Robert Durst Is JINXED: HBO Documentary Leads To Arrest For Murder Of Friend Susan Berman, Possible Ties To Other Cases
Image Courtesy Gerald Herbert/ AP
If Robert Durst was a fictional protagonist featured in Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling’s HBO’s docuseries The Jinx, he would be my favorite villain on cable right now. He is not. Durst is a slight man whose wallet is bigger than he is. Because he ignored the advice of the $2million dollar defense team that won him an acquittal on murder charges of his neighbor Morris Black in Galvaston- he is now facing a first degree murder charge in Los Angeles.
Durst is accused of killing his long-time friend turned publicist Susan Berman in 2000 after she informed him police from Westchester County, NY sought an interview with her about Kathie Durst’s disappearance in 1982. This was also immediately after Berman cashed a check from Durst for $50,000. Berman’s killer sent a note to LAPD indicating there was a cadaver at her residence the day Durst boarded a plane from San Francisco to New York. When Durst was confronted with this information his response was, “California is a big state.” It is believed that Durst may have used Berman’s mob boss Father’s contacts to dispose of his wife’s remains in “The Pines” of New Jersey.* During filming, Susan Berman’s son located a letter to Susan from Bobby Durst which he provided to Jarecki. The nearly identical block print style is further complimented by the exact same misspelled word- BEVERLEY.
HBO
Neither Jarecki nor Smerling have commented directly on the authenticity of the chronology of the series after editing of The Jinx. In other words, it is unclear when Jarecki formed the opinion he was interviewing the man responsible for the murder of his best friend and confidant- and likely at least two others. It IS clear that the title, The Jinx, reflects Durst’s self-assessment.
Durst was arrested in New Orleans on Saturday evening; the night before the series finale aired on HBO.
Kathleen Durst, Robert Durst’s first wife, disappeared following what Durst described as a “pushing and shoving” kind of argument at their West Salem, NY home. Durst states in The Jinx that he is complicit in her disappearance because his behavior drove her to leave him and her fourth year of medical school- but that’s all. At the time, Ms. Durst had recently proposed a divorce settlement through her lawyer which Mr. Durst declined. Kathie Durst has never been located and was declared legally dead in 2001. The couple was the basis for the loosely fictionalized film, All Good Things, which was Jarecki’s first crack at Durst and the impetus for Durst to contact Jarecki after seeing it. Durst audaciously proposes and agrees to participate in ‘Jinx’.
“… Is he crazy enough to participate?…” - Andrew Jarecki
” The downside to me about giving an interview is that the interviewer will take what I have said to make me look as bad as possible.” – Robert Durst
“… The upside is that there will be something out there from me, I mean this whole time since I have gotten out of prison, I’ve said nothing to nobody about anything… I will be able to tell it my way and if somebody is reasonably open to a different story or a different situation than what has been put in the media, they’ll have an opportunity to believe it…” – Robert Durst
“… Look, I know you want to tell your story it’s important to you, and that’s fine by me but I want you to remember one thing. You run the risk of pissing people off and people that have intentions contrary to your liberty, don’t forget that.” – Chip Lewis, Durst Atty
Bob Durst, the eldest son of Seymour and Bernice Durst was still in his tender years when his Father summoned him to wave to his Mother standing on the roof of the family home in her nightie. Seconds later Mrs. Durst leapt to her death. In his own words for the first time, Durst recounts many of his family foibles in the six part HBO series. Some highlights include the fact that over a dozen members of his family have permanent restraining orders against him and he was acquitted of trespassing at his brother Douglas Durst ‘s home while the series was being edited.
‘Jinx’ masterfully elicits answers from Durst he has never before allowed to be asked of him on camera without a subpoena. Bobby Durst’s one-on-one interview footage is the equivalent of watching a curious zoo exhibit. As the animal on display he is a hybrid between a bijou baby chimp alternating scratching his head and quirky facial tics and the predatory poise of a carnivorous jackal protecting and simultaneously marking his territory. Durst was arrested for urinating on a cash register and a display of candy at a Houston CVS in June 2014.
This time around in the courtroom, Bob’s still largely-intact legal team will be defending a murder charge in the city of Angels where Durst is now likely considered somewhat of a celebrity due to the wildly popular miniseries in his honor. While most legal analysts agree that overcoming the odds of a man appearing to be speaking to his alter ego in the restroom on a hot mic actually admitting he ‘killed them all, of course”, is herculean even by LA’s celebrity acquittal record- there are the very obvious indications that Durst suffers from a spectrum of personality disorders. However, as Durst did consent to the interview and was told that the interview was completed, his commentary could be precluded from admission at trial as his “admission” and subsequent statements made by him were uttered with the expectation of privacy and not part of the interview. In an earlier episode Durst began speaking to himself without realizing the mic was still hot and producers informed him.
The LAPD has been quick to deny there is any link to The Jinx and the timing of Durst’s arrest one day before the season finale. In the handful of interviews Jarecki and Smerling gave just prior to the curtain call of reality that they are likely now witnesses in the murder case, Jarecki says that LAPD has had both the audio recording and the newly discovered letter to Berman for many months. On the surface considering Berman’s case is fifteen years cold, the timing does seem uncanny. Jeanine Pirro, former Westchester County District Attorney and chief bird dog in renewing her agencies vigor in the missing person case of Kathie Durst for six years -does not share the LAPD sentiment.
“…“These two producers did what law enforcement in three states could not do in 30 years, kudos to them. They were meticulous, they were focused, they were clear.” Jeanine Pirro
The prosecution in the Berman murder has its challenges in a high profile case where it cannot be disputed that evidence gleaned during the filming of “The Jinx” implicates Durst- IF -one is to believe in the forensic significance of document examination. One thing is certain- if expert testimony of the comparison of the letter Durst wrote Berman on his letterhead and the envelope and letter Durst himself states “could only come from the killer” revealed during the taping is admitted at trial, Durst will likely have a compelling explanation for it. It’s his thing. He chopped up a man and dumped him in the bay-sans his head, and convinced a jury he did that in self defense. This author is doubtful that had Durst not proposed the series of interviews that he would have been charged in Berman’s murder at all. Jarecki and HBO et al deserves Ms. Pirro’s kudos if indeed Jarecki went into the project objectively and investigatively.
