The Robert Durst Saga

User avatar
Lunaluz
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:22 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Lunaluz » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:50 pm

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-robert-durst-arrested-in-la-murder-case-20150315-story.html#page=1







I wasn't watching the documentary, but remember something about his history. Super rich guy wearing drag, killing a neighbor, dismembering the body and throwing it in Biscayne Bay. So we have a vanished wife, dead female friend and the guy he killed.. he never went to jail for any of these crimes- no charge, no charge ,not guilty by self defense while wearing high heels? :-k . If I had done those things..I don't think I'd want to take a chance on a documentary, I'd go on a long vacation in Europe. This story is Bizarre on so many levels.





Any thoughts?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31471
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:25 pm

He's bored living. He wanted to be caught, prosecuted and punished.



User avatar
Lunaluz
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:22 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Lunaluz » Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:36 pm

I have never been bored living.. some of my issues are about he never was charged and he was not guilty after dismembering a neighbor


User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14654
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby TexasFilly » Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:23 pm

This case will be in the news for a long time. It has so many bizarre story lines. I have lots of questions. Postin g from my phone but will pose them later in the week.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28144
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby mimi » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:32 am

They had those recordings for awhile. Gotta wonder why they didn''t arrest him until now?



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Kriselda Gray » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:56 am

I've been following the Durst case off-and-on for a while now, and this latest turn of events may be the strangest since he was arrested for shoplifting a sandwich in a Wegman's after skipping bail in Galviston (even though he had over $500 in his wallet - he just didn't want to pay for the sandwich.)



From what I understand, the filmmakers had consulted with an attorney after discovering the envelope with the handwriting that matched the note that had been sent to the police to tip them off to there being a body as Susan Berman's home, and were advised not to turn it over too quickly to avoid the possibility of having a court determine that they were acting as agents of the police and get evidence thrown out. It wasn't specified, but I think the concern was that if they took the information to the police immediately and then interviewed Durst further about the evidence, it might be construed as them interrogating him on behalf of the police without Durst being advised of his rights or allowed to have an attorney present.



I think the interviews were done sometime in 2013, and the envelope (and, presumably, any other evidence) was turned over to them sometime that year. One thing that was mentioned was that because the filmmakers don't watch all the footage at one time, they didn't discover the tape of him talking to himself in the bathroom until about 9 months later, at which point it was also turned over.



One question that's been raised about the "maybe confession" from the bathroom voice tapes is whether it will be admissible, or if it would be determined inadmissible because he had an expectation of privacy in the bathroom. I'm real curious to get the IALs opinion on that. Would that be an issue, or would any expectation of privacy have been annulled by the fact he knew he'd been wired with a live mike (and had been warned during a previous interview that the mike could pick up his voice when he was muttering to himself while they were taking a break.) Would claiming he'd forgotten he had the microphone on help him Amy, or would it be presumed that a reasonable person would remember they were wearing a mike? Also, would the fact that the interview was being conducted in a hotel room he did not rent have any effect on an expectation of privacy (if he might otherwise have had one?)



Thanks!!




ETA: regarding the timing of the arrest - I have no idea why they waited until now to arrest him, but I suspect that they didn't want to wait until after the last episode was shown with the "bathroom confession" on it was they didn't want him to hear that, panic and flee again. When they arrested him, he was already checking into his hotel under a false identity. The LAPD says the timing of the arrest wasn't related to the timing of the documentary, but I wouldn't see them as admitting that they left him out there even though they consider him dangerous just to help the filmmakers out.



Whatever the case, I tend to think he's guilty and hope that if he is, he'll finally get nailed for it.

