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
Link to article which references the 2001 supposition by LAPD that handwriting analysis of cadaver letter was written by susan Berman manager Nyle Brenner:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article15329078.html
blink writes:
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- I believe the charge of lying in wait is to predicate death penalty that can be sought if pre mediation is proven,
here is link to California law, defining what the charge of “lying in wait” involves
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m060.htm
It does not necessarily means that a person is literally waiting around fro a set period of time,- from reading the law, it looks like it rests on the ability of the perp to make a decision to act in a way that will knowingly cause harm, and that decision can take days or a few seconds to happen- but it happens before the act .
Who- I am familiar with the statute, thank you. It is broad. The factual situation necessary to sustain a jury’s finding of lying in wait as a special circumstance is: ” `an intentional murder, committed under circumstances which include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage[.]‘ ” People v. Sims, 853 P.2d 992, 1007 (Cal. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2782 (1994) (quoting People v. Morales, 770 P.2d 244 (Cal.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 984 (1989)).In contrast, the theory of first degree murder by means of lying in wait does not require the intent to murder the victim, but rather, “the intent to watch and wait for the purpose of gaining advantage and taking the victim unawares in order to facilitate the act which constitutes murder.” People v. Laws, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 668, 674, 12 Cal. App. 4th 786, 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). Moreover, the lying in wait need not continue for any particular period of time, provided that its duration is such as to show a state of mind equivalent to premeditation or deliberation. People v. Ruiz, 749 P.2d 854, 867 (Cal.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 (1988)
Won’t no more until we see the indictment of from the prelim hearing
B
Blink writes:
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
Hi Blink- see link regarding definition of ” lying in wait” as per california law
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m060.htm
I believe they charged Durst as a prediction for seeking death penalty, as lying in wait is parallel to pre meditation
Blink writes to Mom 3.0
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?
——
Mom 3.0
There are SO many articles and shows that have been aired since Kathie Durst disappearance, Morris Black, etc., and ALL pointing a finger at Durst.
I think the difference is that THIS time, with The Jinx, we are living in an era of many entertainment platforms, much wider audience, no one shot articles in news parer to be discarded wrapping fish the next day, television programs air once and then over.
Crucial is this man’s ability to get a fair trial, I would think. But as far as content, the terrain covered in The Jinx has been out there for some time, the ONLY difference is that Durst is speaking, imo.
blink writes:
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
——-
I am assuming he had production schedule also
But my point is that in a documentary, you don’t know WHAT you are going to get, and the information you gather and discover leads you. So for example, you interview someone and they say ” I saw a wig on a lamp post”, you could then schedule a day to go to that lamp pots, but you wouldn’t know what the result would be.
For example- Sareb contacted filmmakers to say he had something of great interest. Filmakers then scheduled time to film Sareb, but did not know in advance what the content of that interview would be
This is very different from scheduling a days work with specific scripted lines and actions, more free flow and following. They get the interviews, then analyze and proceed as the story unfolds, as opposed to creating and filming a story. So if they had the letter from Sareb, they could have scheduled an interview to see what Durst would say, but couldn’t have known in advance what he would say. In other words, no way to schedule shooting a confession. (And who knows if they had catering, lol- on film you just hear someone ask Durst if he wants a sandwich, lol)
Remember years ago Geraldo Rivera did a show , filmed going to a place to produce a cache placed there by Al Capone?- and then when they opened up the place and there was NOTHING? It happens.
Who- very respectfully as I recall that was a live show, not a scripted documentary. There were/are writers on this work- and it is not reality TV- it was heavily edited AND directed. I again respectfully submit they OPENLY discussed what they would do ( I am not sure if you read a few of my posts from yesterday- I quoted directly) IF he confessed, and moreover Jarecki is trying to discuss a scenario where they “do not produce more evidence.” There was 25 hours ( if that is correct) of Durst interviews. If Jarecki ever said he had zero idea what Durst might say I would call him a liar. He actually went though every potential scenario and also opined how “cold it would feel” to Durst.
I also discussed the confirmation they were in touch with LE prior to Interview #2. I can tell you as someone with an advanced certification in interview and interrogation to included target subjects- someone trained in this area has done every ounce of diligence upfront and realizes this is a one shot scenario. If that did not occur, I do find it irresponsible as Jarecki open says “he is seeking justice.”
ALL THAT ASIDE- If this was strictly an entertainment piece of case study of sorts- I think it is a brilliant effort and absolutely likely to net Smerling awards for cinematography and Pinoit for editing. One major factor here as I have encountered this issue with LE in “real” cases personally. They absolutely HATE it when utilizing media of ANY kind progresses a case and it is much worse when it is clear that effort did what they could not. Maybe it is time for some serious re-training.
B
The following are articles about Susan Berman death.
Sareb is referred to in this first one as being 24- 26 years old.
This article points finger at Nyle Brenner.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/4459/
ANOTHER new York Magazine article, written when Durst was arrested for Morris Black murder, , also refers to Sareb, and includes quotes from Sareb.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/4459/
Very interesting, to me at least, and would explain why in The Jinx, Sareb would have been asked ” do you have your answer”-
pretty clear that Sareb was close to Durst and in Sareb’s words wanted ” to give him the benefit of the doubt
blink writes:
If that did not occur, I do find it irresponsible as Jarecki open says “he is seeking justice.”
——
I noticed that in Capturing the Friedman’s, at the end of that journey, Jareki became an advocate for jesse Friedman. jareki wasn’t an advocate before he made the doc.
I don’t condemen Jareki for seeking justice in the case of Durst. I am 100 percent sure that Jareki did NOT not if Durst was guilty or innocent before taking on the endeavor of giving Durst the voice Durst asked for.
If there was info gathered for this particular documentary that could show that Durst was absolutely innocent, i have no doubt in my mind that the filmmakers would have shown that. I see the documentary for what I believe it is: a documenting of the journey that took place when Durst asked a filmmaker to film ” his side”.
I don’t think that Jareki manipulated what he found in a way to get a conviction for the man, regardless of continuity ” errors”. I really believe that jareki is a truth seeker, not a sensationalist out to make a name for himself or put Durst in jail, just my opinion. I am pretty sure Durst defense will mount an attack on Jareki as soon as they can, and that will be interesting too, for I am sure every possible angle of if Jareki was agent of the state, or if Durst was framed, or if arrest was made BECAUSE of The Jinx, etc etc will be covered by Durst legal team .
blink writes:
One major factor here as I have encountered this issue with LE in “real” cases personally. They absolutely HATE it when utilizing media of ANY kind progresses a case and it is much worse when it is clear that effort did what they could not. Maybe it is time for some serious re-training.
———
It was Pirro who made the statement that The Jinx had succeeded where LE had failed, certainly not the filmmakers. It was then multiplied by a thousand in this day and age of instates, unveiled cyber space communication.