Before Durst faces that left coast criminal court machine, he must answer the instant charges against him in New Orleans for firearm and drug possession- both of which were located in his hotel room when he was arrested on the Los Angeles warrant. As this article is scheduled to be published a source within the LAPD who is not authorized to comment on the case publicly, has confirmed to BlinkOnCrime that their office is receiving a flurry of calls from other agencies handling missing persons cases of young women.
And so it begins.
( *Authors note: I know, the thought of her out there with Adriana’s carcass to boot is too much to bear)
Related Posts
Related Posts:
285 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Blink respondedMom3.0 says:
May 7, 2015 at 10:55 pm
comment-page-5/#comment-2243804
Again- the glaucoma surgery is new to me. She did go to a show the 22nd so at the very least she was solid enough for that- however, wouldn’t that preclude her from night travel?
–
yes I would have thought so Blink-
Thinking….It seems that Brenner was supposed to be looking after her in the days after her surgery- and did although she managed to fall regardless of that care-
He was often called to the home even when Susan was well- at all times day or night- to help her even with little tasks such a changing a light bulb- How in the world did the killer know that Susan would be alone that night- given this info and all info you have highlighted such as Sarebs car etc…
you wrote:
The heat off ( she did have a wood fireplace, but I did not see any evidence of stored wood) will of course lower the inhome ambient temp- under 55 degrees constantly over the few days would ( sorry, and winds if there were) thwart insect infestation associated with decompositional events. HOWEVER, I dO NOT believe the temp would have been cold enough to not be considered in the autopsy protocol as a factor that slowed decomp or autolys. Most especially not the internal GI events that immediately follow instantaneous death. The finding of death on the 23rd had better be substantiated through science is what I am getting at because for me that is too tight of a window for a prosecutorial theory.
B
Thankyou for walking us thru this info-
I agree – which brings to mind the dogs and OTHER wildlife not just insects- the door was open the dogs were in the room —
excuse graphic language- was her body disturbed- other than turned over- (btw could the dogs have nudged her over?)were her wounds licked clean? KIM whodunits coyote talk who says coyotes are common-
IMO she hadnt been lying there long not with door open….
Or closed for that matter….
Have you ever read Geralds Game by Stephen King? No matter how “princely” a pet may have been at some point nature takes over and with widlife in general IRT blood and decomp wafting… “hunger” is the driving force-
So that leaves me thinking about that door open- noone can be sure when or by whom it was left ajar…which to me means the writer of the cadaver letter need not be “the killer” but in truth might be an innocent who stumbled upon the scene and didnt want to be identified
AGreed TOD is tricky and agreed on yr thoughts:
The finding of death on the 23rd had better be substantiated through science is what I am getting at because for me that is too tight of a window for a prosecutorial theory B
end
AJMOpeace
mom 3.0 writes:
Perhaps Durst did visit Susan and found his long time friend dead- turned her over in shock- grief and kindness- – then realizing he could not save her- and could not leave her unattended- at the same time knowing that the media and the courts would never believe him to be innocent but instead would crucify him- he decided the only thing to do was to flee the scene paying little mind to the back door open or the gate nor the doggies-
then doing his best to “right” it – he wrote/sent the letter that would alert authorities to the scene and to his longtime friend
——–
this would be a great position for the defense to take if this ever came to trial. His concern about being persecuted unjustly by Pirro got him declared guilty in the Black Case- and what you present is the same kind of defense, that he was concerned about how it would make him look so did the next best thing in alerting the police to cadaver.
BUT, if the premise is that he cared so much for his friend that upon discovering her dead body he wrote a otter, why didnt he care ENOUGH to alert the police immediately in the best effort to find her killer???
here is a link to california laws regarding crime of being “accessory after the fact”
http://www.shouselaw.com/accessory-after-fact.html#1.2
But in a lyemns interpretation Durst doesn’t really qualify as an accessory after the fact is he had no idea who killed german and just witnessed it.
HOWEVER- look at this-
United States federal law[edit]
“Misprision of felony” is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.[7]
The Federal misprision of felony statute is usually only used in prosecutions against defendants who have a special duty to report a crime, such as a government official.[8]
Interpetingthe above info, I am NOW wondering if Durst was smart enough to anticipate all angles, and if he sent the cadaver letter as a way of ” reporting” the crime, so he would not be accused of trying to conceal it.
I still think someone else was involved in Berman’s murder besides Durst.
Who- great points, however, if I were Durst’s counsel and let’s say Mom 3.0 potential theory is in play- the very first thing I would argue is that I in fact, did, alert to the potential felony- I contacted LE, via “cadaver” letter.
Heck- maybe he just looked in the window when she did not answer.
We agree- if Durst was directly at the scene, and for me, I am not at all comfortable he was, than he was not alone.
B
TYPO:
I wrote His concern about being persecuted unjustly by Pirro got him declared guilty in the Black Case
meant to write
His concern about being persecuted unjustly by Pirro got him declared NOT guilty in the Black Case
mom 3,0 writes:
? KIM whodunits coyote talk who says coyotes are common-
——
yes they are common and seriously an out of control population here, especially in the canyons! HOWEVER, they are also extraordinarily clever and so tuned into survival that they will drop prey if you wave arms and yell… (and this I know from personal experience when one grabbed the smallest of my five dogs by her head in a “death grip” with the coyotes jaws clamped on top on skull and bottom of jaw (picture a coyote biting onto dogs face over snout. I ran toward it waving arms and shrieking, it dropped and ran.) Was told by vet this is what coyotes do- and this skittishness is actually just another defense mechanism that helps them stay alive. This is a long winded way of saying that I wouldn’t see a coyote entering a house that was not deserted for a long time, and if they did, it would be to eat something- and no reports of animal bites or evidence that she had been preyed upon by larger animals.
The idea of being chewed by animals after death is so sensational that I would imagine the press, especially in hollywood, would have seized on it, don’t you?
My point about the coyotes had to do with figuring out if she had needed a flashlight to survey them if she had let them out upon returning after the movie. Most pet owners in the canyons do keep a close eye o=n their small dogs if they even let them out of the house at night..
sorry for off topic digression about coyotes, I just want to put that mind of your to work with anything that might help!!
another not so fun fact but part of every canyon living small dog owner data base out here:
Coyotes are drawn to high pitched barks and yelps that signify small dogs are in the area, and have been known to stalk a house based on sounds from the dogs within. Again , personal experience. I saw a coyote in my garden one morning and alerted the kids to this in the ” look how wonderful it is that we live so close to nature” category. It was this coyote who seized our smallest dog a couple of hours later.. the coyote had been waiting.