User avatar
Lunaluz
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:22 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Lunaluz » Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:29 pm

He is 71 now.. perhaps his faculties aren't as sharp as they used to be? I know nothing about his upbringing,I assume he was raised in wealth, it might be interesting to find some information on what the family life was like. I found all that muttering to himself kind of strange. I think to myself.. but I don't mutter it out loud.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Kriselda Gray » Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:13 am

I had included these questions in my earlier post, but looking at the post, I realize it's probably a tl;dr mess, so I'm posting just the questions I had here in hopes someone will respond. :)



One question that's been raised about the "maybe confession" from the bathroom voice tapes is whether it will be admissible, or if it would be determined inadmissible because he had an expectation of privacy in the bathroom. I'm real curious to get the IALs opinion on that. Would that be an issue, or would any expectation of privacy have been annulled by the fact he knew he'd been wired with a live mike (and had been warned during a previous interview that the mike could pick up his voice when he was muttering to himself while they were taking a break.) Would claiming he'd forgotten he had the microphone on help him Amy, or would it be presumed that a reasonable person would remember they were wearing a mike? Also, would the fact that the interview was being conducted in a hotel room he did not rent have any effect on an expectation of privacy (if he might otherwise have had one?)


Thanks!!

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Maybenaut » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:29 am





I had included these questions in my earlier post, but looking at the post, I realize it's probably a tl;dr mess, so I'm posting just the questions I had here in hopes someone will respond. :)



One question that's been raised about the "maybe confession" from the bathroom voice tapes is whether it will be admissible, or if it would be determined inadmissible because he had an expectation of privacy in the bathroom. I'm real curious to get the IALs opinion on that. Would that be an issue, or would any expectation of privacy have been annulled by the fact he knew he'd been wired with a live mike (and had been warned during a previous interview that the mike could pick up his voice when he was muttering to himself while they were taking a break.) Would claiming he'd forgotten he had the microphone on help him Amy, or would it be presumed that a reasonable person would remember they were wearing a mike? Also, would the fact that the interview was being conducted in a hotel room he did not rent have any effect on an expectation of privacy (if he might otherwise have had one?)


Thanks!!







The fight, if there is one, is not going to be about reasonable expectation of privacy. It will be about whether the producers of this series were acting as agents of the government. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against the government. Private people can violate your constitutional rights all day long. The government can use whatever information comes as a result of someone other than the government violating your rights so long as those people were not acting as agents of the government (there's a whole body of caselaw for how to determine whether someone is acting as an agent of the government). I read an article somewhere (can't remember where I saw it), that said the producers of this series were very concerned about becoming agents of the government (I think I read that they came across a letter that was likely evidence of a crime and turned it over to police, but it was in the middle of their project, so they took careful steps to make sure they were not crossing the line as the interviews continued.)


User avatar
L00Kit
Posts: 4623
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: FEMA Camp Gift Shop

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby L00Kit » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:30 am

I know nothing about his upbringing,I assume he was raised in wealth


As per the background provided by Durst himself during the documentary, he remembers being very young when his dad called him over to a window and said "Son, look outside and wave bye-bye to mommy." Child-Durst looks out the window onto the roof to see his mother standing on the edge of said roof in her nightgown. Child-Durst complies by waving to mommy as she stands on roof's edge with the wind blowing her nightgown. Child-Durst goes to bed and never sees his mother again, for she had jumped of her own volition or had been goaded/dared/shamed into jumping off that roof.

The biggest family complaint Durst offers during the interview is that his father was never at home; delegating childcare and nurturing to house staff. With the Durst's being one of the top five real estate moguls in New York at that time, dad was always out doing far more important things than hugging, speaking to or listening to his children.

And yes, Durst family wealth was and still is extraordinary.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Kriselda Gray » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:44 pm

Thanks, Maybenaut! Yeah, the filmmakers were concerned about making sure the evidence they'd found would be able to be used in court. They consulted with an attorney who advised them against giving the cops the evidence right away in order to avoid the problem of their being viewed as agents of the police.



What they found was an envelope with Durst's return address on it (it was part of his letterhead set) that had handwriting that was virtually identical to handwriting on a note that had been sent to the police at the time of Susan Berman's murder letting cops know there was a "cadaver" at her address. In addition to the staggering similar handwriting, both the note and the envelope contained the same misspelling of "Beverly Hills." A handwriting expert that the filmmakers hired determined that the "cadaver" note and the envelope on Durst's letterhead were written by the same person. And while Durst acknowledging he wrote the one on the envelope but denied writing the "cadaver" note, when he was presented with isolated examples of the "Beverley Hills" as written on each document, he could not identify which one was his and which wasn't.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 586
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Fortinbras » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:31 pm

There are now questions to be answered about whether evidence used on the cable show can/will be used in court. Lots of details to be ironed out.