Honestly, the book ” A Deadly Secret” is in far FAR more detail, far more slanted in terms of ascribing guilt than ” The Jinx”.It was published in 2002 or 2003. Both the Kathie Durst disappearance and the Berman murder have been open cases for decades. Just my opinion, but sooner or later something had to give. It may even come down to Durst current mental state health problems and fatigue. Would be nice to get a real confession, if that is even possible.I think Durst is crazy smart, and crazy nuts. I don’t think he should be in general population, but more than that, its just down to the law and how it is used.
blink writes:
Won’t no more until we see the indictment of from the prelim hearing
B
—-
agree- that is, if they ever get the prelim hearing in Los Angeles- look at this, stalled in New orleans…:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/robert-durst-appears-court-lawyers-witnesses-show/story?id=30063724
WTF-
1. While cute, that reporter got about a 1/3 of it right, lol.
2. Assuming everyone’s motions are current and the press is just not featuring them, those FBI agents and the State Trooper are in for it. Who avoids a subpoena in a felony preliminary hearing?
3. Why is an Ada or DDA (whatever they have there) screaming at defense counsel when he knows full well the avoidance of the duces tecum’s is going to fall on him? That is a sure fire sign of a flimsy case. I swear- you would think that people would stop underestimating this guy.
B
blink writes:
That is a sure fire sign of a flimsy case. I swear- you would think that people would stop underestimating this guy.
B
—-
wtf indeed!!! Buckle up, field day coming, lol.
to clarify:
I said:
I really believe that jareki is a truth seeker, not a sensationalist out to make a name for himself or put Durst in jail, just my opinion.
—–
what I mean is, I don’t see Jareki as a vigilante.
I agree with that.
B
Re Blink- respectful snips-
comment-2242548
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.
–
To add to this Jareki concludes the 2nd interview by dismissing Durst -PP Ok were done thank you very much He gets up with papers in hand asks the others to get Dursts backpack for him- Durst gets up says thank you very much… looks at watch says its 5? or 25 minutes after 4– they ask him if he wants to take a sandwich w/him- he says he needs to use the BR-
You wrote:
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
= Actually Blink we have the benefit of seeing them back to back for those watching- week to week Im not so certain the misrepresentation or the lack of chronology or the exact clothing would be discernible even to someone paying rapt attention- afterall the filmmakers are nudging them over and over to believe the misrepresentations-
For instance- Tht footage of Durst on security cameras- it isnt even the same stoop- not the same doorway not the same railing not the same anything- in fact it may not be Durst but yet another reenactment- Still its definitely not the building next to the funeral parlor that Durst thought was Dougs “now”
perhaps thats why the lawyers needed Jarekis film- to prove that Durst didnt know where they lived even though he claimed to on The Jinx wasit all a set up another “faux” scene?
Who knows but his lawyers were said to argue:
” Mr. Durst did not know which specific properties were owned by the family.”
you wrote:
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 am not disagreeing with this opinion Blink- and Yes they did- discuss the cadaver letter previously and I would think part of the discussion included LE trying to get a match but it coming back INconclusive-
What i have a concern about is what hasnt been manipulated what isnt a reenactment or “faux”
FInstance: Sareb calls Smerling and leaves a message:
(Identifies self) I started going thru the boxes of Susans stuff… and i Did have another box,,, so just wanted to get a reality check from you when u have a second -end
He did have another box? Huh?- that makes it sound if they had discussed possibly having a box that wasnt gone thru
But the “box” Sareb shows Smerling- is a see thru box with a manilla folder taped to top= and contains tapes including the memorial and the 1999 letter- He discussed the letter previously with Smerling cuz Smerling asks for it- and sareb shows him and says PP see thats why …like I said it was concerning enough that I might be dancing with the devil
Notice Sarebs shirt its the same one he wears when having the garage discussion way back in part 3 and the same one shown while driving on hs bike- (i assume now that he was driving to Susans for the garage talk?)
But yet when he is shown the comparison letters together- In black&orange print shirt) “Do you have yr answer” His 1999 letter is sealed in the sandwich bag- why? Presumably hes already touched it found it read it and brought it to the filmmakers- because hes worried they are a match….”and needs a reality check”
Did Sareb really find the letter and not give it to LE or was this again another liberty taken to make the story more interesting more dramatic or was this LE idea- Coulters idea?
Heres another weird thing- While Sareb is unboxing the letter- behind him is a weight bench on that bench there appears to be several shirts one of which is a purple-one just like the one he wore for the …Id like to think it was a “stranger” otherwise…=
The guy must only have 3 shirts to his name and must not have a closet….or somethings strange in Doc land
You asked:
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?
Yes Blink most definitely but I also think it is total BS that Smerling can claim:
We’re just trying to make our film as honest as possible.
or Jareki and team after Months of Promos and interviews and working with LE and lawyers now suddenly states:
“Given that we are likely to be called as witnesses in any case law enforcement may decide to bring against Robert Durst, it is not appropriate for us to comment further on these pending matters.”
If their whole goal was not to do anything to jeopardizes or stand in the way of justice- and if their goal was to make their film as honest as possible they willingly made choices that went against that…and for Jareki to claim that by the end of Part 6 everything would be clear… well for me it seems that isnt the truth either
I agree with yr ending thoughts on LE Dursts lawyers Etc-
Thank you for always thing 3 steps ahead and for letting me bounce my thoughts around here with yall Blink-
A&P
Hugs
Mom 3.0- Investigatively I have been in the situation of believing innocence and eventually rendering a different potential outlook. I get that and I am wiling to give Jarecki the benefit of the doubt on that. I think what we are seeing is just a fat editing effort defining “tone.”
B
Thanks for thinking 3 steps ahead not “thing”
ps Blink you were right about Durst being even more ill its being reported that he has cancer of the esophagus.
Heres another link to the “no show” that who brought to our attention earlier
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-robert-durst-new-orleans-court-updates-20150402-htmlstory.html
Durst supplied commentary for the DVD of “All Good Things”
Here’s some snippets:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/04/robert-dursts-all-good-things-dvd-commentary.html
Again- this is amateur hour. Who thinks an affidavit is going to be the sole evidence in a prelim hearing without cross? Huge error.
B
Blink I understand – for me his believing or not believing in innocence is not an issue- many documentarians go in in believing or leaning one way only to arrive at a different place-
The chronology isnt that big of a deal either- it only becomes one because the filmmakers made it one with their claim of leverage vs questionable chronology which is at odds with the narrative
which naturally spurred questions over editing and how that could effect the evidence and the case
and because chronology matters in regards to the case and the evidence uncovered
It matters to who knew what when and why as it will pertain to
getting jusice
I think you are right Editing played a big part in alot of these potential issues- and again we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they edited for tone or a better narrative or whatever-
But we also know that editing issues especially IRT questions on chronology will matter to the case-
when exactly did that letter come to light and when exactly did the confession happen and what exactly went on before during after etc…
At the end of the day the truth will come out- I assume all will be explained
Ill be Leaving further discussion Until then inorder to be sure to give Jarecki & all the benefit of the doubt
A&P
whodunnit says:
April 1, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Blink writes to Mom 3.0
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?