Who- that broke my heart. How absolutely dreadful. Mid winter this year was the first time we learned there were coyotes in the woods behind our home. Our property is multiple acres traversed by a creek and a heavy wood line, but it dips down and when Harper goes out at night she barks at the tree line because she thinks it is barking back at her ( canyon effect). We never take her off lead unless she is sitting with us in the garden, and I can tell you God forbid if that coyote ever got any closer or I ever see it, I will shoot it in an instant. Sorry if anyone is offended by that but my neighbor ran across a rabid groundhog last year and we take no chances.
B
Mom3.0
With regards to the glaucoma surgery for Berman, it would depend on what the procedure accomplished. If it was laser surgery, more than likely she would be out of commission for a single day.
Glaucoma is a disease of the eye that affects the flow of fluid in the eye. Interocular pressure buildup causes pain and a distortion of the lens so that it makes it difficult to see. My father lived with this for ten years. He was given drops to help hold the drain tubes open to reduce internal pressure. With the better knowledge and equipment of today, including laser surgery, there are several things that could be done to try to keep the interocular pressure in the proper range for an individual. Night and day vision are affected alike when the pressure is not within the range where normal vision occurs.
blink wirtes:
Who- that broke my heart.
—-
HANG ON- I thought I had conveyed that the coyote dropped and released our little ” Rainbow”, at the sound and fury exhibited by me! A trip to the vet, ONE stitch, and a two day IV left her safe and back in our home within three days. My point was that coyotes are very skittish and can be deterred with just a sound, even another dog barking will deter them unless they are rabid or starving. SO PLEASE KNOW WE HAD A HAPPY ENDING. I am so sorry if I didnt stress this in my digression into coyotes in these parts!!
Blink writes:
Sorry if anyone is offended by that but my neighbor ran across a rabid groundhog last year and we take no chances.
B
—
as a rural midwesterner who grew up in seasonal “hunting territory” I am not offended by property owners who defend their homes and pets against predatory animals, so no offense taken here, politically incorrect as it may be to some.
California law regarding coyotes
Legal Status
Coyotes have no special protection in California and may be killed by any method that is not prohibited by federal, state, or local statutes. Since the passage of a state ballot initiative measure in November 1998, leghold traps cannot be used to capture coyotes except in situations where a human health and safety emergency has been declared by designated officials, or in selected situations where the existence of an endangered species is threatened by predation. Toxicants or poisons used to control coyotes are illegal, with the exception of fumigant cartridges available only to predator control specialists to asphyxiate coyote pups in their dens. No chemical repellents are registered for use in repelling coyotes from property or from livestock.
The situations in which coyotes cause damage are quite variable, and therefore strategies and solutions to resolve these problems also must be tailored to individual situations. Professional wildlife damage management specialists who are employed by federal, state, or county agencies can be very helpful in evaluating coyote damage and in assisting landowners to develop appropriate management strategies for specific situations. Contact your county agricultural commissioner or county Cooperative Extension office to obtain information about professionals who can control coyotes, or telephone the United States Department of Agriculture, California Wildlife Services state office at 916-979-2675, or see the Wildlife Services Web site.
LOL- phew, that made my day
B
blink writes:
Who- great points, however, if I were Durst’s counsel and let’s say Mom 3.0 potential theory is in play- the very first thing I would argue is that I in fact, did, alert to the potential felony- I contacted LE, via “cadaver” letter.
——-
Dursts lawyer told him not to do the Jinx (as seen in the documentary itself)
This means not only that Durst doesn’t always listen to his council, but perhpaps more importantly- his counsel was made aware of Durst’s decision to do it. H e either consulted with this lawyer or told him after the fact, though it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Durst would have signed the contracts he did sign for the Jinx without having them vetted by some kind of legal professional.
And if he DIDNT have an attorney look at those contracts, would it preclude the statements he made on film as being considered evidence, because Durst was unable to understand the documents he was given to sign?? In that case, it would have been a smart move NOT to have those contracts vetted by attorney….
Why does this matter?
Because I am trying to envision what would happen if Durst had TOLD his lawyers that he either found susan Berman dead, or knew she had been killed, or worse, been directly involved- and his lawyer advised him to IMMEDIATELY send the cadaver letter, in order to make sure that Durst complied with the Calif. requirement to report felonies to authorities.
Charatan , in recorded jail conversations with Durst told him to stop talking on more than one occasion, and it is theorized that she added to the conversation in a way that would keep Durst safe, when, for example, she said re: Durst being found with guns at his brothers residence- Charatan said ” they knew your were going to comitt suicide” or words to that effect. When Durst said he looked in the window and “felt like doing an Igor” Charatan abruptly halted the conversation.
So what was/ is Durst’s legal team to do when/if Durst tells them something that alludes to guilt? They would say ” don’t tell me”, I would assume.
Is there any circumstance under which attorney client privilege can be revoked?
And just how long has he had these lawyers on retainer???
Who- great questions, but I think it prudent we assume a few things with this caliber of legal talent and tenure.
1. No way are they ever going to phrase questions to their client which would inculpate him. Most criminal defense attorneys I know polygraph some prospective clients by their investigator as a barometer.
2. Atty client privilege is sacrosanct. Their are a few scenarios I can think of that would qualify as exigent where just that portion of the relationship is exempt ( direct threat to safety, impending threat to others) but in most cases it would still require a court order from the Atty’s bar. A client can provide their permission for a full waiver- by counsel can oppose that if it is against their advice.
2. Charatan’s major motivation at the time was to do her part to assist in Durst’s defense which she clearly understood the concept of “no expectation of privacy” better than he. She knew there was a push for a mental defect defense and she knew that would likely end in an annulment for them and the nearly 1/3 of Durst settlement cut was her fee for her trouble, apparently. In my view, Charatan would be the tougher cookie to crumble of the two. That said, she is involved in a romantic relationship with one of Durst’s counsel who is still on retainer so maybe she is looking for an out, now?
