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?)
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.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush
Waltz, bad nymph, for quick jigs vex!
Truth in a pangram:
Flummoxed by job, kvetching W. zaps Iraq.
SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.