——
Mom 3.0
There are SO many articles and shows that have been aired since Kathie Durst disappearance, Morris Black, etc., and ALL pointing a finger at Durst.
I think the difference is that THIS time, with The Jinx, we are living in an era of many entertainment platforms, much wider audience, no one shot articles in news parer to be discarded wrapping fish the next day, television programs air once and then over.
Crucial is this man’s ability to get a fair trial, I would think. But as far as content, the terrain covered in The Jinx has been out there for some time, the ONLY difference is that Durst is speaking, imo.
–
Yes who I agree …
I think the biggest difference this time around is that Jareki took his doc to HBO and included a very dramatic opening including the song Fresh Blood and he/they marketed it and promoted it well all before it ever hit the screen – those decisions captured a greater audience and with that grater audience came todays access to the internet and being able to immediately binge watch and immediately talk over the show and what it means and questions over the timeline and all the rest- immediately come to light
For every person that immediately took the BR dialog as a confession there was another set saying no just ramblings in a private moment-
for every person that said yep the letter is a match another set said- im not sure-
for every person googling Durst there was another set googling jareki-
Yr right there is no wrapping the news over fish and forgetting about it once questions and concerns arise someone alot of someones will not rest until those questions are answers until every avenue is explored- whether it be questions over whether Durst “killed them all, ofcourse” or whether it is over “what are the filmmakers of the jinx trying to hide”
That is the nature of the beast of the information age we live in today for better or worse
itll all play out before our eyes one way or another.
AJMO peace
just reread my post and this part came out wrong:
At the end of the day the truth will come out- I assume all will be explained
Ill be Leaving further discussion Until then inorder to be sure to give Jarecki & all the benefit of the doubt
—
meant to say i ll be leaving the discussion over movies editing chronology etc until then- so I can be sure to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt on these matters- (i agree it is best)
Re who
whodunnit says:
April 1, 2015 at 5:24 pm
The following are articles about Susan Berman death.
Sareb is referred to in this first one as being 24- 26 years old.
This article points finger at Nyle Brenner.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/4459/
ANOTHER new York Magazine article, written when Durst was arrested for Morris Black murder, , also refers to Sareb, and includes quotes from Sareb.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/4459/
Very interesting, to me at least, and would explain why in The Jinx, Sareb would have been asked ” do you have your answer”-
pretty clear that Sareb was close to Durst and in Sareb’s words wanted ” to give him the benefit of the doubt—
——
who thanks for bringing that article to our attention- lots of info inside-
did you mean to include a second different article? both links go to the same one for me?
whos nymag article contains info the defense is sure to utilize for any case against Durst-
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/4459/
according to that story Susan angered alotof people and some were her friends family landlord etc
seeing as how document examiners first pinned the letter writer as Brenner and it would seem he was at the time a good enough possible culprit- that would be an easy “Kronk” for this defense moving forward too….
Questions after reading:
Kim Lankford was best friends w Susan- in Eroses earlier newweek link it read:
Their marriage (Durst Char.) came as a shock to Kim Lankford–understandably so, considering she was dating Durst at the time, according to the book Without a Trace.
http://www.newsweek.com/look-inside-robert-dursts-home-life-debrah-lee-charatan-315642?piano_d=1
–Wouldnt Durst be a topic of conversation for these women? And if Bermans big news centered around Durst would she have kept that tidbit from Lankford?
And if true that Durst ws to visit Susan would she have shared this with lankford-
If Durst did kill Susan perhaps it was over an argument of his surprise marriage to Char and his rude dismissal of Lankford?
—
Why write the letter to alert police to the remains?
— IIRC in the Jinx and in other reports it was said that Susans doors were locked the house appeared secure-
but in this article
It says neighbors alerted police after noting the dog was running about unattended-
snip-
Less than a week later, at 1 P.M. on Christmas Eve, the Los Angeles police were called to Susan’s run-down home on Benedict Canyon Road by neighbors who’d grown alarmed that one of her three wire-haired fox terriers — so precious to her, such a nuisance to others — was running wild and barking hysterically. Susan would never have left Lulu unattended for so long. The cops found the front door unlocked and the back door ajar, and followed the bloody pawprints of the dogs to the back bedroom. Dressed in sweats and a T-shirt, Susan was lying on the cold, hardwood floor, with a single bullet in the back of her head. She’d been dead for at least a day.
….and police found the front door unlocked and the back door wide open
that widens the pool of potentials vs narrows
This doesnt jive with anyone sending the letter to alert police – police were alerted by neighbors who were alerted by dogs barking and running wild
susan wouldnt have left Lulu unattended for that “long”
How long is long? and if door was open then anyone could have stumbled on the scene and wrote the note not necessarily the killer….and another thought if this is true then that might play havoc on the time of death especially if time was set based only on rigor -
snipped:
On December 22nd, Susan’s last night alive, she went to dinner and a movie with Rich Markey.
question
did she contact anyone after that by phone or other- what time did she arrive home- was she escorted in by her friend –
time of death is definitely on 23rd- early morning- how early? late night of the 22nd or earlier that evening or what?
snip
The police believe that she was killed the next morning, Saturday the 23rd. When they arrived on Sunday, her mail hadn’t been brought in yet, though Susan (and the dogs) never missed the mailman. Word first got out when Susan’s cousin Deni Marcus called and a homicide detective answered the phone.
question
what time did the mail come? Was mailman interviewed to his recollections – perhaps lone barking dog or dogs might have been of interest to him…
AJMO Peace
mom 3.0 writes:
Yes who I agree …
I think the biggest difference this time around is that Jareki took his doc to HBO and included a very dramatic opening including the song Fresh Blood and he/they marketed it and promoted it well all before it ever hit the screen
————
You know Mom 3.0, i TRULY enjoy exchanges with you! So I feel safe in saying I repesctfully diagree. I believe the profound difference ” this time around” is not because of promotion or a song , it is because Robert Durst himself is in it.
As a rule, Documentaries are initiated by an individual or group of individuals who are seeking to know and understand something. and disseminate that information to the public at large. An example of this would be ” The Black Wave”, regarding the exon Valdez catastrophe -http://www.blackwavethefilm.com
as well as countless other documentaries, motivated by the human compulsion to expose the truth. Certainly you can identify with this human need for the truth, as evidenced by your postings that explore the information you are able to glean about things that interest you.
In this case, it was Durst himself who expressed the desire ( need?) to document his perspective, his desire to address the decades of speculation.And importantly, in the aftermath of many previous programs and articles about Durst /Kathie Durst dissapearance/Berman murder, no arrest was made. The open question is the basis for the arrest- was it SOLELY BECAUSE of something Durst said in the Jinx, and if so, is that admissible? We just don’t know for sure at this point.
Jareki self financed this documentary.He spent about 4 million dollars doing so, over a period of many years. Often, a documentarian will run out of financial resources before there film is complete, and have to call on favors or even compromise in their mission to get the documentary out to a larger public. But in this case, the film was, in essence ” finished”*, and it was a matter of securing the best means of distribution.
