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
last thought to add to previous post at 3:19 a.m.
Giordano presented herself as someone Durst visited and who met her family, convinced he was innocent, bewildered by thought that anyone could think otherwise , and claiming that he told her he was coming to New York, therefore no way was he planning to go to Cuba. In short, a person who has an investment in believing everything he told her. This could be an emotional investment. ( like the step son who had a similar one for years) Would this be the reason that the files were sent to her in the first place?
Hard for me to believe that Giordano would have those files in her house for three whole years and had never once glanced at them.If the files contained anything damning would she just give them up?
These were robert Durst’s personal files. Charatan is the one who gave them to Giordano. Do you think that Charatan would have gone through those files first ? I do.
My point is – why give those files to Giordano in the first place. I believe the files were ” edited” by Durst and Charatan. I just don’t believe that between the two of them they would have left incriminating evidence in anyone else’s hands, period no matter how sympathetic that person would have been to Robert.
It is interesting to look at these files as coming from a person who divided a human body into pieces for the purposes of hiding that corpse. I don’t have any qualifications to look at this through a psychologically forensic lens, but chopping up the files, putting some files in one place, some in another, or dumping some off a bridge in a garbage bag is in keeping with the way he disposed of Black, perhaps could be in keeping with Durst’s modus operandi of handling evidence.
slightly of topic:
Observers during the filming of the documentary said Durst was text book “aspergery” in terms of emotional disconnect, and aspergers was mentioned in the Black trial. Which made it all the more amazing and compelling when Durst reached out and told filmmakers that All good Things made him CRY- twice- in the initial conversation.
Thought:
Robert Durst continued to work with Durst corp for 12 years after the disappearance of Kathie.Much talk about kathie’s use of alcohol and drugs increasingly up to time of disappearance, among her a real liability. Does Douglas Durst know more about her disappearance than he has ever admitted to?
I am interested in learning the fiscally contracted arrangement between Charatan and Durst- I am absolutely certain there is one. I say that because Charatan refused to participate in the JINX, or comment at all on her husband of 14 years, yet 3 years ago ( to coincide with the shooting of JINX) she ships these files off. She threatens to divorce him in 2005 if he does not chose her choice of counsel and he caves- why did he need her? My point is- I wonder if she thinks he is going down with these charges this time around, what does that mean to her legally and financially?
On Giordano- Yes, I believe she has a similar friendship with Durst as Berman- and I don’t believe for a second there is anything incriminating in those files or they would not exist.
I realize that Kathie is portrayed as drinking heavily and using drugs. I think she probably did occasionally and maybe it heightened with her situation as a form of coping, but she was a 4th year medical student on rounds and interning- so I would have to doubt someone working up to 36 hours straight at a clip, in conjunction with school could have those issues and go unnoticed.
B
Every child comes to the world looking to love its parents and where there is love given back, the child has an opportunity to grow up with good values and mental stability.
In families where one or both of the parents are self centered or mentally deficient, the child is given signals that some things are not right resulting in misunderstood values. Children need to be taught about human mortality as soon as they have some sense of understanding. This can happen as early as three or four or as late as ten years.
It appears that Durst lived in a home where there was little stability of the adults. What the effect of seeing his mother jump off the roof had on his later life could only be determined by someone trained to observe him over a lengthy time period.
I suspect that his mother was affected by some things from her heredity that affected her mental processes. Some of these may have been passed to her children. Remember the studies of how plants and animals pass growth or lack of it and other traits to subsequent generations from your biology classes.
The possibility that Durst is involved in multiple other crimes is large. LE is now starting to review some cases where he may have been involved. We can only wait while they determine if any others can be connected.
Not to oversimplify- but a man on the lam who has $500 cash in his pocket and $34K in his car and the ID of a man he dissected and lobbed into a bay who steals a chicken salad sandwich, removes a band aid from a package and VOLUNTARILY goes with store employees ( NOT SECURITY) to security and sits around and waits for LE has issues nobody can quantify without significant experience in interviewing and analyzing a similar profile. Good Point, ATG.
B
Thought:
Robert Durst continued to work with Durst corp for 12 years after the disappearance of Kathie.Much talk about kathie’s use of alcohol and drugs increasingly up to time of disappearance, among her a real liability. Does Douglas Durst know more about her disappearance than he has ever admitted to?
*****
I would also like to know “if” Durst made collect calls from the Ship Bottom laundry mat to Durst Corp..who did he make those calls to?
Im not sure someone wasn’t making those calls to him in the office- but obviously tied to Kathie’s disappearance. The problem is that record cannot be recreated or tracked.
Add to that I am highly doubtful ANYONE from the Durst Org outside of the Durst’s had calls accepted as “collect”.
B
blink writes
but she was a 4th year medical student on rounds and interning- so I would have to doubt someone working up to 36 hours straight at a clip, in conjunction with school could have those issues and go unnoticed.
—
do you have a good source for that info or are you presuming that she was doing okay with her studies and working 36 hours as an intern.
Douglas Durst tried to sue Jareki three times during the making of the documentary. Do you think it was jareki just passed , ready to go to court if and when. Douglas always dropped the issue. Douglas most recent lawsuit had to do with the fact that there wa s footage of him in the documentary that he did not allow. But that footage was from the court case where robert sued durst for monies owed, Robert Durst owned those videos and was able to legally share them to Jareki for the documentary, which he did.
So my question – exactly HOW would Robert Durst being “caught” jeopardize Douglas Durst? Its patently obvious that he has distanced himself from Robert. The scandal of Robert has been going on for years and years. Is it just that Douglas thinks its bad for business? In my own heebie jeebie sense, it feels like there is some kind of complicity, – not in legal sense but in sense of knowing more and for longer than he (douglas durst) has ever admitted to.
who- good question and I would have to say not a source I would consider “good” – I would not find it odd to hear she was having issues academically- given the circumstances.
I believe the footage you are referring to is that where Jarecki attends some sort of awards benefit of Doug Durst’s- because he cannot get him on the line ( Durst attorney calls Jarecki back). I feel you on DD. Not prepared to say more than that at this time but my hinky meter on him is running.
B
and the sly cunning of Durst can never never be underestimated, brain surgery aside.
Even after years of interviewing durst, having a full perspective on the lack of veracity on Dursts part, Jareki was still fooled by Durst when Durst said he couldn’t do the second interview because he was going to be in Madrid. Filmakers accepted it as fact.it was a lie.
blink writes
I am interested in learning the fiscally contracted arrangement between Charatan and Durst- I am absolutely certain there is one
—
agreed and agreed. She recently sold a property owned by durst for 21 million. She received big pay out for the monies from the lawsuit against durst family trust that awarded Robert much more than the 60 k they had initially sent him- I think he got 65 million in that.
Would she be subpoenaed in Berman case, if it ever gets past the obvious roadblocks and excellence of his legal team?
Only to the extent the information was not hearsay and was provided prior to marriage. She will assert her marital privilege.
B
blink
here is link regarding real estate transactions, purchased through Durst monies and handled by Charatan real estate company she has with her sone
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150318/REAL_ESTATE/150319836/investment-firm-backed-by-robert-durst-grows
Interesting timeline. Also, if you read the entire article, seems Durst walked around with cash and weed all the time.
snip>
While former BCB employees said the two were always on the phone, in a deposition obtained by The Jinx Charatan says she didn’t know where Durst was over Christmas 2000, the time at which Susan Berman was killed and just days after Durst and Charatan married.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/debrah-lee-charatan-speaks-robert-durst%e2%80%99s-second-wife-explains-connection-to-real-estate-firm/ar-AAa2S0Z
Yes- looks like there was no Honeymoon, lol- They were we Dec. 11th and she had already lost track of him.
B
below are two links that provide further insight into Robert Durst, Douglas Durst and their relationship to the filmmakers of The Jinx.
truly worth reading, especially second one, an interview given ten days ago by Jareki and Smerling.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/durst-brother-filmmaker-videos-article-1.2088694
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/the-jinx-ending-robert-durst-andrew-jarecki/
Who- I read the second one for research into this piece, I believe it is hyperlinked, but apparently not well because I just caught there was a 2 year gap between Durst’s first and second interviews- I did not realize that span. Either I missed that twice or it was not denoted in the docuseries. I would also note Jarecki is uncomfortable discussing the timeline of events most especially when it relates to Durst being outside his brothers home taking place “after” the second interview. I do not agree that was the case. Did Jarecki et al deceive Durst? He was making a documentary which is still an artists editorial at the end of the day- so he can do what he wants as this was not his foray as a journalist which requires us with those credentials to adhere to the ethics clauses attached to same. At the end of the day- I don’t think there can be any other inference other than they sought the second interview to confront him about the letter. To that end, if he was pretexted, I can see his Atty’s having a field day as they then became agents of the state.
B
B
Ok I finished both the movie and the Doc-
i can understand why Robert Durst wished to sit for jareki- The movie portrayal of him was rather sympathetic-(not entirely )
Im sure he felt it was “safe” to sit and finally be able to tell his side. Seymour came off horribly-
Kathleens portrayal was done in a sympathetic light as well
I came away from that movie thinking- I dont know what happened-
Did Dad get rid of bothersome wife?
Did dad help son who in last drunken argument killed kathy in an accident?
Did Kathy kill herself or wlk away from her life- ….
So yeah I can understand Robert Durst taking the opportunity to grab a “sympathetic” ear to steer the narrative toward those scenarios which do not have him involved…
Question on the movie-
Did Kathleen in “real life” steal the ledger from Dursts office and send it to police only to have it returned to Durst enterprises? Or was this made up for the big screen?
Ajmo Peace
I dont think she sent it to Police I think she sent it to someone at Durst Org- but I cannot say if she actually did that either.
