie McCormack Durst's murder.

Westchester County DA Mimi Rocha made this statement.
"I commend all of those involved in persuading a California jury to hold Robert Durst accountable for the murder of Susan Berman. Our independent investigation, remains ongoing and we will have no further comment at this time." Rocha reopened the investigation in May 2021.

It was also learned jurors said they agreed with the prosecution's assertion that Durst killed Kathie in 1982.

 

[Ken H]

Wednesday September 22, 2021

LA Superior Court officials announced today that sentencing for convicted murder Robert Durst will be moved up to October 14, 2021. Judge Mark Windham originally scheduled the sentencing for October 18th. No reason was given for the change.

 

[Ken H]

Wednesday September 22, 2021

From The Real Deal
New York Real Estate News

By Keith Larsen | Research By Orion Jones

Robert Durst's nephew sues Durst family for cutting off trust payments

The courtroom drama surrounding the Durst family did not end with Robert Durst’s murder conviction in Los Angeles on Friday.

A new chapter emerged this week in a lawsuit filed by Robert Durst’s nephew Evan Kreeger, who alleges members of the legendary real estate family have stopped making regular distributions to his trusts while his parents attempt to force him into a guardianship.

Kreeger filed a petition in New York State Supreme Court on Tuesday against Durst Organization chairman Douglas Durst and president Jonathan Durst, as well as Douglas Kreeger, his father.

Evan Kreeger alleges the three individuals are trustees of three separate trusts of which he is a beneficiary.

Evan, 50, claims the trustees have “virtually cut off” distributions to him, causing him “extreme hardship.”

Jordan Barowitz, spokesman for the Durst Organization, said, “The trusts are, and have been for years, providing financially for Evan. We hope he is getting all of the other support and help he needs.”

Evan said that his parents, Douglas and Wendy Kreeger — Robert and Douglas’ sister — filed a guardianship petition in 2019 that is also being heard in State Supreme Court. Evan disputes that he needs a guardian, asserting he can make his own health decisions.

“A pattern of distributions had been established and continued over years, which has been disrupted,” Evan’s petition reads. “The only explanation the trustees have provided to me is that they deem distributions to be ‘inadvisable’ at this time, which is insufficient under their fiduciary obligations.”

Evan said the timing of the disruption, combined with the trustees’ reluctance to provide a reason for it, “is troubling.” He said by cutting off distributions, the trustees would make “life more difficult in order to cause me to act out and demonstrate the need for the appointment of a guardian over me.”

The petition requests that the trustees, Douglas Kreeger, Douglas Durst and Jonathan Durst, file full and complete accountings of the three trusts. The trustees have a duty to account as well as provide beneficiaries with certain information, the petition claims. Such information is essential to the judge’s determination in his guardianship proceeding, Evan alleged.

Evan was the only Durst family member to appear in HBO’s 2015 documentary series, “The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst.” In the documentary, Evan expressed his disappointment with the Durst family over their silence on Robert.

Last week, Robert Durst was convicted of killing a close friend in Beverly Hills in 2000. It was one of three confirmed or suspected homicides to which the 78-year-old has been linked.

A year after the documentary aired — he was famously caught on tape muttering, “What the hell did I do? … Killed them all, of course,” Durst was convicted of a separate weapons charge and sentenced to a 7-year prison term.

The Durst Organization owns and manages more than 13 million square feet of Class A Manhattan office and retail space, according to its website. It was founded by Robert and Douglas’ grandparent Joseph Durst in 1915.

Evan Kreeger’s lawyer Clifford Meirowitz did not immediately return a request to comment.

Douglas Durst Accused of Cutting Nephew’s Trust Payments

In a petition filed Tuesday, Douglas and Robert Durst’s nephew Evan Kreeger alleges his relatives stopped making distributions while his parents attempt to put him into a guardianship.

therealdeal.com

 

[Ken H]

From Law & Crime.com​

Citing ‘The Jinx,’ Robert Durst Seeks New Trial After Murder Conviction in Killing of Friend Susan Berman​

Aaron Keller, Sep 24th, 2021

Convicted murderer Robert Durst on Thursday filed court papers which ask a California superior court judge to order a new trial in the death of his friend Susan Berman.

A jury convicted Durst on Sept. 17 of killing Berman in the year 2000 in an execution-style shooting at her Beverly Hills home. Durst’s legal team is arguing that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the conviction and that the trial judge “erred in deciding questions of law during the trial.”