There were several offers made to Jareki et al to distribute the film. The decision to go with HBO at the end of the day was certainly based on many many factors, but in my opinion, neither the filmmakers or HBO can be faulted for HOW they moved ahead. ANY distribution entity would have participated in a “campaign” to ensure that the product reached the widest audience possible, using all the bells and whistles that attract attention. Its gonna happen, the same way that Blinkoncrime has headlines that bring eyes to this site.My point is that advertising in and of itself is not a bad thing. Slander can be proven, is punishable by law as a safe guard, and a right to a fair trial is guaranteed by constitution.
The relevancy of the content of The Jinx vis a vis a charge or conviction of Durst’s involvement in Susan Berman’s death remains to be seen. Durst’s attorneys have gone on record expressing a desire that Durst have his day in court regarding Berman murder, and Durst himself waived extradition when indicted in New Orleans.Regardless of what happens with the weapons charge in Louisiana, that charge still stands.
I feel the real issue at hand is what is Durst’s defense against the charge of murdering Berman. That is something that can only be ” proved” in a court of law,and for better or for worse, thats what we’re looking at. The limitless articles, programs, multiple documentaries about Kathie Durst disappearance were used to defend Durst in Morris Black murder case, and effectively. I wouldn’t doubt that defense will attempt to use questions about The Jinx in some way to get Durst off murder one for Berman.
—-
mom 3.0 writes:
Why write the letter to alert police to the remains?
— IIRC in the Jinx and in other reports it was said that Susans doors were locked the house appeared secure-
but in this article
It says neighbors alerted police after noting the dog was running about unattended-
——-
I totally agree there is a LOT to be confused about.
so I offer this:
In Merchant of Venice,Shakespeare, in the 15th century, writes:, ” “Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son may, but in the end truth will out.”
As a side trip, for your reading pleasure, here are the sources ):
http://www.bartleby.com/70/1922.html
https://www.englishclub.com/ref/esl/Sayings/Truth/Truth_will_out_942.htm
I don’t think any of us can say for certain how the docu was “packaged” while seeking distribution and programming. It may or may not have changed based on the final “deal.” It is my opinion that is likely because different outlets have different presentation styles and while not changing content- the opening bit is an important representation ( in this case) of the channel. Personally, however “Fresh Blood” by the Eels became the credits song- I think it was a brilliant choice and although I know it was not- could have been written about the material. Jarecki’s editor was so involved I doubt very much there was a great deal of editing post “deal” and neither Jarecki nor Smerling strike me as the type that would have agreed to any material changes to their finished work.
Lastly- I will post the link tomorrow, but I am appearing on Dana’s show tomorrow night- exclusive discussion is the Durst case- all 50 minutes.
O/T: Susan’s front door was locked, her back door was wide open. I disagree with anyone who says that is reduced to “she knew her attacker” although it is possible.
If I were trying to conceal a murder, I would likely not leave the door open for three dogs to be seen and likely necessitate a neighbors call to police.
Mom 3.0 writes:
did you mean to include a second different article? both links go to the same one for me?
——
I goofed- HERE is link to second article, about Sareb Kaufman, published when Durst was in Galveston jail
( neither of the links I posted from NEW YORK Magazine have dates- time is established by content)
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/5895/
Blink
Defense is demanding confirmation from Pirro that she did NOT contact german before her murder. Why is that relevant? The case was publicly re-opened, and both Durst and Berman just had to be aware of that fact. So why does it matter if Pirro actually had contact- it would have happened sooner or later if Berman hadn’t died, right?
Nope.
If one listens carefully to the docu and Durst words- Durst said Susan told him that the LAPD wanted to talk to her. In what world would the LAPD wish to speak to Susan on the Westchester county DA’s ( via NY State Police) case? Durst wants confirmation because the motivation is to silence a witness- Durst is showing there was no threat as they had not spoken and moreover- Susan gave an extensive deposition previously many years earlier that exonerated Durst- Who really thinks she intended to perjure herself?
It is critical to assign a motive to Durst specifically. And personally, I believe Pirro et al had NOT made contact with Berman yet.
Motive is not a required element of a criminal offense under the law- but it sure is required to prove this case, imo.
B
Good questions, Mom3.0!
“–Wouldnt Durst be a topic of conversation for these women?”
Susan Berman set up Kim Lankford and Robert Durst several months before her murder. I’d say yes.
“And if Bermans big news centered around Durst would she have kept that tidbit from Lankford?”
1. It seems very unlikely. If she had something on Durst, she would have been avoiding his girlfriend, not making contact with her.
2. Susan called Kim to talk about a hot scoop, and then didn’t talk about it? It contradicts everything her friends have said about her: that she lacked self control, loved to gossip, and was terrible at keeping details private.
3. Only two parties know what took place during that phone call. Party #1 was murdered, and Party #2 was the murder suspect’s girlfriend.
“And if true that Durst ws to visit Susan would she have shared this with lankford”
Susan’s friend Sandy West has said that Kim and Durst were supposed to be with Susan on the day she was murdered.
“If Durst did kill Susan perhaps it was over an argument of his surprise marriage to Char and his rude dismissal of Lankford?”
Durst was still dating Kim Lankford in November 2001. He made a lot of phone calls to her when he was in jail. By January 2002, she had angered Durst, and he told Debrah that he wanted to “beat” her. My best guess is that they broke up in December 2001.
Welcome to BOC D. H.
You bring up some very strong points. Do you have any news links to back this up or are you providing information you wish readers to consider as an undisclosed source?
B
blink writes:
I don’t think any of us can say for certain how the docu was “packaged” while seeking distribution and programming. It may or may not have changed based on the final “deal.” It is my opinion that is likely because different outlets have different presentation styles and while not changing content-
———-
Totally agree. The format of having a full SIX HOURS of a documentary is amazing in itself- a feature film release would have been much much shorter in length. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the decision to go with HBO, aside from the fact that they offered the most money*, was the fact that it would be presented in such a long form.
* I know this to be true, that HBO made highest financial offer.
I have been having a great time reading and re-reading Mom3.0 and Who’s exchange along with Blink’s comments.
One of the things that was missing in the origin of the need for Robert Durst to speak about his side of the crimes was a true motive. Durst IMO is a cunning person who has a great deal of intellect that is used to his advantage against people. Mom3.0′ comment of April third may be the reason for talking. If Durst has cancer of the esophagus, he may eventually loose his ability to speak.
I lost a friend to that disease in 2005. It took several years for him to go, but before he did he lost his ability to speak.
In regards to the Susan Berman case, the house has been described as run down. The back door is open so the dogs can get out and there are three of them, Wire Haired Terriers. My experience with this breed is that if they are the full size breed, the are very strong and protective of their owner. Three of them could take down anyone that attempted to harm the owner. The only way someone could get in the house without the dogs being a problem is the person that killed Susan was known to the dogs.
Did Robert Durst have a key or keys to the house? This is not known at this time. If he did have them, it would be easy to get in the house, get the dogs calmed and wait for Susan to get home.