B
A little Coyotes hint. We too have Coyotes and we had a “sick” one come right up to our dinning room window and peer in. My neighbor took care of the problem. We also had a Goose problem. Anyone that has had to deal with them know they poop everywhere. The same neighbor that took care of our sick Coyote went to Kinkos and had a life size copy of a Coyote made out of plastic and posted it in the “Goose Loo area” and poof..no more Goose poop.
LOL- Yay for your neighbor! We actually have 2 geese that like clockwork, visit in the am, fly over head a few times late afternoon to the creek and then plop in the back of the yard until Harper barks them out, lol, if I have the deck doors open.
I named them Ralph and Alice, and Harper knows them by name if I mention them she runs to the door or certain windows and starts barking.
B
blink wirtes:
IF… le advised that whole scenario with the intent to use same as evidence should it be produced- I can also bet my bippy it WILL BE TOSSED under the entrapment standards test. It will never see the inside of the courtroom under that auspice or 404.
—–
100 percent sure that: LE response to Jareki calling them and telling them that he believed he had incriminating evidence. LE said ” we will not discuss this with you, it is an ongoing investigation”- or words to that effect, and that instead, LE told filmmakers to contact the DA.
Is working with the DA by giving footage/ documentation to them the same thing as working as an agent of the state?
ABSOLUTELY- in fact, it’s worse- because that means they were engaged in contemplation of a criminal investigation with an active file within the DA/LAPD relationship. In other words- they are being advised LEGALLY as opposed to the prior stages to that process. And that is assuming that there are no investigative warrants issued from them during that process ( means there was an active gj investigation)
B
blink writes:
– they are being advised LEGALLY as opposed to the prior stages to that process.
——
But the filmmakers were not instructed by the DA in any way. The DA did not engage them, they merely listened- filmmakers went to LE and DA because of duty to report, with full knowledge of what they (filmmakers) could and could not do, from a legal standpoint point, and what repercussions would exist. Multiple lawyers were engaged by filmmakers throughout the entire documentary, and unlike Durst, they listened and followed that advice, from what I am given to understand.
MY question would be more along the lines of WHAT did the DA do with this information. They may not even ” need” anything from the Jinx in terms of what Durst said.I am now wondering if unwittingly, the filmmakers had been ” used”, as opposed to thinking that the filmmakers were manipulating…
They are currently making another installment fro HBO as follow up to the Jinx. I hope many of these questions will be addressed, as filmmakers are aware of agent of state rumors.
In the meantime, if Durst ever comes before Los Angeles judge, I still think he would walk.
Who- with much respect, if the DA (elected position and highest officer of LAW ENFORCEMENT in LA county) consulted about ANY advice relative to an open criminal matter by definition that is work product. Work product used expressly to explore criminal evidence. Jarecki expressly says so ( I don’t want to create more evidence) in Jinx. In the car Marc says he spoke with Coulter and that he “dug really deep today.”
So I can’t be specific, but I have worked on a case where major evidence (interpreted by our camp as incredibly damning to the suspect) was NOT presented at trial because there were some questions as to how it came about and could jeopardize timeline- but was in no way exculpatory. If this thing ever gets an indictment, and i would offer to you I have serious doubts about that in LA county because we believe the land of make believe can make us believe anything- it ever will, I could see the prosecution stipulating they never use any of the Jinx and agree to positing the question in vior dire. This is why I believe that LAPD came out with the statement Durst’s arrest had nothing to do with the Jinx. Let’s be honest, we all know the DA had no choice because he was fleeing and this case was anything but ready for indictment. Does that matter? Not at present because the feds stepped in.
The problem we are going to have in the future ( and keep in mind, the Federal system is full-on adversarial as opposed to State) is how the Feds came upon the warrants for the surveillance activity of Durst in the first place. He was not on parole or probation and free to travel and withdraw funds that belonged to him and in some states, the law allows for someone to legally change their name as long as they can show they are not doing so to avoid creditors or pending criminal charges and as we know- he was never even declared a suspect and to your point, Jarecki pointing a finger does not count. I believe Durst sought counsel in his steps as well and one of his lawyers is on record stating same. Why does that matter?
Because the Feds were there to exercise a State arrest warrant, however, it was in fact them who were surveilling him at the DIRECTION of the DA in that instance, so here we ago with agency. They were working in tandem, and when the Fed case gets to court- you can be sure DeGeurin et al will attack this case at the heart of it- the ensuing investigation and all things developed Jinx that fed warrants going forward.
Right now, my opinion has not changed in the least about the possibility of Durst facing murder charges in LA for the Berman homicide- slim and none.
o/t: Do you know who was howl/barking ( that is my name for it- it is creepy) in the woods last night for the first time in months? How freaky is that?
B
Blink
Thank you so much for all the information! Simply the best and it is very helpful – I have to say that it took me a while to view the Jinx as ending up ultimately as simply probing and provocative entertainment than searing indictment, and that is because of you, Ode, mom 3.0, TGF’s diligence.
As far as that durn coyote of yours howling in the woods, oh I know that sound so well.There are nights at my house when it sounds like some unholy pagan ritual.Fierce yelps ricocheting off the canyon hills, the sound of blood.
And now, because of our off topic fugue, coyotes makes me think of Durst- finding a way to survive in any climate, cunning and elusive,with a mysterious, compelling charm …..
Who- there is no doubt there will be effects on Durst’s cases from Jinx- as much as I can foresee both sides in some instances wanting to distance the entertainment factor from the reality- I can actually see the defense in favor of using it- in conjunction with the detail that the DA was involved in dramatizing their version of a forced confession outside of miranda, lol. The possibilities for this to aid in Durst’s defense from a criminal justice perspective are huge. And I know a few attorney’s in the region that have already offered pro bono help so if this ever does go to trial-
B
blink writes:
I can actually see the defense in favor of using it- in conjunction with the detail that the DA was involved in dramatizing their version of a forced confession outside of miranda,
—-
so question:
IF the DA was merely the recipient of the things that filmmakers felt were important to show lE, and the DA did nothing , said nothing, had no comment on the documentary and no comment on items presented, nothing to say to Filmakers at all, you are saying that filmmakers are agents of State? ( the letter sareb letter obviously happened during the shoot, but the ” bathroom confession” was discovered as I understand it, months after the wrap and in a routine sound editing process) My point is, at what point does a citizen turning in evidence become an agent of the state, and is that dependent on LE and DA instructing that citizen.