But I have a feeling that Durst will be crushed very much like O.J. Simpson in the Las Vegas case. Jurors will come to court already convinced that Durst is a murderer who slipped through previous trials and investigations and that this case is their one chance to sock it to him. The jury in this forthcoming trial would send Durst to death row even if he were charged with nothing more than an overdue library book.



User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14654
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby TexasFilly » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:15 pm

There are now questions to be answered about whether evidence used on the cable show can/will be used in court. Lots of details to be ironed out.


.






Such as?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31471
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:40 pm

The only question, as I see it, is the admissibility of the statement against interest. Hearsay, but subject to an exception as a statement against interest (a confession).



Durst's big problem is that to explain what he meant he'll almost certainly have to take the stand. And I suspect he'll face a better prosecutor than the one who tried to convict him in Texas.



User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Maybenaut » Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:52 am



The only question, as I see it, is the admissibility of the statement against interest. Hearsay, but subject to an exception as a statement against interest (a confession).



Durst's big problem is that to explain what he meant he'll almost certainly have to take the stand. And I suspect he'll face a better prosecutor than the one who tried to convict him in Texas.



At the risk of splitting hairs, I think the better argument is that it is admissible as an admission of a party opponent rather than a statement against interest. It'll be easier for the government to lay a foundation because for a statement against interest the witness must be "unavailable" to testify, meaning Durst would have to affirmatively invoke his 5th amendment right. The only foundation required for admission of a party opponent is that he said it, that it's offered to prove the count, and that a crime has been committed.



Fun fact: statements against interest and admissions of a party opponent are both considered hearsay in California, but are nevertheless admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule. Under the federal rules of evidence an admission of a party opponent is not even hearsay.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Kriselda Gray » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:08 pm

One article I read* noted that using the foliage against could potentially backfire and offered as examples of how that might happen the trials of Michael Jackson and Robert Blake. In both cases the prosecution entered clips from interviews as evidence against the defendant, and the defence attorneys were then able to get portions of the interviews where their client denied their involvement or other exchanges where the defendant spoke about the alleged crimes, but appeared to be more sympathetic which had the effect of humanizing him for the jury.





Also, in at least Blake's case, because he was able to use the less inflammatory segments from the interview, the defense attorney felt he could let the jury see and hear Blake deny he killed his wife without having to risk putting him on the stand. In both cases, the defendants were acquitted (though how much of that was attributable to the use and counteruse of the interviews is an open question.)





I think another concern might be that if the prosecution uses the interview and Durst goes ahead and testifies anyway, he could possibly claim that he was being sarcastic when he made the "killed them all, of course" statement. Personally, I don't think he was, but I can see how some might buy that argument.





*Sorry,i don't have a link. I've looked at so many stories on this case in the last few days that I honestly can't remember where I saw this... I hope Rikker can forgive me!!



















The only question, as I see it, is the admissibility of the statement against interest. Hearsay, but subject to an exception as a statement against interest (a confession).



Durst's big problem is that to explain what he meant he'll almost certainly have to take the stand. And I suspect he'll face a better prosecutor than the one who tried to convict him in Texas.









User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Dallasite » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:32 pm

I remember being fascinated with Durst's story when he killed Morris Black. Dullest & I love crime documentaries so she set up Jinxed to be recorded. I didn't even know about it. We watched every episode. For those who haven't seen it, it is well worth the time to watch. Robert Durst has serious mental problems.



User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14654
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby TexasFilly » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:10 pm

I read the affidavit in support of the search warrant in Houston. According to the affidavit, Durst testified in Galveston that he was with his wife over the Christmas holidays in 2000. Susan Berman's body was found on December 24,2000, and LE has records showing he was, in fact, in California. Further, the second Mrs. Durst (whom he married on December 11 or 12, 2000) told police back then that he did not spend the Christmas holidays with her and she didn't know where he was. She is an interesting character herself.





So, I am wondering what the State of Louisiana will do. Will they extradite him to California, or hold him in nola for trial on the gun charges? Who will DeGuerin hire as his local counsel in Los Angeles? Chip Lewis, another defense attorney has signaled the defense will include "this is all about Hollywood." That might play with a Texas jury, but will it work in LA?