As to the sufficiency of the evidence, Durst’s team explained the law at length (citations omitted):

If the court is not convinced that the charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it may rule that the jury’s verdict is “contrary to the . . . evidence.”
In doing so, the court acts as a 13th juror who is a “holdout” for acquittal. Thus, the grant of a section 1181(6) motion [for a new trial] is the equivalent of a mistrial caused by a hung jury.
Although the trial court is to be “guided” by a presumption in favor of the correctness of the jury’s verdict, this means only that the court may not arbitrarily reject a verdict which is supported by substantial evidence.

“Here, it is respectfully submitted that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, and there was insufficient evidence to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt,” Durst’s lawyers argued. “Specifically, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Durst committed First Degree Murder and that he shot and killed Susan Berman with a firearm. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence to establish the special circumstance that Mr. Durst killed Susan Berman because she was a ‘witness.'”

“At trial, there was no forensic evidence to support that Mr. Durst allegedly killed Kathie Durst or that he killed Susan Berman,” Durst’s attorneys continued. “Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that there was insufficient evidence at trial to establish that Mr. Durst called Susan Berman to coordinate a staged call to Kathie’s medical school and Dean Kuperman.”

Durst’s legal team cited an entire page of trial testimony to articulate the point.

The defense team also suggested that the “lead detective in the reopened investigation” involving Durst’s wife Kathie’s disappearance “found no evidence to support that Mr. Durst killed Kathie Durst or that Susan Berman was a witness or assisted Mr. Durst in any criminal law.” The defense further argued that prosecutor John Lewin “presented no evidence at trial which connected any weapon used in the murder of Susan Berman to Mr. Durst.”

“Specifically, the alleged murder weapon was never recovered, Mr. Durst was never found to possess the alleged murder weapon, and the shell casing found in Ms. Berman’s house did not match any other casing in the police system or any of Mr. Durst’s firearms,” the defense continued — placing a considerable emphasis on a type of evidence that is frequently attacked by defense attorneys in other cases as so-called “junk science.”

Yet the defense continued as follows: “as this Honorable Court will recall, there was no forensic evidence at trial which established that Mr. Durst shot and killed Susan Berman. Rather, the evidence at trial established that the crime scene investigation was incomplete and flawed.” Among the alleged flaws was that improper or unauthorized “individuals were able to access Ms. Berman’s home even after her body was found.”

The defense further alleged that Berman “made up stories for attention, had enemies” and “would open her door for a stranger.” Therefore, “rather than relying on forensic evidence at trial, the prosecution largely relied on witnesses who provided statements to law enforcement, many years after Susan Berman’s death,” the defense alleged.

After arguing the evidence was insufficient for the foregoing and similar reasons, the defense then presented a laundry list of errors the trial judge allegedly made during the lengthy trial proceedings. They say one of those alleged errors was allowing jurors to see footage from The Jinx, an HBO documentary about Durst:

1. The Court erred in not granting a mistrial due to the extended delay in the trial between March 2020 and May 2021.
2. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to the Morris Black case, including admitting the numerous photographs of the severed body parts of Morris Black.
3. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to Mr. Durst wanting Kathie Durst to have an abortion.
4. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to the alleged incident involving Peter Schwarz.
5. The Court erred in not allowing Mr. Durst to introduce evidence of sightings of Kathie Durst in New York City, including in relation to Eddy Lopez.
6. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to alleged incidents of domestic violence between Mr. Durst and Kathie Durst.
7. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence that Mr. Durst allegedly threatened his brother, Douglas Durst.
8. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to the interrogation in New Orleans after Mr. Durst was arrested.
9. The Court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence related to the search of Mr. Durst’s hotel room in New Orleans.
10. The Court erred in prohibiting Mr. Durst from presenting third party culpability evidence.
11. The Court erred in denying the request to recuse prosecutor Lewin as he was a witness related to evidence presented at trial.
12. The Court erred in showing the jury the movies All Good Things and the Jinx.
13. The Court erred in applying the journalist shield for Andrew Jarecki and his Hit the Ground Running Staff.
14. The Court erred in finding that Andrew Jarecki and his Hit the Ground Running Staff were not agents of the prosecution and law enforcement.
15. The court erred in denying Mr. Durst’s pre-trial request to exclude handwriting evidence.

The defense said the 15 errors listed above “individually, and cumulatively, prohibited Mr. Durst from having a fair trial.”

The defense hopes to hash out the matter during an Oct. 14 court hearing.

The actual motion is attached below.

Citing 'The Jinx,' Robert Durst Seeks New Trial After Murder Conviction in Killing of Friend Susan Berman

A jury convicted Durst on Sept. 17 of killing Berman in the year 2000 in an execution-style shooting at her Beverly Hills home. Durst's legal team is arguing that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction and that the trial judge "erred in deciding questions of law during the trial."

lawandcrime.com