Under this exact scenario, on it’s face, if it is “evidence” gleaned solely through the process and no consults occur with any LEA’s or the DA (picture this- Mr. DA- this may or may not be pertinent to the investigation of the homicide of Susan Berman- here you go. Mr. DA: it may or may not be, I would not be in a position to discuss that with you. However, we know (based on statements and representations both in the Jinx and in subsequent interviews that there WAS consultation with LEA during the process and if to be believed and can be proven, that netted potential evidence resulting in criminal charges of murder, with an aggravator against Durst.
To your point, I have personally worked on cases and provided inculpatory information under scenario A ( this would be non-retained) and that conversation starts like this- I have information that may or may not be germane to your investigation and don’t tell me either way unless you want this information discoverable. That is he bottom line here really- what is discoverable will define the scope of it’s use and interpretation in the criminal matter- THAT SAID- I heard DeGeurin loud and clear in his interview on Durst’s arrest and stopping shy of using the word “hoodwinked” I would bet the farm that their will be civil injunctions and remedies sought based on the contracts of all involved that went into the project.
One thing Durst is masterful at is hiring the right folks to present his interests, imo. Not saying Jarecki wouldn’t either, I really only make that assumption, but here’s the thing- do we think Durst got a deal where he ended up with profit or royalties for use from this work? If so, that becomes a whole nother “horse of a different garage” as my friend from Montclair used to quip.
I will go out on a limb here and say that it is my impression that the filmmakers did not coerce or blindsight Durst with the letter confrontation ON BEHALF of the DA or LE, but rather they were motivated by their own desires to have Durst on film responding , as part of their own process.- I also believe Durst absolutely knew that the cadaver letter would be discussed in this second interview- but I cannot imagine that Sareb or filmmakers alerted Durst to the other letter.
You may be right Who, but I don’t share that opinion just yet- I recall seeing Sareb outside the offices which could only be following “the confrontation”. Keep in mind, there is a TON of footage we have never seen, this was a highly edited piece and we know the interview occurs almost 2 years later. I believe Durst knew from the first interview , or at least prior to the second that he would be confronted as I opined early on. I think Durst did his share of dog wagging once he saw how this was going
Not saying people don’t lie, not saying that LE often dont play by the rules, but isn’t it findable data re: contact and content of any discussions LE and DA had?
Unequivocally- Durst team will be entitled to every chain of custody, every LE report, every personnel record, every discoverable (under the law) cocktail napkin and based on my training, education and experience, his legal team will find what they are looking for and exploit to their advantage. Take Fuhrman as an example of what a criminal defense team has access to in a criminal trial. In theory, it is because in a prosecution the light of evidence is to be considered favorable to the prosecution ( presumption). I have been on both sides professionally of that cadre and I can tell you almost 100% of the time- media or media related high profile cases benefit greatly… the defense. I don’t think Jarecki is the sort to play along if LE were to try to mitigate the damage ( as they already have) by capitulating that he dramatized the statements about interaction with LE- that would be a huge slam to his credibility as a filmmaker, imo. Here’s the thing as you know- The Jinx was and is brilliant entertainment about a very real subject matter which as a result, has affected potential outcomes in multiple criminal and civil matters. The only thing better might have been if Durst had made it to Cuba and was driving around Castro’s compound in the maroon 450SL.
Well maybe that AND if it was really Doug Durst pretending to be Robert they found in the hotel in LA. Maybe I should consider screenwriting consults, LOL.
and IF this contact happened AFTER the documentary was completed, ( meaning “in the can” edited totally but missing only sound editing ) where does that put the agent of the state/viability of jinx as evidence scenario?
Unless they were lying on camera, or intend to state that they were- I don’t see this as a possibility but in theory if it could be proven- in my view although the defense would argue it- that is correct- there is no agency relationship created and in effect the production is just really providing tips as civilians. Here is how you know there is no way that is going to go down like that- Somehow, somewhere someone dropped this ball, “this ball” being one we are not aware of yet. I know this because I also know that the LA DA had NO EARTHLY IDEA that the Feds were going to charge Durst. Before that, Jarecki had a junkett set up for WEEKS on JINX and it was cancelled after the first interview upon the advice of counsel- AND…. notice that discussion publicly about a pending criminal case where one has direct knowledge that information could obfusicate or obstruct a criminal matter is subject to criminal charges. So very plainly- Jarecki’s team went silent, as they should, and the fact that they did speaks volumes to me about ultimately what went on. It was not because the timeline represented was impossible and made no sense, it was because his lawyers, likely both civil and criminal said STFU until and at such time we tell you otherwise.
Again, not intending to disrespect Jarecki et al or the work- but unless it is done 100% by the book- I am going to suggest that how this was handled could result in Durst’s additional “double jeopardy out” in a crime I feel he had involvement. Not cool.
Here is where I am going:
If I report information to a DA and the DA says thanks , don’t want to talk to you about this. Does the act of turning over that information to DA make me an agent of the state?
No. And I should note that it will be a legal decision if the State does not come right out and say “was acting as an agent of the state” where a Judge will make that call if I had not made that clear previously. The defense can’t just unilaterally introduce that argument
If the DA says,
” every interesting, do you think you can get him on film discussing such and such?”, and I say NO> does that make me an agent of the state.
Yes who, very likely it will- subject to the standards/means test in the case law. Here’s how it would not- if the DA took the information and passed it to their investigators, probable cause warrants were filed, and through their own investigative avenues secured said evidence, without “interplay” or consult, one could not be considered an “agent”. Now.. there is some potential for discrepancy if say any former LEA was contracted privately and there was no direct involvement with any current LEA’s to include the DA. That said, Jarecki is going to end up on the stand subject to cross regardless.
If DA takes info from me with no response, but never the less puts that into to use their OWN investigative purposes, does that make me an agent of state, albeit unwittingly?? Not likely. Being an agent of the state is an active role, not a passive one
and final, bore you to tears student teacher question:
Can LE use information gathered via entertainment /public news/ overheard at a gas station etc. as justification for surveillance??
Absolutely if it is meritous. It would be subject to probable cause for the warrant and in most states corroborated and/or certified via affidavit for “use.”