B
The HBO Documentary
“The Jinx”
I have to say that for the first 5 parts I found Robert Durst to be “not a monster” which was strange for me seeing as this is a man that undoubtedly killed a human being- his neighbor- possibly a friend and systematically went about dismembering him and put the body parts in trashbags- and the torso in a “walmart” suitcase then threw it all way into the bay to “sink”
During his trial The prosecution had it right the minute the defense humanized Durst enough that the jury laughed at the thought of him purchasing a blouse from Walmart and a womans handbag the ase was lost-
It reminded me of the CA trial when the jury laughed at the pig in a blanket joke right along with CA- they never believed Caylee was in that drunk dead and not as a result of a coldblooded murder-by the hands of her Mom
For Dursts jury the laugh meant that they sympathized with him at this point only over his plight of wanting to rid himself of the overbearing overzeolous NY DA who was “out to get him” this sympathy very easily could go along way to not sending down a verdict based in the thought who would kill someone in selfdefense then cut them up? Easy to make that determination absent emotion when there is absolutely no evidence (as testified by LE) that it wasnt a self defense killing
I have to say that I agree with you Blink I think that the Texas jury sent down a just verdict – as they were not there to determine why Black was dismembered …only that he was murdered in coldblood at the hands of Durst- the evidence was not there to support that conclusion- That judge is not doing her job by speaking out the way she is and in essence challenging that jurys verdict as somehow wrong… I agree with you Blink they seemed to have followed the law and their instructions
On the Travis thread we discussed the DA and Prosecutorial hubris and overcharging- both in CA case and Jas cases
I think it happened again in the case of Morris Black had the DA and the Prosecution opted to give the jury the choice of a lesser charge manslaughter etc- i believe it was within reach that Durst would have been sentenced and would have been in prison- serving time
AJmo Peace
Agreed. I felt bad for that investigator as I know that decision was out of his hands.
B
The Doc-
I felt extremely sorry for the little boy Durst – He spoke of being very happy up until the time his Mom lept from the roof- the photos and footage from earlier years were quite moving
The newspaper accounts of the event have his mom “falling” from the roof in the middle of the night-
was there no investigation?
if dad had enough time to wake a sleeping 7 year oild and task him with the job of stopping her somehow- why didnt the fire department- or police get a ladder of one of those trampolines?
Did she suffer from postpartum depression was she suicidal previously were there other attempts?
There is a big gap into the whys and whatfors of moms demise-
In growing up did his father ever get him counseling – in his teen years ever?
–
The marriage-to kathleen- No one ever spoke of Kathleen with bruises.. and she herself in journals seemed only to mention 2 incidences of DV both after a long night of drinking and drugs years into the marriage not in earlier times…
Durst was rather candid in the doc stating that the violence and turmoil was escalating- pushing shoving slapping hitting and that both he and Kathleen were unhappy- she having been since going thru with the abortion-
–Durst admits lying to police about the proposed phone call to Kathy at the Penthouse around 11:30 and admits to lying about having a drink with a neighbor that night.
In earlier parts of the Doc LE states that they believed wholeheartedly that Kathy had made it home and was seen by the doorman-
Later LE says they believed this because Durst lied and that Berman was the one that bolstered the claim of the doorman—
Didnt LE interview said doormen ALL doormen back in 82 – all neighbors? Didnt they search the penthouse for signs of kathys arrival- depature packing a bag or of a struggle or for the coat and clothes that she was last seen wearing ?
LE says in the Doc that they believe that it was Susan that made the sick call to the dean that Mon. Didnt they check Kathys phone records for that call- on prior occasions did Kathy ever call in sick to the dean? was this out of the ordinary? did Durst have access to the deans number-
I was left wondering Why would Susan involve herself in a cover up of murder or accidental death?
Seems like a huge favor to ask of a friend a huge risk bringing the problem to an outsider in the hopes of aid that may never materialize…
it might have been Susan that called but it could have been a helpful family member a sister or other why would Durst or Durst and family risk bringing Susan into the mix- seems safer to have dad “fix it”
- I do not know if Robert Durst killed his wife I find myself thinking he most certainly could have but then there is a small doubt- maybe her disappearance and death could have came about at the hands of another
- Kathys friends stalking Robert Durst and his trash- LE said they thought she left on her own accord- if Robert felt this too then I think it is reasonable that he was throwing away her school books and makeup etc- however that “list” wow that was strange
whats with thought to be “killers” like CA etc writing down potentially incriminating words such as “shovel”
AJMO peace
blink writes
I believe the footage you are referring to is that where Jarecki attends some sort of awards benefit of Doug Durst’s- because he cannot get him on the line ( Durst attorney calls Jarecki back).
—–
No, I am referring to the footage of Douglas Durst where he is seated and answering questions about hiring a private eye and getting a restraining order against Robert. This footage was from the court case when Robert sued for monies owed him from the family trust. The footage of Charatan in the Jinx came from this also. the footage was alluded as being part of the files taken from Giordano.
This turned into the basis of ANOTHER lawsuit promoted by Douglas, demanding to know just how this footage was accessed by filmmakers.
Robert Durst gave it to them.
Thank you for that correction Who- I appreciate it. It has been my experience that lawyers on retainer for use of clients with unlimited funds are quite litigious-
I am withholding my initial impressions of Doug Durst as I think it would appear impartial- I have not researched him whatsoever in contrast to his elder brother- but if I were to comment on him as an initial impression from the JINX- it would start with a d and is consistent with a feminine hygiene practice.
B
to Mom 3.0.
Your post of
March 27, 2015 at 3:14 am has questions that have been addressed in the book ” Deadly Secrets” published in 2003.
The book SEEMS to have been written with the cooperation of – or at least access to reports of LE involved as well as people that knew Durst and Kathleen. In any case, it provides food for thought, is an easy read and ticks the boxes in your last post!
( and nice to see you on this thread!)
THe JInx Part 6 The Ambush and the Confession
Was Durst overwhelmed by the new evidence or by an ambush from a trusted “friend” Andrew
Its hard to say
It seems that Durst in an unguarded moment “confesses” and it seems rather matteroffact…but is it?
I have to say i agree with Liam- Dursts words can be explained away and dont necessarily go toward a confession
() by me on some possibile explainations
clip of confession
“There it is. You’re caught.” ( This is Durst “speaking” as jarecki a summation of the ambush)
‘You’re right, of course.
‘ ( this is Durst speaking as himself to Jarecki about the similarities and what LE will run with IOW “weve got him”)
“But you can’t imagine.” (this is Durst speaking of Jareckis shared thoughts during the ambush of not being able to see any other explanation than Durst wrote both letters and therefore MUST be the murderer)
“Arrest him.” ( this is a cont of thoughts by LE again thinking he is caught “weve got him” the case is solved ARREST HIM…)
“I don’t know what’s in the house.” ( this is Durst goiung over reasons why it doesnt make sense that he killed Susan and wrote the note- – asking Jarecki why would I do that- i have no way of knowing whats in her house- ther could be more samples of his writings- diaries revealing his conversations with Susan on Kathy and what happened- any amount of potentially incriminating evidence- if viewed under the scope of “we got him” that could further aid the prosecutions case- why would he risk any of it coming out if he murdered Susan to halt her from speaking to LE about kathy why do that if Susan was in the know over his murdering Kathy – by not hiding the body or the letter or burning the house down he would leave it all in the hands of LE to uncover- why write that note if he killed Susan why kill Susan at all- all her secrets/his secrets could have been revealed The risk is too great because as he said “I dont know what is in the house”
” Oh, I want this.” ( This is Durst reliving his asking Jarecki for the pic of Susan and himself-)
” What a disaster. He was right. I was wrong.” ( this is Durst acknowledging to late his lawyers advice:
“… 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 ”)
then:
“And the burping. I’m having difficulty with the question.” ( this is Durst explaining aloud his adverse reaction- not because he did it but because he was having difficulty with the question coming from Jarecki- he was ambushed by a “friendly” now seemingly turned hostile who now thought that he murdered Susan and that would mean that Jarecki now believed he murdered Black and Kathy )
next:
“What the hell did I do? ( this is Durst pleading with his friendly Jarecki asking whats changed…why the hostility… what did i do to deservethis)
last:
“Killed them all, of course.”- This is Durst answering as Jarecki thinking well he believes that I “killed them all ofcourse”
Will this confession make it into the case?
Will the letter be enough to pin Durst for the murder of Susan?
First question goes to integrity of the evidence and whether or not the filmmakers can supply the entire unedited footage and
sound
if not is it a reasonable doubt to entertain the thought that this entire confession never happened- could defense say there is no Durst video of this moment- how can the jury determine if this is nothing more than splices of sound manipulated by the film makers and the prosecution?
Second
-It is clear that Durst was in the bathroom under the assumption of privacy- the grunting sounds he makes seem to be reminiscent of the beginnings of Harry Dunne’s exlax moment in “Dumb and Dumber” just saying
Much like Dursts earlier hot mic moment I think this was Durst going over in his mind what he wanted to say to the camera- after collecting his thoughts – this time after reemerging from the bathroom
again what happened after he came out- obviously someone had to remove the mic- the audio just cuts off after the words ofcourse to silence- no flushing no washing of hands- nothing- was this all Durst said in the bathroom or was there more did he reemerge from the BR to discuss his reasoning further with the filmmakers?
Was this entire documentary from start to finish an ambush of sorts- what if Susans son had previously uncovered the 1999 letter and this was his and the filmmakers attempt to confront Durst on their longheld suspicions? Is it not strange that no one ever thought to compare Dursts handwriting to the cadaver note- it is clear from the doc that Durst never attempted to hide his writing style-filling out numerous documents etc with the distinct block writing with the Capitol N seemingly formed from the letter V
Will the defense attempt to say someone knowing his writing style attempted to frame him with that letter depicting especially his formation of the letter N afterall on close inspection the cadaver letters word BENEDICT ‘N” seems like an after thought oops thats a V forgot to add the slant to make it like Dursts N…
Will the defense claim Durst DID write the cadaver letter- not because he is the murderer of his longtime best friend Susan but because he had the misfortune of stumbling upon her dead body when he came to fulfill his promise to visit her in time for Christmas (according to at least 2 of Susans friends)
Much like his “fears” of not being able to come forwrd with the selfdefense killing of Black did his fears of not being believed prevent him from calling police to his discovery… to come immediately and take care of is dear friends body… he didnt kill her- he wouldnt be believed, he couldnt leave her like that though- so he wrote the note alerting police to the “cadaver”
It seems Susan may have had many an enemy and owed many people alot of money- will the defense easily kronk one of them or some unknown member of the LV mob angered by Susans newest book investigations?
Seeing as how his lawyer went on Pirros Fox show and said he was underwhelmed by the supposed confession / supposed new evidence-
I bet they are well on their way to crafting a formidable defense…
What will it be and How will it play out this time?
AJMO peace
blink writes
I would also note Jarecki is uncomfortable discussing the timeline of events most especially when it relates to Durst being outside his brothers home taking place “after” the second interview. I do not agree that was the case.