Or, if Durst hired a “hit man” to do the job, the back door could have been protected by a cheap single cylinder deadbolt with a 5/8″ throw and a turnbuckle on the inside. A worn frame would make it easy for someone to jimmy the door with a small trim removal pry bar, then with the door open, turn the knob. I have several of these bars to pull off trim without damage. They come in a lot of sizes (6″ to 12″) and can be wrapped with plastic tape to prevent marring a surface. LAPD probably has information regarding the method of entry. Getting inside the house would not be difficult. Then there is the problem of the dogs.
One of the big problems LE has today is understanding the use of media to progress a case. All detectives and upper level management people should be required to take a state sponsored course on effective use of media while keeping critical information secure.
ATG- AMEN to your comment:
One of the big problems LE has today is understanding the use of media to progress a case. All detectives and upper level management people should be required to take a state sponsored course on effective use of media while keeping critical information secure.
I can tell you this typically falls to a PIO responsibility- but that is ineffective as a strategy to utilize media for progression of leads ( if that is the need) and for trained investigators to understand how to work without being influenced by media in any way.
I am writing an update piece for tomorrow and on Dana’s show tomorrow night because I feel so strongly about this offender and the legalities he has faced and will face- and their outcomes.
B
Blink writes:
In what world would the LAPD wish to speak to Susan on the Westchester county DA’s ( via NY State Police) case
——
In Durst’s world?
It is logical look at all Durst’s his statements through the prism of his lack of mental health, tinted with cunning. ( including his ” confession”)
E.G.: , He told filmmakers he was in Madrid, told Sareb not to tell Filmakers that he was in LA because he had told them he was in Barcelona- just one example of the way he skewers things.Perhaps Durst’s words were a reflection of his own fears, knowing the case was re opened. Don’t forget the reopening of the case and Pirro’s pursuance of him was his justification for dismembering Black. was his justification.
DeGuerin was brilliant in his closing statement in Morris Black case when he said to the jury words to the effect of ” the prosecution has given you nothing to prove that this crime was NOT self defense.”
So should we assume that without proof that Berman was contacted, defense can say that there is nothing to prove motive to silence a witness?
tp ATG:
Here is a link to a televised interview where DeGuerin speaks of Durst esophageal cancer, brain surgery, neck surgery etc.
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/9996-is-robert-durst-dying-in-prison-attorney-warns-of-his-frail-condition
Reminiscent of Arias broken finger, but I assume that Durst defense will have documents.
Question:
If a defendant does not have the ability to speak, can he respond in writing?
Depends on the reason- as in, is the individual difficult to hear- is there a need for an interpreter, will the mechanism offend or prejudice a jury, etc.
In theory, yes, although if that was the only method, I presume that a judge would put a fence around how that is conducted for sure.
To your point about no proof that Pirro’s office contacted Susan- it is a very big deal to a jury, imo. For two reasons, 1. He was giving her $50K over the last few months without batting an eye or seeing her- this does not seem like a man that is threatened. AND it dismantles the prosecutors motive ( which iirc, you were adamant must be presented even though it is not a legal requirement under the law, I do agree with you) Do you know the actual date of the document Durst gave Charatan POA?
If anyone has any specific Durst issues they would like me to discuss this evening please feel free to post them. Will be posting the link this afternoon
B
[...] Blink and Dana will be discussing the many facets of the Robert Durst case [...]
Blink writes:
I can tell you this typically falls to a PIO responsibility- but that is ineffective as a strategy to utilize media for progression of leads ( if that is the need) and for trained investigators to understand how to work without being influenced by media in any way.
——
Blink, here is a link to pledge, standards and ethics of CAPIO, californaia association for public information officials:
http://capio.org/about/mission-guidelines/
They must respect privileged info- but to tell you the truth, no investigator ever tells the PIO anything they do not want released. It’s just a good practice because they are not investigators.
B
[...] Blink and Dana will be discussing the many facets of the Robert Durst case [...]
[...] from Blink on Crime will be with me for the entire show discussing the Robert Durst [...]
Blink writes:
Do you know the actual date of the document Durst gave Charatan POA?
—–
according to this article, Durst gave Charatan power of attorney in 2002:
http://www.newsweek.com/shadowy-history-robert-dursts-real-estate-holdings-314764
snip from article:
In the summer of 2002, shortly before his trial for the murder of Morris Black began, Durst granted Charatan power of attorney. In that document, reviewed by Newsweek, Durst granted her traditional powers such as control of his real estate transactions, tax matters, claims and litigations. In a supplementary division to the power of attorney, Durst’s lawyer added that Charatan had the “power to make gifts in any amount and from time to time to such individuals (including Debrah Lee Charatan) and organizations as my attorney-in-fact determines.” In other words, she was granted the power to gift Robert Durst’s money to herself and/or to companies she owns.
blink writes:
1. He was giving her $50K over the last few months without batting an eye or seeing her- this does not seem like a man that is threatened.
———-
I can’t see how the fact that he was giving Berman money can show that he was not threatened. We don’t know if his offerings came out of the blue, as a wealthy friends response to her financial situation, if it was money that would keep her from using info she had about Kathie durst disappearance in a book etc.
I think that Sareb Kaufman has a lot of information that may still be unknown, regarding his true financial relationship with durst, his knowledge of Berman relationship with durst, his motivation for giving that letter to The Jinx etc etc , but that is just my opinion.
Well on Mr. Kaufman’s issue- I am going to agree there. Here’s why- If you look at the ledger- Berman was given substantive financial help. Even if you just take Bob’s $50K. How was she completely destitute without heat, etc when most certainly less than 3 months earlier she received $25K. And if she was- why was Sareb running off to Europe for the Holidays while his Mother was in such economic straights? How was he able to afford that or did she fund it?
I noted Sareb was smoking a cigarette with Durst following he second interview. I say again- I believe Durst knew or expected he might be confronted with that letter-
On the surface you are correct- we can’t know based on what “we know”. I can only assume that Robert called it a gift and according to a search warrant Berman wrote Bobby calling it a loan. There are several friend accounts that indicate that Berman was working on 2 pieces that were mob related and one that was not.
I do know this- you and I agree if all they have so far is all they have- Durst walks, and so do his attorneys as they will burn a path to LA to try this as they are doing their best to accomplish- and will.
B
Who
While I believe that DeGuerin is a brilliant lawyer, your remark about the closing statement to the jury in the Black case at Galveston is in my opinion false. Good closing arguments are designed to project the defendants actions away from the facts.
The key information was that Durst killed black. If it were done in self defense, then Durst should have contacted LE. Instead, he dismembered the body and disposed of it in Galveston bay. Had I been on the jury, that would have been reason enough to convict Durst of murder. No reasonable person when killing in self defense is going to hide a body.
You know I heart you VP- and you know how much, lol. That said, I have to agree with Who that DeGuerin’s distillation of the defense was masterful. It was a sheer matter of law. The prosecution could never prove murder because they had no cause of death. They had no manner of death. It is certainly something that in your fine state a jury did not convict Durst, but I applaud that jury, in that jurisdiction and their finding based on the facts of the case. Durst admitted to the dismemberment and disposal.