I have written a search warrant narrative and affidavit for someone based on a spray painted symbol on the inside of a garage. It was limited scope, but led to an ultimate arrest and conviction. Sometimes it’s baby steps, but Irt today’s investigators are realizing in high profile case, everything they do is going to subject to public scrutiny.
Who- me above in bold.
B
How could Durst be suspected of fleeing without any connection to The Jinx? As you pointed out, like it or not, Durst was a free man to do whatever he wanted.
Is this like OJ getting busted for illegal sale of property in Vegas, as a consolation prize for LA DA’s that couldn’t make the murder charges stick?
Thanks for your tolerance professor
BLINK
MUCHAS GRACIAS!!!
Understood every thing you are saying.
Am very curious about content of the upcoming installment that Jareki is providing for HBO. Have a 99 percent feeling it is so under wraps that no one will know anything til it is aired, will try to find projected air date at least..
blink , one final thing to note:
Jareki had team of six lawyers from the get go advising the filmmakers. Also, Jareki has more accessible funds that Durst, MUCH more. Reminder again that Jareki put 4 mill into the doc BEFORE he had even sold it.
Douglas Durst has the ability to freeze whatever money Robert has, now that it has been proven that Durst voided conditions of family durst fund settlement by handing over footage of the family fund hearings.
Will be interesting to see how the money versus money thing plays out- (remember also that de guerin asked for addition 600 k in Black case, upping the defense pay to nearly two million- which made Durst unhappy but clear;y showed that DeGuerin is capable of walking if his own needs aren’t met- and regardless of lawyers standing by to work probono, De Guerin seems irreplacable. )
Who- I am not sure why/how you have come to the conclusion that Jarecki has more liquid than Durst- but I have not researched Jarecki assets/portfolio.
As far as Durst forfeiting any agreements by participating in Jinx- Doug attempted to sue Jarecki only to find out Robert had given permissions for things he was objecting to, I cant speak to that without reviewing the contracts, but I would not be inclined to think the issue that simple when we are dealing with major legal assets on both sides.
B
blink writes:
Who- I am not sure why/how you have come to the conclusion that Jarecki has more liquid than Durst- but I have not researched Jarecki assets/portfolio.
——————————————————-
Blink
here is a perspective:
family background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jarecki
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/1030/091.html
This contains reference to movie phone, a site founded by henry with his son Andrew, and which sold for 450 million in around 1998
http://www.app.com/story/news/2014/05/16/billionaire-earned-first-buck-asbury-park/2209894/
I certainly agree that your research concludes that the Jarecki family net worth is impressive and well, substantially larger than Robert Durst’s personal holdings for certain- estimated at about $100 million. I don’t know how that stacks up in a Jarecki v Durst personal portfolio, or how if we compare family holdings and assets in Durst family fortune ( which he appears to be divested from) contest.
We agree we are dealing with extreme wealth.
B
Blink
another example of Andrew Jareki personal value system:
http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/13-7224559/nancy-andrew-jarecki-charitable-trust-foundation.aspx
I am a big fan of the philanthropic- thanks Who.
B
thank you Blink Ode Who for the interesting analysis.
I had thot this Durst case too complex to chew, but you all
masticate & spit out analysis beautifully. I am a bit jealous
I have no coyote to defend my dog from. My dau’s school is swamped
with aggressive geese & their detritus, so I am trying to figure
how kinkos can help me with a coyote replica.
Just checking in- I thought that the trial for the federal charges of possession of a gun was set for September 22, but I can’t find anything on the internet that reflects it has happened…. Blink, any update?
It did not who- the last reference on the docket was to advise both sides to keep 9-22 through 10-2 open for the Evidentiary Hearing- last memos hit on 9/16 and there is nothing on Berrigan’s calendar for argument until October 21st. This docket has become the war and peace on the gun charge and I would NOT be at all surprised if it is not scheduled because Berrigan may rule on the suppression via the briefs/resp/memos which would render a suppression hearing moot. DeGeurin is masterful- he even got Berrigan to vacate the magistrate Judge’s decision to deny Durst access to the handwriting exemplars which are referenced in several warrants. I did a presentation on the material issue here 2 months ago and fwiw, I won my argument amongst colleagues, lol- The case law is very specific on the fourth amendment right to privacy for overnight guests (JW Marriott) and JWM lost it’s bid to quash their subpoenas as well. I will be shocked if this goes to trial- I believe Berrigan will grant the motion to suppress based on the illegal search and un-mirandized questioning by the FBI agents. They physically removed his key from his pocket after observing him, and now they are saying several people recognized him from the Jinx- and they overhead them and thus why they confronted him, ftlog. What a mess.
I can tell you if/when it does happen, there is already an order in place barring phones or any electronic devices of any kind for non parties to protect the ID of witnesses that have been submitted under seal.
B
Blink- thank yo so much for the update!!
further:
I believe Berrigan will grant the motion to suppress based on the illegal search and un-mirandized questioning by the FBI agents.
—–
I recall reading a spin on the discovery of the gun and pot as being that, in the process of arresting him on attempt to flee or whatever they stopped him on in the first place, they were clearing out his room to collect his stuff and take him to jail and discovered the gun and pot. Another story I recall was that they found him on the lobby and he, in essence, ” gave himself up” to them. They then followed him to his room for him to get his things and he Durst said,” I have a gun over there” or something like that .
There was admittedly just all kinds of gobbled gook over the initial arrest in the first place.
Durst makes teflon look sticky, just saying.
Here is the major problem with that as I see it- According to SA Perry- Durst was under Federal investigation separately and simultaneously (NOS) for a crime he has apparently never been charged with. If I am betting person, I presume the FBI was targeting Durst for some kind of bank fraud for withdrawing cash amounts under $10K- which is not a crime in itself, btw. Have you ever heard of the FBI serving a State arrest warrant for murder without the DDAs knowledge, consent or consultation when the basis for which contains ZERO new or previously unknown information in a 15 year old murder case? Nope, me neither. Durst is teflon wrapped in Kevlar and you would THINK the myriad of agencies investigating him spanning the country would have considered that as part of their collective strategy- which the Govt is now trying to sell, it will fail.
This had everything to do with who would star in the final episode of THE JINX. Very Opportunistic of them- JINX won the emmy for best documentary.
B
Blink writes:
If I am betting person, I presume the FBI was targeting Durst for some kind of bank fraud for withdrawing cash amounts under $10K- which is not a crime in itself, btw.