————
My inference from that was that Jareki knows exactly what the issue may be regarding if the filmmakers became agents of the state, and doesn’t want to get into that in this interview the same way that when someone is being sued, they can be duty bound legally or by choice not to discuss the details. He simply – and courteously, IMO,says he doesn’t want to give dates without being absolutely certain, and does not have that information accessible at time of interview. I profoundly do not believe this was jareki being manipulative, I believe he is being responsible, so for me, it isn’t a red flag.
And yea, the defense would go after the “agent of the state” prong immediately, with regards to the letter interview and the mumblings recorded in the bathroom as being presentable evidence, imo.
For watch it’s worth, I work in a business that involves wearing wireless mikes. Up until very recently, these mikes required turning off the battery pack to stop the sound feed. There are several legendary stories of various actors/ commentators/anchor people’s conversations that were overheard because that mike was not turned off..it happens all the time., its not a big deal at all. Almost like having your costume on and not taking it off for lunch.
To walk you through a typical day that involves the use of a wireless mike, the actor is ” wired” when their voice cannot be heard by the standard us of a boom mike. During a day, a scene can be boomed miked or not, but to save the time of being wired over and over again, sound department will often, if the actor is okay with it, just leave the mike on the actor all day. At the end of the day, there is a flurry of work that involves clearing equipment, getting people signed out, lots of movement etc etc Getting your mike off can happen right away, or at the convenience of the sound department ,who may be tasked with other things such as noting takes etc., or a combo of the two. If the sound department does not have a person who is specifically tasked with getting the mikes, the responsibility is SHARED at the very least.
It is also worth noting that a self financed documentary does not always have the use of boom mike, cause of costs, and that in most interviews, a body mike is prefraable anyway so ambient sound is cut down or eliminated.
Crucial to me in this scenario of the ” bathroom confession ” : IF the work was done for the day, and instead of turning his mike in, he went straight to the bathroom, Durst eliminated the possibility of being approached by a sound man who was retrieving a mike, if indeed h sound was was intending to at that moment.
There is earlier footage where Durst’s lawyer made Durst aware that he was ” live”, This could have been something Durst forgot about. But forgetting you are wired doesn’t mean that you are being persecuted, or spied on intentionally.
I am working on a project now that is using the brand spanking new latest innovation in wireless transmission. Sound department can point a programmed phone at the battery pack and click it off and on, so you can wear it all day and use as needed( don’t have to snake the wires under your shirt or pants over and over again) I assure you this did not exist in 2010- 2012, and even if it did , it was not used for this documentary.
But bottom line is that turning off a live mike occurs when both the wearer and the sound department are working in tandem. Durst was certainly given the information that he was wired, and certainly experienced it, and observed and learned the process involved in taking a mike off, as this action was repeated many many times. I don’t think the issue of being recorded against Durst’s knowledge, with the intention to entrap him or act as an gent of the state,will stand.
The bigger issue is if the filmmakers were working in collusion with LE when they did the second interview when they exposed Durst to the letters.
I personally believe they were NOT acting as an agent of the state, because at the very least, they were not under any instruction from the state. They WERE working in an investigative way, as every documentary filmmaker does. They were documenting Durst in accordance making a documentary at Durst’s behest ,with acknowledgement and support from Durst himself that he could/would be asked anything and everything- and filmmakers had this in writing..
As far as the time span between the first and second interview-
Making a documentary involves hours and hours of footage and can involve literally years of editing.
It is in the EDITING process that the documentary reveals itself.
And it was the collateral interviews and EDITING PROCESS that revealed to the filmmakers a need to go back to Durst- in accordance with their commitment , his request, that HIS side be shown.
Douglas Durst original belief, when told of the documentary, was that Robert was financing it, and/or that Jareki was working out his own father son issues, besmirching the Durst family as a whole just to make a point about wealth and family disfunction. Douglas dropped that, obviously.
Jareki spent about 4 million of his own money to deliver on his promise to allow Robert to tell his story on his own terms. With the needed editing process and need to make the best deal, its pretty amazing that this made it to screen as quickly as it did.
AND clearly the story is STILL unfolding, which would give any documentarian a feeling of ” theres more we haven’t gotten!” I would imagine THIS is where LE and documentarians have a commonality, a shared sense of justice. NOT REVENGE, justice.
Who- thanks for sharing your expertise with us- I sincerely appreciate your perspective. In my criminal court work- I cannot tell you how many times I have had to call a bailiff or if cells are permitted emergitexting in the proceeding to remind my client that their mics are hot.
There is discussion wrt to LE and jarecki within episode 5 I will re-review. I want to say it dealt with the possibility that alerting LE would give them leverage for LE to be forthcoming with them- I obviously do not know if that occurred. If he did, this is an easy one- the defense will raise the agent of the State argument.
In my view unless the defense wants it in- that miced confession never comes in. No way- just because he did not stop to have his mic removed prior to heading to the bathroom does in no way remove his expectation of privacy heading to the loo. AND even if it did- it is so inflammatory and prejudicial no Judge is ever letting a jury hear that.
B
mom 3.0 writes
Was this entire documentary from start to finish an ambush of sorts-
——
Andrew Jareki has outstanding credentials. His film ” Capturing the Friedmans was nominated for an oscar, and won the jury prize at the Sundance festival. ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1285613/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm)
Jareki was approached by Durst. Durst contacted the distribution company that released ” All Good Things” as a ” cold call” with no introduction other than stating he was Robert Durst and wanted to talk too the director of All Good Things, which the head of Magnolia Pictures made happen.
In their initial meeting, it was put to Durst that there had been books and interviews about him through the years but that he himself had never spoken, never told his side of disappearance of his wife ( Durst had his day in court with the Morris Black charges, and had not yet been charged with Berman murder)
It was Bobby’s request that a documentary be made about him. He wanted to tell his story, and wanted it to be done by Jareki and his partner Smerling. Durst signed a document stating that he could asked any and all questions. This put Durst in the driver’s seat as far as having to answer, and when to answer, and what to respond to, period.
The documentary was entirely financed by Jareki, who is, on his own, a man of considerable wealth, like 300 million kind of personal wealth.
Jareki certainly did not have an agenda of making money – no documentary film maker does. The sale of documentaries is extremely limited by the audiences, which are low in numbers compared to fiction films
Documnetaries come from a individual’s passion to find the truth, and as such, are not completed til that truth is found, or is shown to be impossible to know. This can take years of shooting and editing.
Any responsible documentarian begins his journey with questions and objectivity in his mind. As information is gathered, that filmmaker may have insight that he didn’t have at the beginning. Referring again to Jareki’s credentials, as well as the genesis being with Durst himself, there is absolutely nothing that would support the idea that jareki entered into this with a belief that Durst was innocent OR guilty, or had an agenda or even a concept beyond letting Robert Durst tell his story.
In fact, it is impossible for any documentarian to know what the documentary is about until the footage is assembled- then it emerges, the footage reveals what the story actually is.
There is no way to superimpose a plot when you go into territory that is not known. The very basis of the documentary was that “Robert Durst territory” had ben explored by seemingly everyone BUT Durst publicly. To repeat ad nauseum, this was Durst’s idea. Durst turned materials over to Jareki for the purposes of having this stuff seen. There was no subterfuge. As responsible documentarians, of course Jareki and Smerling were turning over stones, that is the nature of such an enterprise.
But “ambushing” or confronting Durst with a foregone conclusion on their (filmmakers) part? I didn’t see that kind of situation and i also didn’t see Robert Durst tearing his mike off and go storming out, ever. or angrily evading questions- though direct question were rare. Rather , it is clear in the doc that any questions asked were to continue the conversation, in a way that supported Robert Dursts goal of ” telling his side of the story”
Durst was advised against this by lawyers that knew him well, and had defended him on murder charges, and were always positioned to defend him in the event that any charges were ever made about Kathleen Durst or Susan Berman. Durst chose to disregard that advice, and presented to the filmmakers that, he was going against his lawyers advice, and that regardless of advice, this was his (Durst’s) choice. And any questions were appropriate, no holds barred. In other words, it was Durst who presented himself as innocent, and it was Durst who asked that Jareki and Smerling let him “explain” For example, Durst asked to be shot in front of his brother’s house. Was this because Durst wanted to illustrate how awful his brother was , that Douglas was so mean that he got a restraining order??? I think so, but I don’t know.
( and I think the larger question in this is the real reason why would Durst want a doc about him in the first place, but thats another discussion, lol.- I think he has a big screw loose, whether he is innocent of the crimes he is associated or not)
Anyway, AFTER making Chasing the Friedman’s Jareki has publicly advocated on behalf of Jesse Friedman ( the son convicted of child molestation in 1988), though the conviction was upheld rather recently.
My point- Jareki didn’t make Chasing the Friedmans with any more of an agenda any more than he made The Jinx with the agenda of ambushing Durst. The circumstances were different in that Durst started the Jinx, but the objectivity involved is the same- The journey took the filmmaker from a place of not knowing to a place of understanding and aloowe him to form opinions, the same way that audiences have varying opinions after viewing The Jinx.
I see your concern that The Jinx was just a set up- but really HOW could the filmmakers have known what Durst would say before hand??? How could they have set him up if the intention- as mandated by Durst- was to allow him to tell his side? Would you think the same thing if the documentary had revealed nuts and bolts proof that Durst had zero culpability, or is it just that Durst has been arrested , and your fear is that the documentary will be used to PROVE he is guilty?
Whether or not any footage can be used against Durst remains to be seen, and it already being argued by his lawyers that the doc is , in effect, inadmissible. I think legal standards will dictate what gets in and what gets out and we will just have to see how that plays out.
To me, the problem is , how can this guy get a fair trial? The lawyers used the concept in the Morris Black case that Durst felt persecuted and afraid because of the continuing and escalating attention given to his wife’s disappearance very effectively to justify that Black was dismembered. But the truth is that the prosecution did not have a strong enough case to support their charges, and could not DISPROVE self defense- the prosecution lost the case more than the defense won.
I haven’t formed a concrete opinion yet about Durst personal innocence or guilt, but I am concerned that without a fair trial, no verdict can be considered just….. and wow it seems like everyone has seen or can access The Jinx. Here is a link to ratings to give you an idea of eyes on screen…. and this doesn’t include pay per view or other entertainment platforms that are available to anyone with a computer and/or pay per view services on TV.