He was just overcharged as to what the state can prove and you know I do not say that lightly nor do I take any concession from it because I believe he killed him- although I do entertain the idea Durst is no idiot so I think Black forced a confrontation. In theory, you are correct when you say no reasonable person would hide a body they killed in self defense- but I truly do not hold Durst in the reasonable column when he dissects this man in a living room, and in some cases uses his own body weight to pull through tendons, etc. At the very least, this was not a planned endeavor and that coupled with the other facts I mentioned I could not convict on those charges.
As an advocate and student of law, I truly hate that the prosecutorial community does not have better resources to charge and try cases correctly.
B
[...] from Blink on Crime will be with me for the entire show discussing the Robert Durst [...]
[...] him or jeer him- Bob Durst is the Houdini of criminal prosecution thus far. Sitting in a medical wing at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, [...]
-D.H.
welcome to BOC and thank you for reading my questions – Very well written thought provoking comments, D.H.
I look forward to more of your posts- Very interesting details many of which I did not know-
I hope you can share more and hopefully point us toward a source-
(if you cant I understand) Dont take offense Blink always reminds us to link back- so as to differentiate between rumors or opinions and known facts/details.
Your post left me wondering….For instance: why Jareki didnt include Lankfords prior dating in the Jinx and Sandy West remembrance of both Lankford and Durst perhaps having plans with Susan that day
A&P
Re who
respectfully snipped
who writes:
You know Mom 3.0, i TRULY enjoy exchanges with you! So I feel safe in saying I repesctfully diagree. I believe the profound difference ” this time around” is not because of promotion or a song , it is because Robert Durst himself is in it.
and
Crucial is this man’s ability to get a fair trial, I would think. But as far as content, the terrain covered in The Jinx has been out there for some time, the ONLY difference is that Durst is speaking, imo.
——–
who- its alright that we dont agree Im glad you feel safe- I hope I never gave the impression that I would bite or that I would shut you down in any way- as always I enjoy reading yr perspective and I appreciate our sharing of ideas and thoughts
I agree with many of yr reasonings who- although for me it is the greater audience brought by HBO and the promos and marketing that made it what it is- Not just the fact that Durst spoke out
As is clearly (for Me) shown by the mediocre response to Jarekis release of All Good Things on DVD and Blu-ray – March 29, 2011, including commentary from Durst himself
The commentary by Jarecki and Robert Durst, covered much of what was discussed in The Jinx- In fact in quite a few instances it delved deeper into Dursts life and deaths his thoughts and his relationships even with his dogs-
If the most profound difference was Durst-speaking well that was covered- quite well- it was just overlooked for the most part -
That is UNTIL the HBO documentary gathered a larger audience and the rest played out.
who asks:
Certainly you can identify with this human need for the truth, as evidenced by your postings that explore the information you are able to glean about things that interest you.
—-
Of course who- what truth is included in The Jinx? Jarecki and teams handling and editing of the facts, witnesses, timeline and evidence(without clarification) seems only to put the idea of “truth” on the back burner- behind drama and ratings, that is if one forgets to give the benefit of doubt….
Thank you for relinking the second article who- Ill get to reading-
A&P
Mom 3.0- I think there are bushels of truth in the Jinx. I am not sure that the layperson, or the person uninterested in fact checking or chronology cares in that regard- but in the end, we all know that this series as lovely and provocative as it is, ends with an arrest of it’s protagonist no matter who tries to say it was unexpected or unplanned.
I have a great many associates and friends in the biz- Durst was being surveilled the second he signed on – both interviews. I don’t want to discourage any truth seeking- I feel all of it will come out in the end, and as you know, I do believe Durst in some way is responsible for the murders of 3 people so I say cast the sturdiest net.
B
Blink I look forward to tonights show-
I have to for a moment “go back” on a promise to not speak of the timeline etc of Jinx-
I came across this article from BuzzFeed today that goes over much of what we discussed-
It brings up more questions
yet further narrows the timeline
snipped:
BuzzFeed News spoke with an eyewitness who saw Durst and a film crew outside of 1133 6th Ave. on April 18, 2012. That is more than 13 months before the June 2, 2013, incident that led to the arrest — and even more significant, provides an exact date for when Durst and Jarecki did the second interview. And a time of day too: This person said that Durst and the cameras were outside 1133 6th around noon on April 18.
So why did The Jinx say that Durst trespassed “a couple of weeks” after filming? Is there a specific reason Stuart-Pontier referred to that sequence as “that day we shot in Times Square” instead of something like the day of our second interview with Durst, which seems like the more significant event of that day? Stuart-Pontier did not respond to an email from BuzzFeed News asking to speak in order to clarify these questions. And as far as the chronology of April 18, 2012, goes, it’s also confusing. We see Jarecki greet Durst in the lobby of the Regency Hotel on 61st and Park Avenue, and they go upstairs for what looks to the viewer like a short interview: some softballs, some fact-checking — and then, of course, the “Beverley” confrontation. When Jarecki and Durst say good-bye, Durst looks at his watch and says, “It’s five after four.” After which, presumably, he goes into the bathroom, still wearing his microphone.
Let’s assume it was 4 in the afternoon, and that the eyewitness was correct that Durst was outside of the Durst building around noon. Did they meet at the Regency and go upstairs, only to then travel to shoot footage in Times Square, at 1133 6th Ave., on W. 43rd St., and in the Starbucks we saw Durst in during Episode 5? Durst and Jarecki are also wearing the same clothes in the scenes in the empty movie theater (seen in each episode’s opening credits): so that was presumably shot that day too. Did they then go back to the Regency to film the rest of the interview? Is that when the bombshell questioning happened? Given the indeterminable amount of time spent at the interview, it would be good to feel confident that Durst’s “killed them all, of course” mumblings directly followed his being questioned about the envelope. But it seems like it was a long, complicated day of filming.
Another intriguing bit: According to a motion to dismiss the charge against Durst that was denied on Dec. 16, 2013, Dominick Manzi, who does security for the Durst Organization, said that on April 17, 2012, Durst was spotted on 43rd Street between 9th and 10th avenues. The motion to dismiss cites Manzi’s account of that day: “Defendant was crouched behind a tree, outside the residence at 413 West 43rd Street. I told defendant, in substance, that I was a security agent in the employment of Douglas Durst, and the Durst Organization, and that he was to have no contact with” the family.