——-
Well, Berrigan denied Durst’s lawyers the right to suppress evidence.. and in this NY Times article,she seems to justify it by saying that the search warrant was valid…
Artilce says at this point Durst can either appeal, go to trail or plea bargain.
If Durst is sure of beating Berman murder charges, I could see a plea bargain so they can get him to Los Angeles… but as with everything surrounding Robert Teflon Kevlar Durst, who the heck knows??
Well, shut my mouth, lol. I admittedly need to review Judge Berrigans 16 page memo in detail when not so bleary-eyed from tort review (= watching beige paint dry) because as I read it, she is finding the arrest warrant fed the inventory which fed the after the fact search warrant after allowing many motions on behalf of the defense that are directly tied to witness support of the merits of the motion to suppress in the first place AND… she vacated her own magisterial Judges previous order as an error.
Whats the point of that and previously agreeing to reset the hearing previously granted in the first place? Something changed this Judges tune, will be interesting to see how DeGeurin responds. I dont know that I agree that running to LA on Berman is worth pleading here. An important consideration nobody is talking about- is what the US will be allowed to seize from the defendant that the People of the State of LA are pretty pissed they missed out on.
B
here is link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/nyregion/robert-dursts-effort-to-dismiss-evidence-in-gun-case-is-rejected.html
Judge Pirro closed her fox news show this evening with an announcement that her new book about Durst is being released. The title is “he killed them all”.
A Halloween “who dunit” or maybe who didn’t do it.
I hope everyone will consider my new publication- “If I cannot put them in jail ever- I will write a book pretending it is similar in any way.”
Obviously I am kidding- but as much as I like Ms. Pirro she may wish to consider the recent libel judgement in McCann ( as an example).
How does that find Kathleen- as Pirro has stated was her goal? As I recall her investigation produced zero evidence.
B
http://nypost.com/2015/10/31/what-kind-of-woman-would-marry-robert-durst/
Watched Judge Pirro’s show last night. It was a video based on some of the parts of her new book.
It appears to me that Robert Durst probably killed his first wife and transported the body to the area of the “Pines” to dispose of it. There was a scene in the video where Pirro and her team actually visited with a man that was a tracker who had been on several searches in the area looking for clues of a body being buried.
They actually dug in the soil to show what type it was and how difficult it would be to find something buried in it. It is really a bog or a swamp with soft black soil created by the decay of vegetation in a very wet environment.
My experience in that type of soil is that anything placed on the surface or near the surface will over time sink to some unknown depth. The process of how fast depends on the weight and surface area of the object.
My takeaway from this video is that Pirro believes that Durst did place the body in the “Pines” area,possibly with the help of Susan Berman. The original investigative files by the NYCPD were next to nothing in size, indicating that they were not very interested in solving the case.
After thirty-plus years, finding a body in that area is going to be next to impossible. A tree could have grown over the grave concealing the location forever. The Brits recently found a tree blown down by a windstorm in England that was several centuries old. Entangled in its roots was the skeleton of a human.
My take at this point is Durst did murder his first wife with the burial taking place in “The Pines”. Susan Berman either assisted in the crime or new about it. When DA Pirro began to work the case, Durst decided it was time to hide. He chose Galveston, Texas as the place to hide disguising himself as a mute woman.
It is a strong possibility that Mr. Black discovered Durst’s disguise and during a confrontation, Durst shot him in the head, dismembered the body, placed it in plastic bags and dumped them in Galveston Bay. The flotation of the body minus the head created a case in Texas for murder. The head was never found because Durst probably found it first and disposed of it in another way. It could be that he just dumped the bag in one of commercial dumpster containers behind a building and it was taken by the garbage pickup service to a landfill or placed on a barge and dumped at sea.
Susan Berman was probably killed because DA Pirro was going to interview her in LA. Susan may have contacted Durst herself or he could have found out another way and decided she new too much.
At any rate, the live mike statement in the restroom during the making of the film “The Jinx”is more than likely the truth. However, Durst has been so clever in how he managed the murders, LE will probably never find enough quality information to convict him of any of them. The gun case in New Orleans by the FBI will be his undoing. That will be a Federal case where he must serve the complete sentence.
ATG- I agree I believe Durst killed his first wife in their home/property. I also believe Berman assisted Durst in (at the very least) in calling her Resident Dir and excusing her initial absence. I am NOT convinced Berman was not tapped to utilize her familial contacts (Dads) to find a resource to dispose of and advise Bobbie of prep of Kathie v traveling with him or assisting directly- I don’t see either Bobbie or Susan trudging through the Pines in Feb as novice murderers disposing of a corpse or various remains of same-
Which brings me to parts of Ms. Pirros assertions, in my view- are self serving to her publishing interests over “fact”. Pirro asserts the Galveston jury believed Durst’s defense that Durst dismembered Black because of her renewed or ongoing investigation. I disagree the jury was that niave and in some interviews I have seen her cross the line of respect for juries, borderline playing the Northern State card if you catch my drift. It is untrue and inappropriate. Strictly from a legal perspective- Pirro gives herself too much credit. The ME could not determine how (COD) Black died and therefore overcharged him pursuant to their case in chief and had I been on that Jury would likely have concluded similarly. Our Constitution provides our protections and our punishments and it is patently clear- the burden of due process (proof of assertion) rests on the accuser ( State).
I think Durst is a masterful murderer with means to facilitate getting away with it and what I struggle to understand is why NOBODY raised their game in the investigative community to deal with it.
That said, having just read DeGeurin’s reconsidersation and request for hearing, I am back to thinking he will get that hearing. His argument is MADE to come under FRE- and address same “climate” issues within the court system involving FBI.
If he does not, I have every reason to believe he will interloc Berrigan’s order and take this to the “wall”.
That tells me Durst also knows this about money. In his view- the FBI thinks this is a crime worthy of keeping his seized cash.
B
The tracker in the video stated that it was almost impossible to dig in the soil in the “Pines” most of the year. It was possible in only two months January and February when the ground was in a frozen state. The video portion with the tracker also included a statement that investigators had found evidence that Durst had been in the area near where they were searching in February. I do not know the normal level of the frost or frozen depth in that area. I am sure that the locals know and it may be recorded somewhere. My guess is two to three feet.