And I think defense has a real leg to stand on with lack of ability to get a fair trial, maybe even rush to judgment ( though thats hard because the Berman case has been alive since 2000), as well as the prong of some sort of collusion between the filmmakers and LE, and the timing of the arrest.
I DO believe the stuff I have read locally, that LAPD anticipated Durst leaving after episode 5 was aired, were clocking his movements and had a now or never scenario. Durst assumed many other identities, jumped bail and was extremely evasive – this is a multimillionaire who had many properties and could have chosen to put the past behind him and go off to any country in the world to avoid the repercussions of the scandals he was involved with. So I am right back to my screw loose theory, and waiting to see what the prosecution’s case is!
Mom 3.0
sorry forgot to add link for ratings of The Jinx- here it is
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-hbos-the-jinx-finale-draws-over-1-million-viewers-on-sunday-1201454423/
who- You have gone to great lengths to support Jareckis integrity and career – and to point out that Durst made the decision to sit and talk-
Thank you
To clarify: the intent of my posts was not to question anyones integrity- My posts were mere *possibilities* to give alternate interpretations of Jinx Part 6 the ambush and the confession- Please KIM Jareki himself spoke to how he felt;
PP
he was in essence ambushing Durst- he went to great lengths to “ease” into the questioning surrounding the letters- so as not to spook him or to tip him off- he wanted to capture the truth of his thoughts feelings and reactions-he spoke of his first goal being Not to do anything that would stand in the way or jeopardize justice – he also spoke of how Durst would feel over the whole meeting saying that he felt bad because Durst would see the whole encounter as “cold” heartless unfeeling- – jareki said he liked Durst and had become friendly with him and he was struggling a bit with overcoming those feelings inorder to confront Durst with secret info- he spoke of the strategy of putting Durst at ease with the photos than moving slowly into”tricking” Durst into agreeing that the 1999 letter was his- even though at first Durst did not recognize it and couldnt place the year or even imagine why he wrote such a short note – to which Jareki gave him his thoughts- it was probably written when lending Susan money… Durst answered yes that could be… then next Jareki strategically showed him the stamped address first just as he and his team plotted.. and Jareki kept to the plan by then getting Durst to acknowledge that yes it was from his offices- than moving on to the “gotcha” moment cornering him so he couldnt easily back away from a seeming “truth” which Jareki led him to…
Sorry Who but all that in its simplest form is an ambush- was it good film making, excellent documentary foder ? hell yes-
Did it capture an actual confession the actual truth of the 1999 letter or that of the cadaver letter? IDk
Again My posts were speaking to possible interpretations or possible defense strategies of explaining away the letters the confession – all of it
Do these mere possibilities equal the truth of the matters? NO certainly Not anymore than Jarekis or any audience members interpretations of the “evidence” Dursts interviews the letters the confession Must equal the truth and not just possibilities
You wrote:
In fact, it is impossible for any documentarian to know what the documentary is about until the footage is assembled- then it emerges, the footage reveals what the story actually is.
There is no way to superimpose a plot when you go into territory that is not known. The very basis of the documentary was that “Robert Durst territory” had ben explored by seemingly everyone BUT Durst publicly. To repeat ad nauseum, this was Durst’s idea. Durst turned materials over to Jareki for the purposes of having this stuff seen. There was no subterfuge. As responsible documentarians, of course Jareki and Smerling were turning over stones, that is the nature of such an enterprise.
– Wait a minute who there was no subterfuge? There was no way to superimpose a plot when you go into territory that is not known?
It was known…The subterfuge began when Sareb went searching thru his mothers last box- then came to Smerling and Jareki with the letter and his concerns “to be talked down” Did Smerling/Jareki and team immediately call Durst- Did they get more than one “expert” to give an opinion did they contact police immediately or advise Sareb to do the same? NTMK Smerling said to a worried Sareb its exactly like the cadaver letter down to the misspelling of beverly-
The plot WAS known at that point- who, they knew they were gonna ambush him and get him to confess- to their foregone conclusion he wrote both notes therefore he murdered susan
Whose to say that sareb didnt mention seeing the letter long ago and thinking hmm thats kinda spooky- then the team said go refind it let us be the judge…
Can you say that didnt happen as a fact? cn you say that the defense wont try to spin it that way? neither can i and thats my point-
You wrote:
But “ambushing” or confronting Durst with a foregone conclusion on their (filmmakers) part? I didn’t see that kind of situation and i also didn’t see Robert Durst tearing his mike off and go storming out, ever. or angrily evading questions- though direct question were rare. Rather , it is clear in the doc that any questions asked were to continue the conversation, in a way that supported Robert Dursts goal of ” telling his side of the story”
—
who Durst tried to back out of further interviews remember? he even faked going to madrid- he then got arrested for the RO and the filmmakers in essence “favored” him into continuing- how by saying sure we’ll provide that footage for you ..if.. you scratch my back ill scratch yrs…
you wrote:
I see your concern that The Jinx was just a set up- but really HOW could the filmmakers have known what Durst would say before hand??? How could they have set him up if the intention- as mandated by Durst- was to allow him to tell his side? Would you think the same thing if the documentary had revealed nuts and bolts proof that Durst had zero culpability, or is it just that Durst has been arrested , and your fear is that the documentary will be used to PROVE he is guilty?
– who that wasnt my concern- AGAIN I was speaking to OTHER reasonable possible interpretations or possible defense strategies-
IRT “but really HOW could the filmmakers have known what Durst would say before hand??? ”
–who again they had meeting after meeting going over every possible scenario of what Durst would say how he would react- they wanted to ambush him they did ambush him and they thought of the best way to go about doing it- its right there on film-
IRT “was it about letting him tell his side?
–Not at that point it seems not- for again Durst at first didnt recognize the letter couldnt remember when or why he wrote it and again they went about backing him into a corner using subterfuge-
Who -
You asked-
Would you think the same thing if the documentary had revealed nuts and bolts proof that Durst had zero culpability, or is it just that Durst has been arrested , and your fear is that the documentary will be used to PROVE he is guilty?
what thoughts are you asking about? as i said I was speaking to possibilities- Besides I havent formed an opinion over his guilt or innocence in either kathys disappearance/demise nor IRT Susans murder
for me there are far too many unknowns to make the leap that he “killed them all ofcourse” if thats what yr asking
Durst himself revealed he lied about certain things & he revealed that he did not or does not tell the “whole truth, no one does”
who – respectfully the documentary didnt really reveal proof of anything – not the nuts and bolts that Durst had zero culpability, nor his undoubted guilt
We are all left to ponder over the possibilities just as the jury will that is if the law allows any of this “evidence” used to “prove” his guilt in the doc into the trial
And then it will be filtered again thru the interpretations of the prosecution and the defense proving once and for all no one tells the whole truth…
AJMo Peace
Not who- but here’s my thing. You raise excellent examples of “subterfuge”. I agree with them. However, to who’s point-you can’t call it subterfuge if Durst agreed to the controls he gave Jarecki and most certainly Durst knew he had no editing or creative control. I legitimately do not believe Jarecki went into the project thinking he was going to hang Berman and Kathie on him through his efforts. I think like most of us are- he was entirely fascinated by the juxtaposition of people’s reaction to feel incredibly sorry for a man’s childhood- who has more money than most of us will ever see, and that outcome lingered through some heinous events that meant he was either the most unlucky heir who had some sort of grim reaper curse- or was now a complete psychopath that unlike all other psychopaths I am aware of and have studied- his psychopathy must have been in the “nurture” not nature category and so therefore as a criminal behavior clinician (of sorts) I am fascinated instead of revolted.
There is no getting around that Durst agreed to all of the conditions that were used in the docuseries- however…. Do I believe that the ambush on the letter was contrived and in fact spawned the need for the second interview? Yes, entirely. I don’t think we know the interface jarecki has had with LE and I do not anticipate it will be very forthcoming- but we don’t know for certain what that was. If Jarecki consulted with LE ( he says no, but I have attorneys who veto me regularly when dealing with potential criminal prosecutions) and he is denying that fact- that would piss me off. Let me tell you why- I DO THINK Durst has murdered at least 3 people ( in various motivations not necessary capital murder) and I DO NOT believe LAPD has a case that will stick against Durst and that means you know who will you know what- AGAIN.
That said- I don’t think he would BS the audience base he had, and he full well knows he will be a witness in the case for both sides.
Throwing this out there- subconciously it is entirely possible that Durst forced this himself. Do not think for a second he is not smart enough of psychopathic enough- he is textbook.
B
ps who thanks for the book recommend- – I havent read it my first dip into all things Durst began here with Blinks report- when i get the chance i will read it -
BTW its nice to see you here too- & as always I learn alot from you & enjoy our discussions.
Blink
you mentioned that Jareki avoided time lines in that interview
here is a link to a timeline by media source
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/robert-durst-timeline-life-and-crimes.html
Thanks who- I have read that previously. I was expressly referring to the linked interview where he was asked specifics about the timeline of occurrences ( i believe it was the Durst at Durst’s peering in the window and was that before or after the second interview) and Jarecki backed off and said he had to ruminate on a response or words to that effect.
I think it will be learned that Durst found out where Doug lived from the producers and Jarecki would rather not admit that publicly- but I could be wrong.
I don’t expect Jarecki is being advised to do anything but be quiet for the duration, so I doubt we are going to know exactly what the chronology was v what we saw as the final edits and episodes but I do think that is important info.
B
Blink writes:
I think it will be learned that Durst found out where Doug lived from the producers
—-
Douglas Durst had a restraining order that was specific as to distance required from his residence. The restraining order was served on Durst, so assume Jareki got the info from Durst, not the other way around.
Regarding lack of clarity on timeline during the interview: Imagine gazillions of electronic footage, notated at end of the day to include date and time. This exists, the chronology is provable and all will be revealed.
But emphasis on fact that you are talking about gazillions of hours of film, and without annotations is hard to be specific, especially when you know that every word you say will be seized upon and communicated as fact- any responsible person is going to be very cautious of saying things unless they have absolute specific clarity.
In general:
I strongly imagine that questions as to Jareki’s motivation, was it an ambush etc, agent of the state , exact chronology etc are wholly quantifiable, and would logically be part of the whole picture if the documentary can be considered evidence. So far, Durst isn’t even in Los Angeles yet, and documentary as evidence will be an issue that will be addressed when appropriate, I would imagine.
Who- I don’t understand this, please clarify. You said:
Douglas Durst had a restraining order that was specific as to distance required from his residence. The restraining order was served on Durst, so assume Jareki got the info from Durst, not the other way around.
Wouldn’t the filing of the TRO date be pertinent and possibly establish the origin of Durst’s appearance at his brother’s home? How would the standard language of an RO establish how Durst came to know his brother’s residence and moreover establish when that was learned about and filmed for the JINX?
The documentary as a prima facie as televised- is absolutely going to constitute evidence. Every single second from reel to reel. I say this because right now it is fair game as discovery for either side.
I agree with you this conversation is seemingly premature wrt to Durst facing the Berman charges.
Lastly- Jarecki knows his filming timeline down pat. I highly doubt he did not do “dailys” which in filming speak is footage shot that day- pre edit, and I don’t think Jarecki is ever going to want anyone to think he was not in command of those. I do not see that as excuse for not answering basic chronology questions about one’s broadcasted work. I do see a situation where he is being advised legally out of necessity.
B
blink
paragragh 3 of my post at 4:37 p.m.-line 2
meant to say ” without annotations IN FRONT OF YOU DURING TIME OF INTERVIEW , it is hard to be specific etc…
am coming from a place that EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, including Durst but also film makers
It is provable if filmmakers intention was to ambush or act as agent of the sate
I operate entirely in that framework and as you know I have lofty expectations of prosecutors to meet their burdens as well. Right now, I have concerns.
But for me- I don’t care if Jarecki et al did “ambush” Durst or act as an agent of the state as I believe he is responsible for Berman’s death. I do hope he is upfront about it when he has the opportunity to address it. In fairness to him- I do believe he is following counsel and he should. I have used media in various forms to net criminals in personal casework successfully- I just have to disclose it in court most of the time as Jarecki will. I don’t think he started out with the intention of ambushing or nabbing Durst. It makes sense that if he was going to allow Durst to have a voice, Jarecki needed to vet him and the circumstances surrounding same.
To be completely candid- I have given this a bunch of thought and I have been less than happy with HBO’s docu features in the past that in a sense, were responsible for freeing the WM3, and paid the husband of Diane Schuler who ended up suing his brother and sister in law- so for me this series was not only fascinating but constructive for a change, lol.
B
It is the birth of the next chapter really- Jarecki’s I mean. His fascination with his subject evolved and he ultimately played a part in his apprehension.
B
blink writes:
Do I believe that the ambush on the letter was contrived and in fact spawned the need for the second interview? Yes, entirely
—–
My opinion only, based on what I have read and heard:
The discussion about the letters was about HOW to present what had been given to filmmakers by step son, in keeping with giving Durst a chance to respond and explain. As I mentioned earlier, Durst could have at that moment had a nuts and bolts answer to the similarity of the writing that would have taken away any doubt in anyones mind, and he was given the opportunity ,however he did not have answer that seemed solid, at least on film.
Question
Would it have been fair to show that step son found remarkable similar handwriting to cadaver letter in a note that was written to Susan Berman before her death, and NOT show that to Durst????
Who- Jarecki knew what he had. Make no mistake- he did NOT confront Durst on camera without consulting legal first- they actually discuss the need to consult LE at some part on camera- AND the possibility it would be leverage to have LAPD or WestChester County give them non-public info to use in the docu.
I don’t blame him. Let me be clear- I don’t know Jarecki to be a criminologist- but if I had been in his shoes- had this NOT been a case I was retained in- I ABSOLUTELY would have done the same thing that I saw on camera. ( caveat- I don’t know what I don’t know) All things taken at face value- how could he not?
That said- I think it is a sure bet that Jarecki did NOT inform Durst ahead of time that he intended to confront him on camera about the letter- although I have been bothered to this day about Durst’s use of the word “examplar” during the exchange. That is noteworthy to me.
I don’t know that “fair” is even up for discussion in this context as Durst signed off- under that auspice – it was of course, fair.
B
blink writes
In my view unless the defense wants it in- that miced confession never comes in. No way- just because he did not stop to have his mic removed prior to heading to the bathroom does in no way remove his expectation of privacy heading to the loo. AND even if it did- it is so inflammatory and prejudicial no Judge is ever letting a jury hear that.
B
—-
absolutely agree- and by the way, just a gentleman’s bet that Durst will walk, period.
general thought:
Blink, thank you so much for your responses to my posts, wonderful and illuminating and interesting!!
You mention that the doc can bsolutelybe used as evidence- so I am trying to understand that. For example, would investigative jouurnalism on a show like say, sixty minutes, be equally admissible? Would the articles published about Berman at time of death ( which include suspicions towards the mob and her manager) be admissible?
question:
what responsibility does LE have with regards to ” leaking ” information about a case?
If Jareki provided info to LE as he discovered it during the making of the documentary, wouldn’t it be up to LE if they released inside info to Jareki ?
I looked for a textbook definition of what an agent of the state is, and found this one looks like its aimed at high schoolers, but thats about my speed, lol
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090301191051AAFvrVl
But my question is, what exactly would qualify Jareki as working as an agent of the state
and oh yea, defense will have a feild day with this no matter what, imo
Well as you know who- I believe Durst will walk if this goes to trial as well so I can’t take your bet. That said- I also think Durst is in poor health.
I can’t tell you “exactly” what would make a civilian an agent of the state because that is a Judicial determination, but I can tell you in a general sense, if LE had ANY input into ANYTHING Jarecki et al “secured” it will be a valid argument.
Some examples and citations:
“…Although there is little justification for a applying the exclusionary rule to a search conducted by a civilian, the situation changes if he was functioning as a police agent. In that case, the officers’ ability to direct and control his actions would give them a strong incentive to make sure that the search stands up in court. For this reason, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that evidence will be suppressed if it was obtained as the result of an unlawful search by a civilian who was functioning as an instrument or agent of the Government.”
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982) 457 U.S. 922, 941 [“[W]e have consistently held that a private party’s joint participation with state officials in the seizure of disputed property is sufficient to characterize that party as a ‘state actor’ for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”]; People v. North (1981) 29 Cal.3d 509, 514 [search “performed in conjunction with” officers]; People v.
McKinnon (1972) 7 Cal.3d 899, 912 [civilian would be deemed a police agent if officers were engaged in a “joint operation” with him]; People v. Scott (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 723, 726 [a search would be a police search if a citizen “participates in planning or implementing a ‘joint operation’ with law enforcement authorities”]. COMPARE People v. Mangiefico (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1048 [“Berdan was not engaged in a joint operation with local authorities, but was conducting an independent investigation.”].
B
blink writes:
Lastly- Jarecki knows his filming timeline down pat. I highly doubt he did not do “dailys” which in filming speak is footage shot that day
——-
actually, not so sure. Unlike a film, where in preproduction, each day days has specific scenes to be shot and is therefore pre planned,) and on film you work in the confines of unions as to how long they can shoot each day etc), a documentary is a whole different animal and can take YEARS to amass and sort through footage.
A days work can have notations on things to look at, but because the very nature is exploratory, and you don’t go in with a specific plan to get specific things (until things begin to emerge) , the edit is a final step, not an ongoing daily thing.
In other words, even a pre edit would not happen on a daily basis, cause you just don’t what to cut and what to keep until you have EVERYTHING.
And If you had even just 5 hours of footage in a day, for example, you just can’t spend 5 hours looking at it. You have assistant editors in any case, so I say its safe to assume that Jareki did not know on a daily basis ” what he had”. In fact, the lie about Durst being in Madrid, was caught much after the fact, and by an assistant editor.
In the Jinx, we are seeing six hours worth of footage, from four years of shooting. Digital film, which means they were not confined, cost wise,
This link is pretty good at explaining just how much footage would be involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ratio-
it gives average ratio of footage shoot to footage use in documentary as 100 to 1. Average ratio for a feature film is 2 to 1, to give you an idea.
Jarecki was the director and financier. I am familiar with the shoot everything and edit later process- but I doubt that he did not have firm crew schedules and shoot dates with a solid production schedule. In particular- in some cases he would have needed to pull permits to be able to shoot in the city, etc. I mean- even a craft services invoice, lol.
On a previous discussion on Sareb Kaufman- I just noted something I missed before. His car was parked in Susan’s garage while he was away. It would seem to me if someone had been “lying in wait” to murder her that they would have checked the garage if the presumption was that Susan was not there when they arrived- otherwise there are 2 cars there and someone would have had to know that Sareb was away and not staying there, imo.
B
Blink
checked the link I sent re shooting ration, and it was wonky, this is it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ratio
Re
#comment-2242373
Blinks response
Respectful snip
Throwing this out there- subconciously it is entirely possible that Durst forced this himself. Do not think for a second he is not smart enough of psychopathic enough- he is textbook.
B
Blink, I agree with yr statement it is entirely possible and I have no problem whatsoever thinking that Durst may have forced this on himself -nor do I think he is not smart enough or “crazy” enough to do so- ill even go so far as to say it was most likely willingly not subconsciously for he himself said:
snip from yr piece
“… 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
end
Notice he never said hed tell the truth only that hed be able to tell it his way and if someone is open to a “different” story… theyll have the opportunity to believe it…
respectful Blink snip:
Not who- but here’s my thing. You raise excellent examples of “subterfuge”. I agree with them. However, to who’s point-you can’t call it subterfuge if Durst agreed to the controls he gave Jarecki and most certainly Durst knew he had no editing or creative control.
Blink Thank you-
Forgive me but Im not following yr logic here-
Despite Durst agreeing to the controls/conditions it matters not IRT the ambush/confession as the examples of subterfuge are sound for the very definition of the word is:
deception by artifice or strategem in order to conceal
Deception used to achieve an end:
a *stratagem employed to conceal something, evade an argument, etc
a trick or a dishonest way of achieving something:
*strat•a•gem
(ˈstræt ə dəm)
n.
1. a scheme or trick for surprising or deceiving an enemy.
2. any artifice or ruse devised to attain a goal or gain an advantage, *feint
*feint (fānt)
n.
1.
a. A military attack or maneuver that is meant to divert attention away from a planned point of attack.
jareki and team planned to ambush they did conceal the true nature of the meeting – the whole strategem centered around concealment the element of surprise was needed- they achieved it through deception/subterfuge- they tricked him into ease then maneuvered the evidence in such a way in order to gain an advantage so they could achieve a certain goal-
Jareki said after opening the safety deposit box for the letter:
pp
Nothings bringing Susan Back and nobodys gonna know we have this document so what about we interview Bob, we bring it up, we have it on film we have something that the LAPD is gonna really want without all the bullsh-t w/out having to go thru 800 different levels of discovery & all that stuff weve got Bob reacting clean to this hugely important piece of evidence-
end
Except it wasnt “clean” ws it? and because they chose to go about it like this- taking matters into their own hands (or wrking as defacto agents of the state) not handing it over to LE then walking away- UNTIL it played out in court- they may have thwarted the very justice they wished to aid-
You have ALWAYS told us here Blink that anything that appears here that could even POTENTIALLY be evidence is immediately handed over to LE- I know that many times info and evidence never get posted- you are not about making the grade= or making a splash on the backs of a victim or on the backs of LE or even on the backs of The suspect who according to law is innocent until such time as proven guilty in a court of Law even if they have been found guilty by the court of Public opinion or guilty according to polls or the Neilson ratings….
you have said you do this in order to safeguard justice safeguard yourself and us-and to safeguard the victims and their families
I dont think such a trusted documentarian and his team would hold to a different set of standards
You wrote:
If Jarecki consulted with LE ( he says no, but I have attorneys who veto me regularly when dealing with potential criminal prosecutions) and he is denying that fact- that would piss me off. Let me tell you why- I DO THINK Durst has murdered at least 3 people ( in various motivations not necessary capital murder) and I DO NOT believe LAPD has a case that will stick against Durst and that means you know who will you know what- AGAIN.
I would share yr anger – if something this team did or didnt do thwarts justice then it matters not that Jareki & team played a part in Dursts apprehension for they would have ultimately played a part in his release as well
AJMO Peace
Mom 3.0- I get your perspective on subterfuge but my point is Durst can’t cry wolf when he agreed he may end up being the wolf on film. That’s just reality- he gave Carte Blanche ( and then some) to Jarecki et al and on the surface it appears this was an exercise in narcissism OR his perception that Jarecki was a sympathizer or believed him to be innocent or both- we don’t know. To take it a step further, according to the search warrants- Durst was named a suspect based on the writing exemplars LE possessed for years before this and he CLEARLY knew it. I don’t think there is doubt Jarecki “ambushed” Durst- but again- that assumes the point that Durst was not expecting same, or that he did not think it possible. I don’t believe Durst is that dumb and I know his attorney is on record “warning him”.
You are of course right about my commentary about leads gleaned here- however, Jarecki was not under that standard and he certainly did not pretext Durst. I cannot elaborate more on this point because doing so could compromise pressing cases and their various levels of due process. I can state as fact that anything that was evidence or led to evidence that culminated here was absolutely given to any agency of jurisdiction and was not published. I certainly could have- the decision not to is my personal creedo.
I am surprised you did not reference my standard reply, lol- that this is what makes me a lousy reporter but makes a great analyst.
If Jarecki consulted with LE prior to that interview and interpretation of evidence they will be found to be agents of the state- I say that vehemently. To your point- I don’t believe they did so that issue is going to be the subject of heated debate, no doubt.
A documentarian would have a different set of ethics and agenda then myself, yes.
B
oh come on- this article, the facts of which were evidently gathered 13 hers ago, is nuts! What to make of it and the claims within????
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/200204/killer-in-the-blue-dress
yep
B
Blink writes:
I think it will be learned that Durst found out where Doug lived from the producers
In The Jinx- Family Values
Durst says while standing in front of Dougs house w/Starbucks coffee:
Right Here I want you to photograph me, Now that I know it is Douglas’ house”
Family Values
shows
R Durst getting Starbucks near Time Square- He is wearing a black suit jacket white shirt navy pants greyish shoes
Time Square
The Ticker behind him reads:
dont trust the B in Aprt 23 Wednesdays on ABC then the timezone
It seems this show ran for only two seasons
The first season on Weds the second not-
The first season consisted of seven episodes and aired from April 11 to May 23, 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Trust_the_B—-_in_Apartment_23
In another shot after an encounter with the Durst Security guards R Durst is on the phone- complaining of the guards He walks past a billboard underneath it is NASDAQ above it reads
April 2-30 11am-8pm
46nd and 6th
according to the link DTTBin A23 ran 3 episodes in April one on 11th 18th and 25th
http://nypost.com/2013/08/17/robert-durst-busted-for-violating-restraining-order-at-brothers-midtown-home/
(durst)was busted yesterday for ignoring orders to keep away from his brother, law- enforcement sources said.
Durst, 70, who lives in a $1.75million town house in Harlem, allegedly approached Douglas Durst’s place at 413 W. 43rd St. at 8:30 a.m. on June 2 and glared into a surveillance camera, freaking out a worker inside.
The employee alerted higher-ups at the Durst Organization, the family’s real-estate firm, and cops were summoned.
Robert had been ordered to stay away from his estranged brother in April 2012, sources said.
A prosecutor said at Robert’s arraignment last night that Robert had also stared into the security cameras of other relatives who live on the block, and a judge issued 13 orders of protection telling him to stay away from them.
—
The timeline according to the doc said they had leverage with the arrest to get Durst to sit for second interview
on film it was said that Durst went back to Dougs a couple of weeks after the timessquare interview
The dates shown in the edited film-
The date shown of call to Ed wrght was June 11 2012
The calender shown w Jareki rescheduling the “Tuesday” appt for the 2nd interview shows the 3rd Monday w/a MLK notation
if noted for Martin Luther King Day that would mean 2nd interview hadnt happened as of Monday 21 January 2013 or Monday, 20 January 2014
Not sure if any of that helps- IMO the doc is not in chronological order- Its confusing
For instance after talking to Sareb about the letter hes Saying do you have yr answer now- Sareb answers yes Jareki is shown next outside in a cr on the phone telling his team-
Ask Coulter if he saw any other letters get an inventory of what was taken out of the house…
BUT Jareki is shown in this same manner clothes- footage earlier- being told by his team by phone- that Durst had told Sareb its ok to talk to them but dont mention I am here I told them Im in Barcelona-
That would have happened way back in Oct- as Durst says Ill be back in Ny on Oct 30
Its so confusing and they tend to wear the same clothes-Im starting to wonder if the 2nd interview was on 1 day to include all footage shown with durst in black jacket white shirt and tannish shoes…if so this could mean the timesquare footage as well as the confession letter footage happened on the same day…
But that would be insane…
Hopefully they have everything well documented- and unedited so it can be figured out…
Not sure why the filmmakers shut down after being questioned on the timeline- It will come out and there are references in the footage…
AJMO Peace
Nope- you are correct. I just watched the entire series again and I am 100% confident that the Times Square Footage is shot the same day as Interview #2. If I were to guess I would assume they shot first, then returned to Jarecki’s office. If you listen carefully to Durst’s response to Jarecki on the phone- he says- “I am ready for you to shoot me now if your still interested.” I am very interested to know if Jarecki approached Durst after Durst refuses a 2nd interview ( I am at the point where I am not doing anything-period. And hangs up. Additionally, he is on the phone saying he was being filmed for the last 4 hours around Times Square “that’s what I’ve been doing.”
They are not engaging him in questions, and he expressly says “I want you to film me here now that I know this is Doug’s house.” Jarecki’s comments are all observational.
When he gets to the building- he says “Im here.” as if to say, you got your way or you talked me into it.
For all I know, Jarecki engaged him for promo material so he could market the series appropriately and ended up talking him into a second interview saying he just wanted to vet old photos for authenticity or get permission for use. Oye.
Jarecki definitely asks Smerling and Pontier if Coulter can provide an inventory and Smerling responds no- I dug really deep today. There was absolutely discussion with LE PRIOR to Durst’s confrontation on the letters. It has always bothered me Bob openly used the word exemplar- and Pontier started to and corrected himself in the planning. At one point Jarecki is unsure if Bob knows what they are up to- because Serab tells them he told him not to tell them he was actually in LA. So Sareb was in contact with Durst following Sareb’s on camera response to “dancing with the devil.” Who really thinks her beloved son is not going discuss that letter with Durst? It should also be noted Sareb is seen with Durst that day smoking a cigarette on the street in the evening. That would make it post interview.
Jarecki has/had the right to direct his piece as he saw fit- and according to him had Durst’s full cooperation and releases. I believe that. But it is also clear to me that at some point he tells Jarecki (Durst) he thinks he needs a new gig- and that he “has done Durst.” I mean- Jarecki shows Chip Lewis the exemplar- who really thinks Lewis is not on the horn in a hot minute screaming ambush?
So if all of this is considered true- what leverage was Jarecki referring to regarding Durst Atty request for footage from him from that shoot? (It also means that conversation and release takes place after the infamous episode 6 is filmed).
Lastly- Jarecki actually uses the words – “so we don’t produce more evidence” in context with preparation with confronting Durst after providing over 40 document examplars to an expert. He was coached. It’s an issue.
B
adding another date-
Robert Durst allegedly violates restraining order
August 18, 2013 10:00AM
« Older Comments http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/18/robert-durst-allegedly-violates-restraining-order/
Robert was released on Friday after bondsman Ira Judelson posted $5,000 bail.
That would place the Durst phone call to Jareki-
Hope yr not dead left a lengthy voicemail for u-
My lawyers are gonna contact u…
Sometime after Friday Aug 16 Friday 2013
So that would mean if the MLK notation was correct for MLK day and the calender rescheduling of the Tues 2nd interview…that Durst had not given the 2nd interview by Monday January 20 2014
Which would mean that June 12, 2014 the date they found the footage was only 5mths after MLK day… How soon after were they able to reschedule? “We hired some new assistants and they were going through some old material. That was quite a bit later. Let me look at my list. It was June 12, 2014.”
you wrote:
whodunnit says:
March 27, 2015 at 1:49 am
Who- I read the second one for research into this piece, I believe it is hyperlinked, but apparently not well because I just caught there was a 2 year gap between Durst’s first and second interviews- I did not realize that span. Either I missed that twice or it was not denoted in the docuseries. I would also note Jarecki is uncomfortable discussing the timeline of events most especially when it relates to Durst being outside his brothers home taking place “after” the second interview. I do not agree that was the case. Did Jarecki et al deceive Durst? He was making a documentary which is still an artists editorial at the end of the day- so he can do what he wants as this was not his foray as a journalist which requires us with those credentials to adhere to the ethics clauses attached to same. At the end of the day- I don’t think there can be any other inference other than they sought the second interview to confront him about the letter. To that end, if he was pretexted, I can see his Atty’s having a field day as they then became agents of the state.
B
—
As weve been discussing – very interesting-
ajmo peace
Or was the MLK day Tues rescheduling in 2013- and that would mean Durst violated the restraining order June 13 2013 he “approached Douglas Durst’s place at 413 W. 43rd St. at 8:30 a.m. on June 2″ and wasnt arrested until August 16 posted 500 bail
THen called jareki with the lawyer call when?
Thoughts Im confusing myself now always forever….
Mom 3.0- I know you have a few in the queue. I appreciate your patience as I am revisiting the JINX today to respond or confirm your post.
Thanks
B
how does that play to 2 years later and discovering the audio footage way later- and when would that place the Sareb finding of the letter and then needing the 2nd interview-??
how does that work
ajmo peace
blink writes:
Wouldn’t the filing of the TRO date be pertinent and possibly establish the origin of Durst’s appearance at his brother’s home? How would the standard language of an RO establish how Durst came to know his brother’s residence and moreover establish when that was learned about and filmed for the JINX
——
In the doc, Douglas is seen on video from inheritance lawsuit confirming that he had taken out a restraining order on Robert. So when deposed in the lawsuit Robert filed against Durst Family court for inheritance due him, it was something that was already a fact at that time of Douglas deposition.It is discoverable exactly when that video of Dopuglas deposition was made.
Robert was arrested for being on Douglas property, in violation of the restraining order.
It is not stated IF the restraining order was filed when Robert filed lawsuit for inheritance, or if it was a longer standing and separate thing.But because the violation was that Robert Durst was on Douglas PROPERTY, I ASSUMED that this was specified in that restraining order. The restraining order COULD have been simpler and said ” within 100 feet”, and Douglas could have been at home, therefore within illegally specified distance of Robert.
But your question seemed to be, how did Durst know Douglas residence, and did Jareki give that info to Durst.
Bottom line is that we would have to see the actual order to know if residence was specified with address. That document exists. And we would also, to answer the question of whether or not Jareki knew the address and Durst DIDN’T, have to wonder how Jareki would have had access to something that Durst knew nothing about.
I ASSUMED that Robert knows exactly which properties are owned by Durst family, in keeping with his participation in the trust, and that part of the lawsuit involved an exact accounting of what properties were held by whom and at what value.
Additionally, it is known that Robert supplied Jareki with many many documents, including the video tape of Douglas deposition.
The above is my own thinking on just how Durst ended up knowing Douglas address. And as you know I have ZERO experience in investigation, I am just ruminating.
To me the bigger question is WHY did this happen, what was the goal in Durst’s mind and in the mind of the filmmakers? It did look to me on film that this was a crew following Durst, not leading him. And my take away was that this was done to illustrate just how discarded Durst had been, how he was a pariah to his own family to such an extent that he was banned from physical contact. (I also understood Douglas to claim that the restraining order came about because Robert showed up at Douglas house with a gun or two in his car)
As far as chronology,- meaning how soon after the filing did Durst go to Douglas house, and did he go to Douglas house before or after the second interview, that can be quantified by looking at the dates those recordings were made, and is discoverable, imo.
RE Mom3.0 says:
March 30, 2015 at 12:41 am
correction June 2 not 13
Mom 3.0- I know you have a few in the queue. I appreciate your patience as I am revisiting the JINX today to respond or confirm your post.
Thanks
B
–
No problem Blink- I appreciate it. I reviewed Part 5 and 6 if that helps
Sorry for so many posts… I was trying to think it thru the more I did the more confused I became.LOL
RE whodunnit says:
March 29, 2015 at 5:51 pm
blink writes:
Lastly- Jarecki knows his filming timeline down pat. I highly doubt he did not do “dailys” which in filming speak is footage shot that day
——-
actually, not so sure. Unlike a film, where in preproduction, each day days has specific scenes to be shot and is therefore pre planned,) and on film you work in the confines of unions as to how long they can shoot each day etc), a documentary is a whole different animal and can take YEARS to amass and sort through footage.
–Thanx for sharing yr expertize who- interesting and invaluable
It seems at first Jarecki didnt know what kind of film he was making- He didnt go in deciding it was gonna be a documentary
It didnt take years to sit thru to amass most of the footage
w/Durst
It was Over three days in 2011, the director filmed more than 20 hours of conversation with his subject.
He brought together and showed the footage to his friends Diane Sawyer and Mike Nichols- She advised against Network TV and suggested a feature length Film-
AJMO Peace
I am reading ” A Deadly Secret: The Strange Dissapreance of Kathie Durst”, originally published in 2002.
Blink, I am assuming you have read it, and Mom 3.0- in particular- wow I would LOVE to know your take on the info in the is book. It includes a letter written regarding Robert Durst mental health as a child, in 1953, and offers the assessment that his anger towards his father and his brother is so intense that it could result in ” decomposition of the personality or even schizophrenia”.
Practically every sentence in this book contains information that is stunning, and actually FAR more encompassing that The Jinx, imo. It has recently been ” re released” on Amazon with an additional chapter.
In this book it cites a program that was on ABC years ago, called ” The vanishing”, about kathie Durst’s disappearance, and it describes that hour show as having interviews with everyone including LE, being confronted with findings, not just about Durst, but also with regards to the investigation itself. I am trying to find some kind of link to that show, it would be really interesting to see. In the book, the show as well as other print journalism are shown in the perspective that this kind of exposure might possibly bring out witnesses or more information. I am REALLY curious.
ALSO-
To
Mom 3.0-
I want to tell you YES, I have processed your explanations of why you considered the handling of the letter as an ambush, and though you know I don’t like that word in connection with a documentarian following up on knowledge gained during an exploratory process, I basically AGREE- but to me, thats not a bad thing.
The real issue to me is if the filmmakers were charged with a mission to get his response on film and in that way acted as agents of the state- which to me would TRULY have been an ambush, or if, as I still believe, the filmmakers were exposing Durst to what they had found, and being responsible in fulfilling a quest of getting to the truth…
Other shows over the years, on Net work TV, as well as many many interviews were exploratory and totally damning- but there was never an arrest…
And as i have said before, I think that Durst is gong to get out of this predicament too, for a zillion reasons. Unless he confesses- and even then, who knows.
But thanks again Mom 3.0 and Blink, for educating me !
Okay, this is officially hearsay because I am repeating something that was told to me, and I have no first hand knowledge, aside from being told.
A person very close to the filmmakers of The Jinx stated that there were ” about six lawyers” being consulted throughout the entire project.
Offering this as tissue paper thin confirmation of your statements of same , Blink
Don’t know if this means anything at all, but if true, I would imagine that there may be more dotted I’s and crossed t’s than one would think at first glance.
But I just can’t change my mind that I think Durst is going to walk away from all of this
We agree on a all points Who- I have been told independently that Jarecki et al legal team advised him entirely. Although, that would have been my firm belief just revisiting the series.
If this case stays level- if it goes to trial, Durst will walk
B
TO CLARIFY POST TO MOM 3.0, March 30 2015, 9:45 p.m.
Mom 3.0
in my previous post I wrote…… ” The real issue to me is if the filmmakers were charged with a mission to get his response on film and in that way acted as agents of the state”….
what I MEAN to say if filmmakers were charged by LE with a mission to get his ( durst) response on film
did LE give this task to Jareki.
link to old show, Dominc Dunne’s Power and Priveledge series,
2013 episode about Durst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZFLonTR3fE
blink writes:
It would seem to me if someone had been “lying in wait” to murder her that they would have checked the garage if the presumption was that Susan was not there when they arrived- otherwise there are 2 cars there and someone would have had to know that Sareb was away and not staying there, imo.
—–
Could this come under the category of charges that can’t stand up? What exactly does the lying in wait charge mean…. and is that a qualifier for death penalty?
I still believe that Sareb has more information that would clarify things further, cause its hard to believe why he just happened to find that letter so many years after Berman’s death… and I find myself continuing to believe that Durst financed a part of Sarebs life in some way, educational or otherwise.
article rom NY times, March 24, claimed by NY Times to be first interview given by Douglas since arrest of Robert
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/nyregion/for-durst-family-arrest-brings-a-tremendous-sense-of-relief.html?src=me&_r=0
———
what is curious is that Douglas states that he was given information that Robert Durst was about 5-10 minutes away from Douglas Palm Beach house- HOW did Douglas get that information and from whom, and how long has he been un=sing unlimited funds to track Robert. And if he was really checking up on Robert all along, why did he believe that Jareki was mounting a documentary to show Robert’s innocence….?
In my view Douglas had surveillance on Robert
B
Mom 3.0 writes:
He brought together and showed the footage to his friends Diane Sawyer and Mike Nichols- She advised against Network TV and suggested a feature length Film-
————
It is common to show works in progress to friends and potentially helpful acquaintances when you have self financed and are looking for best advice and connections for distribution for documentaries, a good choice on Jareki’s part to do so with Diane Swayer and her late husband Mike Nichols.The documentary was viewed many times by prospective distributors, and bid upon. HBO made the highest offer
blink writes
In my view Douglas had surveillance on Robert
B
—–
absolutely agree- and wonder also to what extent Robert Durst has had info fed to him by hired sources.
Robert Durst’s justificaton for assuming disguise as a mute woman, was to avoid persecution as a result of Janet Pirro’s zealous focus on the Kathie Durst dissapearnace. That worked with the jury in the Black Trial, apparently.
But what do you make of his ” need” to frequent areas and housing for the indigent, steal identies of former classmates when renting apartments, getting credit cards etc. How was living in a world of people who who disregarded by society necessary- was it because he saw himself as that or because within that world, no one would notice if anyone was missing.
Why hasn’t he been charged with identity theft? The car he rented post death of Morris Black was rented in the name of… Morris Black. This is only one example of many many- and several of his credit card and rentals were in names of former classmates, by the way
I absolutely believe Robert Durst has a T1 line of information streaming to him constantly for anything he wishes to know. I can tell you as a fact he has paid extensively for certain web-based linkage removal programs and scrubbing. I doubt he is in tune with such practices on his own- rather, he is advised.
Not only that, he is way more sophisticated of a critical thinker than many give him credit for, imo. To answer your question- in my view there are two reasons Durst has both unnecessarily used alias’s at a young age and hangs out with what he perceives as society’s “forgotten”. He absolutely hates being Robert Durst. Is there also some organic need for him to hide transactions and/or assets, etc, yes. Most especially since he has known since at least 1982 he might need to flee and be someone else entirely.
The second is he is studying them. I am not prepared to publish it yet, but I have found some pretty interesting trends in his alias usage.
B
Blink writes ( re ledgers stolen)
I dont think she sent it to Police I think she sent it to someone at Durst Org- but I cannot say if she actually did that either.
B
——-
In ” The Deadly Secret”, it is stated that kathie Durst gave documents to Gilberte Najamy showing stocks fraudulently put in Kathies name as well a financials that were shaky. Gilberte reports break in a year after kathie Dissapearnace where these docs were the only thing stolen when her house was broken into.
Also in book, Gilberte Najamy, (who also appeared in The Jinx) was shown to have a criminal background involving possession of drugs and lost her status as a golden source at some point.
LA times article in which jareki states his connection to LAPD
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-durst-letter-20150319-story.html#page=2
Oh yeah- if that is correct he is going to be considered an agent- but to be honest I had concluded that after additional review yesterday.
B
we agree jareki was given thorough legal advice from a team of lawyers – and also would have been advised legally as far back as ” All Good Things”, which from what I understand Jareki undertook research for that film in documentary mode.
But the question is, did ” the last couple of years” statement from Jareki mean that he contacted LE AFTER everything was in the can.
It is discoverable as to when LE received information from Jareki et al.It is discoverable what LE exchange with Jareki was and when.
What is interesting to me are the comments from Douglas Durst recently, saying he is relieved etc. Can we expect that Durst org will no longer exert any influence on dissemination of information about ongoing investigation of Robert Durst? There has been a pervasive vibe since Kathie Durst disappearance that ” Durst power” was at play in order to protect the organization from scandal incurred by Robert- and don’t forget Robert was employed for 12 years post kathie disappearance by Durst org til the last straw of urinating in wastebaskets…
I wouldn’t be surprised if Douglas is now more forthcoming than ever before. But too little too late, imo.
Regarding the writing exemplars, LAPD DID get numerous writing samples, under order of judge, for comparison to cadaver letter at time of Berman death.
LAPD had one writing expert confirm it was a match but second opinion said not a match. At the time of Berman death, neal Brenner, Bermans manager who was described as having an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Berman, was fingered as a prime suspect. Writing samples were taken from Brenner as well.Clearly Brenner is not in play at this time.
re: suspicions of Brenner, IMO< Durst had the opportunity to say that he already went through writing samples at time of Berman death, and that brannier was suspected of writing cadaver letter. But he didnt.
ALSO
It really does look like FBI was tracking Durst. There have been many programs and articles and publications about Durst over the years citing details that skew toward Durst guilt. I just don't think that The Jinx is the searing indictment that many think it is- and I am hopeful that whatever REALLY left to Durst's arrest in New Orleans is not dependent on a inadvertanlt recorded phrase by a man who had the right to expect privacy when going to the bathroom*
* having said that Durst was arrested for urinating in a drug store well after after the documentary was finished, (summer 2014) so maybe Durst doesn't consider going to the bathroom as a private act. Sorry to be faceticious. Here is link to charges of public indecency by Robert Durst:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/robert-durst-accused-exposing-urinating-drug-store-article-1.1875763
Thank you for the review of the material Blink I concur-
You wrote in latest response on review:() by me
(if these things are true)
He was coached. It’s an issue.
B
You once wrote:
- I don’t think he (jareki) would BS the audience base he had, and he full well knows he will be a witness in the case for both sides.
Blink after review
Right now I feel he did Bullshit the audience- and the confession that was supposed to be the result of his leverage- a 2013 arrest when the 2nd interview happened in 2012 – an arrest which seems to have been spurred because Durst “now” had Dougs address…
and if the entire “2nd” interview included the movie theatre footage- the walk past his old office building the encounter with security guards and all the rest It may put things in a different light….
All things considered Wont the defense be in part:
its no wonder Durst was yawning, rubbing his face… and the burping….He had spent hours of the day with them- drinking coffee water- who knows what he ate or didnt- at that point who wouldnt be tired or need to eat or burp or have an upset stomach or need to go to the bathroom??
and since we already know Durst was upset by being followed by security thinking out loud- its ridiculous-
How can anyone think that his bathroom “alone” time was ONLY a reliving rant of those moments of being shown the 1999 letter?
He could have been rehashing responding to ANY number of people things scenarios that happened during the day-
Didnt Jareki manipulate the audience – the timeline- the “gotcha” moment” of the letter the reveal- etc?
If so How are we sure the “evidence” is reliable and true? the letter find along with the bathroom confession find and its reveal
anything
IDK
we all feel that Durst will walk if this is all the evidence they have and we all wonder if anything from the Doc will be accepted as evidence for trial-
Im left thinking was it worth it? seriously- was our entertainment worth it?
was it worth it to LE to Jareki
Jareki claims he was scared of Durst and needed security…
well according to jareki way back in Jan- during the promo tour-
It was reported:
snipped:
Durst was not at the screening, and Jarecki said he hadn’t seen the completed series, but he and Smerling were trying to show it to him.
They were trying to show it to him?
A man they are frightened of- who they wish had been arrested sooner?
And what of Sareb- he continued to “dance with the devil” no security–
—Sorry but I cant help but think we were all manipulated.
and it PIzzes me off that I am left in a position of essentially defending Durst- and questioning The “good guys” because what they did may help him walk and it seems to me it is quite probable Durst did kill 3 people-
but if this is how we go about attempting to get justice than everyone is at the mercy of manipulations- questionable tactics and back door shenanigans and THOSE types of things can lead to INNOCENT people being convicted- Not only in the court of public opinion but in a court of law as well-
and that aint my idea of justice
A&P
Re whodunnit says:
March 30, 2015 at 9:45 pm
I am reading ” A Deadly Secret: The Strange Dissapreance of Kathie Durst”, originally published in 2002.
Blink, I am assuming you have read it, and Mom 3.0- in particular- wow I would LOVE to know your take on the info in the is book. It includes a letter written regarding Robert Durst mental health as a child, in 1953, and offers the assessment that his anger towards his father and his brother is so intense that it could result in ” decomposition of the personality or even schizophrenia”.
I will add it to my list who-
Right now I can tell you it pisses me off-
I say DUH what little kid put in that position wouldnt be angry to the point of “madness”-
And his relationship with Douglas-
as Blink said he comes off as a major Douche-
He seems to relish in his brother’s downfall and it seems it is the Dursts His father and Douglas treatment of him (or lack of) that has led him to hell in a handbasket
Kathie Durst fell in love with him he wasnt all bad- who knows if Dad had never stepped back in to ask them to give up their Vermont dream would they have been able to make it?
If his father had never subjected him to the horror of his Mothers suicide would he have been a different person would he have been willing to become a father to their unborn baby instead of fearing it-
I can certainly understand that Robert Durst was damaged and quite likely needed serious MH treatment would it have helped? IDK
Did it play a part in his crimes or suspected crimes?
Probably- if he did Kill Kathie and Susan I dont think it is an excuse-
PS-
who thank you for understanding my feelings IRT ambush as do I yours-
PSS
whodunnit says:
March 31, 2015 at 1:03 am
Yes who I was trying to convey that they the filmmakers had already went thru a great deal of materials by that time- and if the 2nd interview came after the discussion then it seems they had 1 days worth of film and audio to go thru for that day- and seeing as how that letter reveal was the most important “finale” I am questioning the truthfulness of we didnt find that “confession” until much later after we hired more assistants-
that day that time would have been too important not to go thru I mean come on they put the letter in a safety deposit box…. did countless snippets of just audio via phonecalls-and other open mic moments of durst…. but just stumbled upon the audio thru chance- sorry not buying it-
AJMO Peace
AJMO
Just to add- as several “JINX” team members to include Jarecki/Smerling/Pinoit met for hours in the planning stages of the second interview I truly find it hard to believe that the “confrontation” was not monitored live by all. Jarecki expressly stated that he felt Durst was more volatile than ever. I don’t believe the “spillover” audio was only found after hiring more assistants.
After reviewing once again the docuseries in full- I do agree in it’s presentation that anyone taking the appearance of chronology as fact in such a piece should prolly not watch them, lol, but I also felt there was enough in there that someone paying reasonable attention can discern that
I am of the opinion that Durst likely knew what he would be confronted with- I mean, years ago he had to comply with a court order seeking writing exemplars in the first place- he knew they were looking to compare the cadaver note and he likely knew they prolly had- they discussed it in the first interview as it is.
I think Mom 3.0 you are offended by the fact that you feel the series was manipulative to public opinion and potentially damaging to the criminal case against him- is that correct?
At this point , although I started out being incensed at the possibility this work put the Berman case in jeopardy- the more I review and the more I think about it- I think it is going to be LE that shot themselves in the foot because I saw DeGuerin’s argument yesterday and it is SOLID. That said- I see lots of solid motions get declined this early in the process. This was a multiagency effort- but here’s the thing- the rules of discovery in Fed agencies differ from that of the State so will be most interesting to see what the FBI’s warrant looks like- that they did not seek before search and seize and nothing was in plain sight of a man they had been surveilling. They made no mention of him being a suspect and about to be the recipient of a murder arrest warrant.
I may be giving him too much credit, but I don’t think so. I think this thing is coming along swimmingly for him.
B
Based on all the discussion to date, I am beginning to think that Robert Durst has used his large monetary resources and his cunning to play a game with his family and society where he appears and disappears at will.
The documentary was perhaps his idea as another way to present himself while at the same time thumbing his nose at LE and the courts. I suspect that the hot mike confession contains the truth and because of this he made plans to once again disappear. This time he underestimated the speed of LE and he was caught in NOLA before he could leave the country.
Will LE and the courts be able to build a case against him for a single murder? It is going to be difficult. Unless LE are able to get some credible witnesses and factual evidence, he may succeed.
This also raises the question of did he commit other crimes while pretending to be another person? The Galveston crime against Mr. Black was during a time he was taking another idenity. So, why not?
This fox built the henhouse.
B
From NY Times, so I consider it credible. and fact checked….
more insight into the tragic and dark dark world of Robert Durst:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/nyregion/robert-dursts-wife-steps-back-after-years-of-defending-him.html?_r=0