Besides being sinister and weird that Durst scoped out his family’s homes the day before shooting The Jinx on that block, that detail is especially important because the first order of protection from Douglas and his family against Robert Durst — also reviewed by BuzzFeed News — is dated Aug. 16, 2013, coinciding with the arrest, not with the filming in April 2012. The charge, according to the motion to dismiss, is simply trespassing. (He was eventually acquitted.) There is a mention of a “stay-away order,” which was Manzi telling Durst to get away from the family houses. But is the entire idea of an order of protection that Durst violated causing this arrest a fiction? If so, whose fiction: Durst’s? Or The Jinx’s
end-
— In the JInx there is another shot with the calender…it seems others had the same questions i did
reddit comment snipped:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hnm71i&s=8
There is certainly some time fudging going on in the Documentary. For example, at 21:39 of the documentary, Jarecki, Smerling, and Stuart-Pontier are discussing the questions they will ask Durst. The documentary makes it seems like this conversation is just before the 2nd interview. However, if you look at this snapshot, you’ll see a calendar behind Smerling (I think that’s him, not sure though). You’ll clearly see “Labor Day” is in the 5th. The only recent year that is the case is September 5 2011! That would mean that the conversation happened possibly 2 years before August 2013. Jarecki has made it seem like the 2nd interview happened around August 2012. Either way, Jarecki is fudging the timeline by a lot for the sake of the documentary.
end-
According to other articles Coulter retired in 2012-
Blink I wonder if that could be part of the answer to why fudge?
Done thanks
ps ATG- I am sorry to read of yr friends illness and death- thank you for reading and sharing yr thoughts and knowledge w/us
A&P
whoops heres the Buzzfeed article link:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/the-holes-in-the-jinx-might-go-deeper-than-we-thought
Hi Blink
For clarification
I asked who the question;
what truth is included in the jinx?
To underscore the point who made earlier:
“as far as content, the terrain covered in The Jinx has been out there for some time, the ONLY difference is that Durst is speaking, imo.”
–
the “truth” out of Dursts mouth even the “confession” is subjective as is ones thoughts on the writer of the cadaver letter — and with Jarecki and teams muddling of the timeline and other editing questions it can be argued that for every truth they revealed they chose to omit or obscure another ( such as Lankfords relationship to Durst) By doing so, in essence they fell victim to the very action of Dursts they highlighted that seemed to cry out guilt:
Nobody tells the whole truth…
Blink Your piece brought many of these questions to light- and rightfully so
such as:
“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.”
— You wrote in response to comment-2242787:
I think there are bushels of truth in the Jinx. I am not sure that the layperson, or the person uninterested in fact checking or chronology cares in that regard- but in the end, we all know that this series as lovely and provocative as it is, ends with an arrest of it’s protagonist no matter who tries to say it was unexpected or unplanned.
I have a great many associates and friends in the biz- Durst was being surveilled the second he signed on – both interviews. I don’t want to discourage any truth seeking- I feel all of it will come out in the end, and as you know, I do believe Durst in some way is responsible for the murders of 3 people so I say cast the sturdiest net.
B
===
Blink Im not sure what you mean, are you saying someone interested in fact checking and chronology wouldnt care about any truth”
The truth is what we all seek isnt it? unless we are in it only for entertainment or self promotion….
I hope it will come out in the end, and I do realize that you believe that Durst is in some way responsible for the murders of 3 people so you say cast the sturdiest net.
I believe that he was in some way responsible for 2 murders- Blacks and very likely Kathies, but I am only leaning to his culpability in some way in Susans murder-
and that is because of the many issues you speak of such as the giving of $50,000 and the prior clearing testimony of Susan etc
For me there has got to be more evidence than the Cadaver letter/1999 letter, the Bathroom confession and Pirros assertion she was gonna talk to Susan and Durst was out to silence her…to say yep he did it he pulled the trigger or paid someone else to do it for him…
AJMO Peace
Yes Mom3.0- I meant that some are interested purely in the entertainment factor.
And I personally am not convinced that Durst himself killed Berman
B
Thanks for the buzzfeed link Mom3.0 and your comments about my friend. I always read your comments carefully for their content usually imparts a lot of quality information. In this case, Who’s did too.
When one gets to be my age, death of friends and family members happens a lot so it is not something unexpected.
The photos in the buzzfeed link are interesting. The seated photo of Durst in the chair gave one a good look at his physical make-up. He has large hands for his size and they appear to be strong. I believe that the photo was post operation for the placement of the shunt and his arm muscles appear to be smaller than they might have been had he not been ill. This indicates that Durst was not only mentally fit,but physically fit at one time. Long muscled people maintain physical fitness easier than those with shorter muscles.
I am posting this on this article rather than the new thread as I have not been able to listen to the discussion with Dana.
Mom 3.0
You know that often I will read your posts, digest them and it will lead me to a new perspective- and I just wanted to make sure you know how much thought I give to your posts, and put forth where we absolutely agree…
So I’m thinking.. jareki did at least two years worth of research for All Good Things, he had to have had some opinion of Durst’s involvement. So I think I do now agree with you that the filmmakers entered into the endeavor with the idea that durst had culpability. But I still believe that they were able to be objective…. until they couldn’t be any longer.I took great exception to your use of the word “ambush”, because for me, that has connotation of being a vigilante- and also because I just don’t believe that Jraeki worked as an agent of the state.
But here is what I think now:
I think Jareki did contact LAPD to say he was doing a doc about about Durst and asked for access to files, which he was then given with the admonition that he couldn’t take them, but could read them.
I am willing to take a gentleman’s bet that the LAPD would NOT discuss anything with filmmakers and told them to contact the los Angeles DA.
I believe that the filmmakers contacted the LAPD more than once, literally asking why an arrest had not been made, PRIOR to the release of The Jinx, and I believe they continue to be baffled about that.
As fars as HBO involvement or marketing strategies, what I think happened is that HBO was shown only the first three episodes , not mixed or color corrected, about 90 percent done- and that HBO made the offer immediately, without ever having seen the entire six hours. I am also willing to bet that the filmmakers had complete control over content. The aquiaition happened only 6-8 weeks before it was aired, and because it was totally financed by Jareki, HBO had no legal leg to stand on vis a vis demands for cuts or content.
I think that the film is very compelling and well made and provocative- and my fear is that the LAPD is just as much of an audience as the rest of us in trying to use The JINX to prove guilt.
As Blink said on Dana Pretzer and on this site, if this is all they have, it just won’t stand.
my prediction:
I think DeGuerin is NOT going to be the man in player when this hits Los Angeles. I think that there will be several very high powered California lawyers who will be at the helm, with DeGuerin kind of on the side.
Like Blink, I don’t think the bathroom confession is worth a hill of beans. But I also bet that there is footage of Durst them coming out of the bathroom and getting his mike removed , that is not included in the doc we saw.
And I think that Sareb Kaufman knows so much much more than we know to date- am even wondering if the arrest was made based on Sareb’s contact with LAPD- but that is strictly uninformed opinion.
I just have a feeling that at the end of the day, there will be no resolution, he’s gonna walk away from all this too, and maybe at this stage he doesn’t even know what the truth is anymore.
In the Arias trial, the fact that she claimed amnesia about the stabbing part of Travis death left a huge whole and it was filled with arguing law. I think the fact that there are gaping holes and mystery about what exactly happened to Berman will have the same result vis a vis Durst.Cant make evidence out of thin air.But boy would I love to know more about Sareb, and more about Douglas Durst knowledge.
To ATG
You pointed out a while back that the core issue of WHY Durst would put himself in the position he put himself in with The Jinx, looking for his true motivation… that got me thinking too.
Theory one: Something about the filmmakers involved allowed Durst to believe that he would be able to create exactly the impression he intended to make, and he really thought he could get a fresh start by presenting himself as ordinary, unjustly persecuted innocent.
Theory two: Durst has undeniably been in situation of high risk and drama. But post Morris Black case,post Berman acquittal his life was ” normal enough” that he had even returned to living in New York as well as having an apparently- by comparison, and aside from suing the family estate for a settlement-drama free life. Was he compelled to raise the risk factor in his life by going against the advice of the lawyers that had kept him free since 1982? Was/is this man’s comforts zone one of risk?
Did he want to be caught? If so, why would he have gone to such lengths to get away after the jinx began airing ( including checking in to hotel under alias, a latex neck to head mask and cash and booked flight to Cuba)
Is it just that the dividing line between the criminal mind and the non criminal mind is so great that it will always be hard to understand what motivates someone to do illegal and socially unacceptable things?
Is his mother’s suicide the “rosebud” ?-At around age twelve, a letter was written by a doctor ( contained in the book ” Deadly Secret, published in 2002) as a psychological assessment the young Durst, post mother’s death. The conclusion was that Durst possessed an anger so great towards his brother and Father that it could result in ” decomposition of the personality, and even schizophrenia”
Was his motivation for the interview to show how his life had been ruined because of the wealth he had been born into and how he was dictated to by his father and shunned ultimately by his family? He said in The jinx that he actually had an okay time when in prison, was accorded respect simply because of who he was day to day, making point that all the other prisoners had made their own lives, while he would always be the product of the life/wealth he had been born into, without a chance for the autonomy the : self made ” people in jail had?
Are we seeing the devastating effect of unchecked mental illness in someone that no one cared enough to help? Is this an example of the failings of our society or is this just a single human being who is beyond redemption?
Apologies fro this winded way to respond to your simple thought inducing question. All I am trying to say is I am scratching my head too.
Really provoking analysis who.
B
Hi Blink
I listened to your review Read the posts here enjoyed Mom 3 and whodoneit
And your info
I guess I stand alone mostly not believing Durst killed Susan or Kathie and all this is an old sick man having his last
Big Drama
I could be very wrong more than wrong Just stupid
Durst is tricky
Thanks Malty. I appreciate you weighing in on a new case. I personally believe Durst did kill Kathie- but I am not even in the zip code of thinking he killed Berman by his own hand- I may never be if this case does not bolster past where it is.
B
The way he treated his wife cutting off all source of money And refusing to pay for her education
Pulling her hair or pulling her around by her hair if she was able to escape Some how who could blame her
As I get older old friends mean more Hard to see him helping Susan then executing her and leaving her on the floor and the dogs needing care
And how are they ever going prove all this stuff after all these years. Beyond doubt. I will be interested in the out come For sure
Who
I am glad that my question prompted your search for what the real motive may be regarding Durst’s behavior. This is the type of deep thinking that makes all of us more knowledgeable.
Durst may very well be something of a composite of all that you and I and others have postulated. We don’t have access to the story of his life in detail post age twelve other than just a small snip-it here and there.
The long list of aliases may be caused by Durst never being satisfied with his real life. Therefore he enjoyed playing roles to experience something different. With very little facts, it appears that he did not like others to be in control. Any time that he thought he was about to loose control to a person that could expose his acts or change something he became angry and removed the person permanently from life.
Interesting:
Robert Durst sends letter to Los Angeles times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-robert-durst-letter-20150409-story.html
in this letter he refers to having lived in an apartment at 1100 Alta Loma.
He refers to Sareb Kaufman as being his broker in another real estate transaction
See link below for properties that Sareb Kaufman is offering for sale, Yup, An apartment in 100 Alta Loma building….
http://realestate.wpincontext.com/agent/sareb-kaufman/
I do believe he is reaching out to impart information about Sareb, in his “oblique” way.
B
ATG writes:
The long list of aliases may be caused by Durst never being satisfied with his real life.
———
Here is an article from a Bristish source, The Guardian, that goes into more detail about Durst’s use of alias’s and credit cards taken out for fictitious companies (caveat: British slander law is different than US, they can basically publish stuff that COULD be true) but in any case, interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/23/tracking-robert-durst-whats-he-still-hiding
————
Durst apparently used names of former classmates. It would be interesting to know why he made those choices, although I really think this man’s logic is ultimately incomprehensible.
I get you who- and you may be right.
However, the fact that he chooses/chose those he knew and did not create randomly may mean he absolutely had a motivation. After all, many of them were accomplished folks who likely, at some point, realize there were transactions in their names.
He did this from his earliest days. I tend to believe the motivation is more about Robert’s psyche, and not illogical at all (for him).
B
The letter is just part of what we may expect to come from Durst. He is now going to possibly tell more of his “story” and take down his betrayers with out “igoring” them. He will design his new show because I really think this excites him. This is what he is now. Blink I am slow but why do the Feds want him so much? Does he have info on others?
I can’t be sure yet Ode- too many options so far.
B
Thanks for the link Who
The British piece indicates that Durst had three condos on three different floors at the Robinhood Street building.
The building is probably about 20 years old. While it is considered Houston by those who do not know details, it is actually located in West University Place and incorporated town that was built following WWII West of Houston. It was a concept that followed the Levittown plan in New York. Small houses of 850 to 1200 sq.ft. with asbestos siding that people could afford.
Rice Universtiy is about 10 blocks East and South of the Robinhood building. The building itself is located in an area that was commercial. A lot of the street names are taken from famous colleges and universities.
I purchased two schwinn ten speed bikes from a bicycle shop in the commercial area when the new bicycle fad of the early 1970′s developed. One for Mrs. ATG and one for me. We had one of the boys drop us off at the store and we rode them home using Morningside drive to avoid the traffic on Kirby drive.
I find it interesting that Durst purchased the condos on Robinhood street. Makes me think that perhaps he may have been intrigued by the fable of Robinhood.
Ya know, I love that story. And I agree with you that Durst does almost everything around the name meanings.
B
List of Robert Durst Aliases:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a34232/robert-durst-aliases/
Thanks Who- although you prolly know by the time it took me to get to this that the list is incomplete.
I appreciate your patience in my moderation. I am apparently ineffective when discussing organizational study and project techniques with the Blinkettes. In one weekend, I had to invent something worthy of a patent and provide an investor model plan and development matrix complete with a PP and mounted design poster, receive out of town guests and complete 2 1500 min word essays on classic lit as it contrasts contract law of the day. I hate contract law. Watching beige paint dry ( I have myriads of expansions on this that are hilarious but not BOC appropriate) is the path of the blinkette. I digress.
Durst is undefined criminally- and that has always attracted me to him as a subject since my first knowledge of him. Past his scheming prime- maybe- but I feel compelled to interview hundreds of subjects as “study’s”. I feel Durst can teach some new stuff to us in the criminology world if we are paying attention to it.
B