If the information about Durst being in the area is correct, then he may have met the person or persons to transfer the body for burial. I don’t know if Durst has enough experience in the outdoors to carry out the actual burial. He certainly knew how to dismember a body as shown in the Black case in Galveston. Durst may have dismembered and bagged the body of his first wife so the parts could be scattered and sunk in the soft muck by weighting each part.
The video also talked about the defense in the Galveston case floating the motive for Mr. Black’s murder as being because DA Pirro was chasing Durst at the time. Was this true? The actual prosecutors were at the table speaking about it. I find it hard to believe that twelve people would fall for that line of logic although we have evidence that it is possible with the Casey Anthony case in Florida.
Who gets the seized cash for the gun charge in New Orleans? The FBI has it now, but does it go into the local agencies funds upon a guilty verdict? To me, that is government overreach. The money belongs to Durst’s estate and should be returned.
Anthony was overcharged. The theory that she killed her daughter to pursue a new relationship that she was cheating on the guy with 2 old boyfriends who had no problem with her having Caylee in “tow” was always ridiculous to me as it was to many very close to the case and its investigation- from a burden perspective and because there was never a scintilla of evidence to support that element. I am positive Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her child- and to this day I will never understand how that jury acquitted her of even the negligence charge except to say they believed that George was a liar, because he is/was and the jury was not really sure who the victim was in all of it and there was never the ability to rule out she died exactly how the defense said she did- so in effect, they believed Caylee did drown in the pool. Just like Casey intended, for a while.
On Durst motive to murder Black- I would seek to know where Mr. Black was around the time of the Berman murder. I can tell you Jarecki intimates Black was involved if not the murderer himself. So to answer your question- I don’t think it is any accident that Black’s skull was never located which would likely have been a forensic link
Who gets the seized cash for the gun charge in New Orleans? The FBI has it now, but does it go into the local agencies funds upon a guilty verdict? To me, that is government overreach. The money belongs to Durst’s estate and should be returned.
Of Interest perhaps:
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-attorney-general-bans-asset-seizure-by-local-police-2015-1
As you know, I have covered a few cases where a local PD was seudo-deputized via a Fed task force of some kind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
The brilliant Washington Post work on the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-and-seize-2/
I am not trained to do forecasted crime analysis ( to be honest that is really DB driven with a pseudo-trend analytics overlay but I do have colleagues that are and do some great work. I use that data peripherally on occasion as needed but not my area of interest as an expert for sure. I mention this because if you read the article in the above link on DC Metro forecasting seizure amounts YEARS AHEAD as a budgetary factor I nearly fell over.
In theory does that mean if I were to peruse Balto’s budgets for next year I could see them using planned civil forfits to make up for the millions they settled (pre litigation, pre filing and pre criminal due process) for Mr. Gray?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/09/baltimore-panel-approves-freddie-gray-settlement/71928226/
Me in bold atg
B
Blink when you say ” I don’t think it is any accident that Black’s skull was never located which would likely have been a forensic link”, made me think now is this something we should bite on? Bad pun I know but is this what you mean? Was Susan bitten?
Ode- in Blacks case- iirc it was conclusive (casings) that his gun had been fired at the scene. ME could not make a COD distinction/finding based on what was recovered from the bay- specifically- his skull was never found. Had it been, it is more than probable that it would have provided forensic data implicating Durst.
B
I’m a little slow…Black was shot in the head with the same gun possibly….
Yes ma’am and you are anything but-
B
The seizing of assets of persons is a scam that has been going on in LE and the courts for years. Money earned illegally such as drugs should be available for forfeiture to an agency that caught the dealers. Other assets, absolutely not.
Since Durst is in jail in New Orleans, a less than stellar place for quality law enforcement, they may get his money even though it was never used to commit a crime except perhaps to purchase a gun that as a felon he could not have in his possession.
O/T
Back to the coyotes.
It will be difficult to get one, but if you want to get rid of them, shoot one and hang it in the property fence. The rest of the pack will stay clear of your property. I have witnessed how the bounty hunters control an area in South Texas with that technique. Ranchers often hire state certified bounty hunters to chase the coyotes off of their properties.hear them
O/T: We hear them in the wee hours in the rear of our property which traverses a stream and some overgrown woods area. This would be because I cannot sleep without my BR windows open and we have a very weird “canyon” acoustic. That said- I have never seen one, but I have heard them and seen evidence of their “lairs” and of course… mighty Harper alerts.
B
OT
ATG, when you return. merry Xmas & happy new year. missing your life stories.
& Ode too. iirc Ode gave us the dog food recipe which as my dau & I made it tonight I
reminded her we’ve had no vet bills but shots in 18 mos. thank you.
Rose,
I missed your last comment. I am so glad your puppy is better. I am now a slave to making dog food. I do it in the crock pot…so much easier…4 pounds turkey on low..4 1/2 hours or so stirred occasionally and broken up. Cook the quinoa then and after 10 minutes on low throw it in the pot with a can of pumpkin. Stir it up and turn it off…after it cools put away… My sister in law gave me the three dog bakery cookbook for Christmas but I dare not tamper with what works.
I wish ATG would post a hello…Texas has just been brutal this year with its weather and I always think of him.
Last of all after weeks of my daughter insisting on my watching “Making a Murderer”, I finally started watching today. I wonder if Blink will ever comment on this documentary.
LOL. Of course. Publishing Monday. It has been a whirlwind of a week.
B
How do I say…Thank God….I am walking in circles..my mind has been so challenged..without you Blink I am not sure how to process.
That comment in my last post sounds needy. The truth is what I need to process is good discussion on this show. Good discussion is here with you Blink. I have 3 more episodes to go.
LOL- press play and I look forward to the discussion next week. Quite tedious follow up after the binge-watch I am afraid.
B
Hello to ode
I am still here despite the rough weather. We had a very busy December.
Heavy rains always present danger on the highways,but using good judgement will keep you safe most of the time. It is not unusual in South and Central Texas to experience rain at rates between three and ten inches per hour. I worry more about someone with little driving experience causing a mass collision than my skill in driving through heave rain.
I have posted regarding the Avery case on the thread about the dentist and his drug problems.
tony bennett interviewed
R Durst on SNL tonite, about 8:19.
not worth finding tho.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/arts/television/robert-durst-the-jinx.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share