I have to disagree with Stern about Durst wanting to get caught. DeGuerin et al. will charge him a shitload of money for this latest mess . DeGuerin's late law partner was Percy Foreman, a legal legend. Percy was once asked why he charged his clients such high fees, and he responded "Hell, if the juries won't punish them, somebody has to!"



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 6971
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a collaborative facility run by the U.S. And Canada
Contact:

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Kriselda Gray » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: the lawyer's high fees - :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31471
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:57 pm









The only question, as I see it, is the admissibility of the statement against interest. Hearsay, but subject to an exception as a statement against interest (a confession).



Durst's big problem is that to explain what he meant he'll almost certainly have to take the stand. And I suspect he'll face a better prosecutor than the one who tried to convict him in Texas.





At the risk of splitting hairs, I think the better argument is that it is admissible as an admission of a party opponent rather than a statement against interest. It'll be easier for the government to lay a foundation because for a statement against interest the witness must be "unavailable" to testify, meaning Durst would have to affirmatively invoke his 5th amendment right. The only foundation required for admission of a party opponent is that he said it, that it's offered to prove the count, and that a crime has been committed.



Fun fact: statements against interest and admissions of a party opponent are both considered hearsay in California, but are nevertheless admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule. Under the federal rules of evidence an admission of a party opponent is not even hearsay.









You're correct and not correct in California (the jurisdiction we're concerned about).





Under California Evidence Code §1220 party admissions are admissible. But the courts have also called those "statements against interest" even when one is a party admission and the party is available to testify. See, e.g., Arneson v. Fox (1980) 28 Cal.3d 440, 454, n.5: "The guilty plea is admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding on the independent ground that it is an admission against interest (Evid. Code, § 1220)."





Arneson cites §1220 and calls it an "admission against interest" even though that statute provides "Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action to which he is a party in either his individual or representative capacity, regardless of whether the statement was made in his individual or representative capacity. [Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299]."





Since the California Supreme Court calls it an "admission against interest" and admissible on that basis, so will I. And so will Durst's prosecutor.



User avatar
Lunaluz
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:22 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Lunaluz » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:55 pm

sorry I started this . my job does not give me a lot of time to respond .. I'll try to state my unlawyer questions over the weekend you all are are on the legal.. i am all about the reason



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 28144
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby mimi » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:19 pm









Judge in Texas Robert Durst Case Says He Left a ‘Perfectly Preserved’ Cat Head on Her Doorstep

By Jessica Roy





The Texas judge who presided over the 2003 case accusing Robert Durst of murdering his neighbor Morris Black says she believes Durst is a serial killer who practiced dismembering human bodies by cutting up animals. Durst was acquitted of the charges in that case, but was charged this weekend with the murder of his longtime friend Susan Berman.





Judge Susan Criss spoke with Inside Edition about her experiences with Durst, both during the case and after it ended. She claims Durst had seven different malamute dogs, all of whom he named Igor and who each met "very bizarre unnatural deaths."





"He practiced on those dogs and that's where he got some of those skills at cutting people up," Criss said.





In one recorded phone call Durst made from jail to his wife Debrah Charatan, Criss says Durst made a reference to "doing an Igor" on his brother, to which Charatan responded, "Stop! Stop! Stop Bob! This is recorded.'" Criss told Inside Edition she believes Durst used "Igor" to mean murder.









more:



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/robert-durst-cat-head.html?mid=twitter_nymag







Creepy guy.



User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14654
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby TexasFilly » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:37 pm

I think it's totally improper for this Judge to give these interviews.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31471
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:37 pm

:yeah:



User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 586
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

The Robert Durst Saga

Postby Fortinbras » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:36 am

It is not really hearsay - we have it straight from Durst and even in his own voice. Therefore no need to ferret through the list of hearsay exceptions.



There is a chain of custody issue about the recording - evidently they had that tape for more than a year before anyone paid attention to it.



And the defense can raise some dust about EXACTLY what is meant by the words and whether any words were lost from the recording, etc.





But those envelopes pretty much make the case, and it appears that the Second Mrs. Durst is greasing the skids for him (it's probably less risky than trying to divorce him).




Return to “American Culture & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests