What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Jinx: New HBO True Crime Show (1 Viewer)

Easy defense - My client Bob was just going over the interview in his head and aloud. "what they think I killed them?" "fine I killed them all!!! is that what you want to hear?" He will get off again.
Yea I think the envelopes are a lot more troublesome for him than the mutterings on tape.
He arrived at the house on Benedict Canyon to visit his friend for Christmas and found her shot dead. He was afraid that if he called police that they'd pin the crime on him due to motive, so he got out of there and then sent the anonymous letter so that she wouldn't lie there and decay.
Yeah I think that will be the defense. Might be able to suppress it all together as others were saying. I don't think the audio in the documentary will be a problem. The motive is weak. Unless someone comes forward I doubt they convict him.
Scoob/FBG lawyers, you think this will be the play or will they say he didn't write the cadaver note? Wife and I were arguing this last night.
I don't have the type of experience to have any more insight to this than you or your wife. With that said, I would be very reluctant to counsel a client to testify that he lied to investigators in 2000 and for 15 years afterwards about not writing the cadaver note. Because the only evidence for an account where he stumbled upon the body would be Durst's word, so I wouldn't want the prosecution to immediately be able to point to 15 years of prior inconsistent statements. Why would you trust the word of an established liar?

I don't think I'd put Durst on the stand. I'd find my own handwriting expert and if I couldn't exclude the recording, I'd try to establish by cross-examination that nobody really knows what the heck Durst was saying in the bathroom. It was stream of consciousness stuff. And of course, I'd hammer home the burden of proof. But I don't think I'd be optimistic. Seems to me that any chance of winning would depend on voir dire and evidence rulings.

 
Easy defense - My client Bob was just going over the interview in his head and aloud. "what they think I killed them?" "fine I killed them all!!! is that what you want to hear?" He will get off again.
Yea I think the envelopes are a lot more troublesome for him than the mutterings on tape.
He arrived at the house on Benedict Canyon to visit his friend for Christmas and found her shot dead. He was afraid that if he called police that they'd pin the crime on him due to motive, so he got out of there and then sent the anonymous letter so that she wouldn't lie there and decay.
Yeah I think that will be the defense. Might be able to suppress it all together as others were saying. I don't think the audio in the documentary will be a problem. The motive is weak. Unless someone comes forward I doubt they convict him.
Scoob/FBG lawyers, you think this will be the play or will they say he didn't write the cadaver note? Wife and I were arguing this last night.
I don't have the type of experience to have any more insight to this than you or your wife. With that said, I would be very reluctant to counsel a client to testify that he lied to investigators in 2000 and for 15 years afterwards about not writing the cadaver note. Because the only evidence for an account where he stumbled upon the body would be Durst's word, so I wouldn't want the prosecution to immediately be able to point to 15 years of prior inconsistent statements. Why would you trust the word of an established liar?

I don't think I'd put Durst on the stand. I'd find my own handwriting expert and if I couldn't exclude the recording, I'd try to establish by cross-examination that nobody really knows what the heck Durst was saying in the bathroom. It was stream of consciousness stuff. And of course, I'd hammer home the burden of proof. But I don't think I'd be optimistic. Seems to me that any chance of winning would depend on voir dire and evidence rulings.
I just binge-watched these over the last 6 hours or so, so it's fresher in my mind than most other people's...in the episode that discussed the cadaver note, they mentioned that the letter was postmarked the day BEFORE her murder. So he can't use the "I stumbled across the body and sent the note so they'd find her" story. It had to have been sent by the killer.

 
They are just going to say he freaked because the letter does make him look bad. If you think the letter is enough then so be it. I doubt it. It's not like he chopped up her body or anything.

 
Easy defense - My client Bob was just going over the interview in his head and aloud. "what they think I killed them?" "fine I killed them all!!! is that what you want to hear?" He will get off again.
Yea I think the envelopes are a lot more troublesome for him than the mutterings on tape.
He arrived at the house on Benedict Canyon to visit his friend for Christmas and found her shot dead. He was afraid that if he called police that they'd pin the crime on him due to motive, so he got out of there and then sent the anonymous letter so that she wouldn't lie there and decay.
Yeah I think that will be the defense. Might be able to suppress it all together as others were saying. I don't think the audio in the documentary will be a problem. The motive is weak. Unless someone comes forward I doubt they convict him.
Scoob/FBG lawyers, you think this will be the play or will they say he didn't write the cadaver note? Wife and I were arguing this last night.
I don't have the type of experience to have any more insight to this than you or your wife. With that said, I would be very reluctant to counsel a client to testify that he lied to investigators in 2000 and for 15 years afterwards about not writing the cadaver note. Because the only evidence for an account where he stumbled upon the body would be Durst's word, so I wouldn't want the prosecution to immediately be able to point to 15 years of prior inconsistent statements. Why would you trust the word of an established liar?

I don't think I'd put Durst on the stand. I'd find my own handwriting expert and if I couldn't exclude the recording, I'd try to establish by cross-examination that nobody really knows what the heck Durst was saying in the bathroom. It was stream of consciousness stuff. And of course, I'd hammer home the burden of proof. But I don't think I'd be optimistic. Seems to me that any chance of winning would depend on voir dire and evidence rulings.
I just binge-watched these over the last 6 hours or so, so it's fresher in my mind than most other people's...in the episode that discussed the cadaver note, they mentioned that the letter was postmarked the day BEFORE her murder. So he can't use the "I stumbled across the body and sent the note so they'd find her" story. It had to have been sent by the killer.
It was postmarked the day before she was killed or before the day they discovered the body? I didn't remember that - if it was postmarked before the time/day of death then obviously they can't try that defense.

 
Easy defense - My client Bob was just going over the interview in his head and aloud. "what they think I killed them?" "fine I killed them all!!! is that what you want to hear?" He will get off again.
Yea I think the envelopes are a lot more troublesome for him than the mutterings on tape.
He arrived at the house on Benedict Canyon to visit his friend for Christmas and found her shot dead. He was afraid that if he called police that they'd pin the crime on him due to motive, so he got out of there and then sent the anonymous letter so that she wouldn't lie there and decay.
Yeah I think that will be the defense. Might be able to suppress it all together as others were saying. I don't think the audio in the documentary will be a problem. The motive is weak. Unless someone comes forward I doubt they convict him.
Scoob/FBG lawyers, you think this will be the play or will they say he didn't write the cadaver note? Wife and I were arguing this last night.
I don't have the type of experience to have any more insight to this than you or your wife. With that said, I would be very reluctant to counsel a client to testify that he lied to investigators in 2000 and for 15 years afterwards about not writing the cadaver note. Because the only evidence for an account where he stumbled upon the body would be Durst's word, so I wouldn't want the prosecution to immediately be able to point to 15 years of prior inconsistent statements. Why would you trust the word of an established liar?

I don't think I'd put Durst on the stand. I'd find my own handwriting expert and if I couldn't exclude the recording, I'd try to establish by cross-examination that nobody really knows what the heck Durst was saying in the bathroom. It was stream of consciousness stuff. And of course, I'd hammer home the burden of proof. But I don't think I'd be optimistic. Seems to me that any chance of winning would depend on voir dire and evidence rulings.
Interesting, thanks. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know how easy/difficult it is to prove a handwriting match. If it can be proven that the handwriting on the cadaver note is definitely his (which it clearly is) I just couldn't think of any other defense other than "he found the body and lied about the note in the interest of self-preservation." It's not entirely dissimilar to what they were able to sell the jury in Galveston.

 
Jarecki cancelling interviews after inconsistencies in the timeline found.

Weird stuff. Sure sounds like Jarecki and Smerling are hiding something to me. Most likely its either (1) they kept the "Beverley" envelope in their possession for years before turning it over to LAPD, thus delaying justice for the sake of art; or (2) the Finale episode's drama about when and how they got Durst to sit for the second interview was mostly fiction. Neither is a very good look.

 
Just a quick look at a compilation of research shows that handwriting identification, even among accredited forensic document analysts, is prone to error. Particularly when, as in this case, the analyst knows that a suspect's writing exemplars are within the analysis. But just as a larger point, just about all expert testimony can be challenged in some way. You get your own expert to pick apart the process that was used. Or to testify about the inherent error rate in the field.

I would hesitate to draw too much from the Galveston case. Durst got a great result in that case, but from what we've been shown I can't conclude that his defense was really all that brilliant or even that the prosecution made mistakes. I think the jury bought a Hail Mary argument (which was all he had considering that they could show that the victim was killed in Durst's apartment). I think changing Durst's story after 15 years would be a similar Hail Mary argument, but that less drastic defenses would be equally likely to succeed. Without knowing what additional evidence they've uncovered, I'd be more inclined to point out all the things that the LA Police haven't been able to show (i.e., that Durst was in LA when the murder occurred).

I really don't think you can overstate how much harm Durst did himself by participating in this documentary. He admitted to fabricating portions of alibi in the Kathy Durst case. He admitted to "not telling the whole truth" in the Galveston case. Any competent prosecutor is going to question him about the oath he takes to testify and then have that "nobody tells the whole truth" quote queued up.

 
Jarecki cancelling interviews after inconsistencies in the timeline found.

Weird stuff. Sure sounds like Jarecki and Smerling are hiding something to me. Most likely its either (1) they kept the "Beverley" envelope in their possession for years before turning it over to LAPD, thus delaying justice for the sake of art; or (2) the Finale episode's drama about when and how they got Durst to sit for the second interview was mostly fiction. Neither is a very good look.
It's super weird. Seems like the second interview was filmed on the same day that they had Durst wander around Times Square (based on what everyone is wearing). I realize that indulging Durst's paranoid beef against his family was probably how the filmmakers built trust with him, but it's always been the portion of the documentary that rubbed me the wrong way.

"Your brother made you legitimately fear for your life, why don't you want to talk about him?"

 
Just a quick look at a compilation of research shows that handwriting identification, even among accredited forensic document analysts, is prone to error. Particularly when, as in this case, the analyst knows that a suspect's writing exemplars are within the analysis. But just as a larger point, just about all expert testimony can be challenged in some way. You get your own expert to pick apart the process that was used. Or to testify about the inherent error rate in the field.

I would hesitate to draw too much from the Galveston case. Durst got a great result in that case, but from what we've been shown I can't conclude that his defense was really all that brilliant or even that the prosecution made mistakes. I think the jury bought a Hail Mary argument (which was all he had considering that they could show that the victim was killed in Durst's apartment). I think changing Durst's story after 15 years would be a similar Hail Mary argument, but that less drastic defenses would be equally likely to succeed. Without knowing what additional evidence they've uncovered, I'd be more inclined to point out all the things that the LA Police haven't been able to show (i.e., that Durst was in LA when the murder occurred).

I really don't think you can overstate how much harm Durst did himself by participating in this documentary. He admitted to fabricating portions of alibi in the Kathy Durst case. He admitted to "not telling the whole truth" in the Galveston case. Any competent prosecutor is going to question him about the oath he takes to testify and then have that "nobody tells the whole truth" quote queued up.
I did think it was problematic that they described to the forensic handwriting expert where the samples were from before showing them to him.

It would have been more rigorous to show them "blind" without attributing where they were from.

-QG

 
1) I'm not surprised if Jarecki needs to clam up just for the fact that he's sure to be called as a witness in a murder case now.

2) It would be cruel (but kinda funny in a morbid way) if somehow Jarecki got thrown in the clink for withholding evidence or something like that and for Durst to skate.

-QG

 
NEW ORLEANS (AP) – A Louisiana State Police trooper says millionaire Robert Durst has been booked on weapons charges in that state – on top of a first-degree murder charge lodged by Los Angeles authorities. Trooper Melissa Matey told the Associated Press that an arrest warrant was issued for the former Limp Bizkit frontman and he was rebooked in the Orleans Parish Jail on Monday under two new charges.
http://jimromenesko.com/2015/03/17/associated-press-correction-of-the-day-robert-durst-is-not-a-member-of-limp-bizkit/

 
NEW ORLEANS (AP) A Louisiana State Police trooper says millionaire Robert Durst has been booked on weapons charges in that state on top of a first-degree murder charge lodged by Los Angeles authorities. Trooper Melissa Matey told the Associated Press that an arrest warrant was issued for the former Limp Bizkit frontman and he was rebooked in the Orleans Parish Jail on Monday under two new charges.
http://jimromenesko.com/2015/03/17/associated-press-correction-of-the-day-robert-durst-is-not-a-member-of-limp-bizkit/
He did it all for the nookie

 
Jarecki cancelling interviews after inconsistencies in the timeline found.

Weird stuff. Sure sounds like Jarecki and Smerling are hiding something to me. Most likely its either (1) they kept the "Beverley" envelope in their possession for years before turning it over to LAPD, thus delaying justice for the sake of art; or (2) the Finale episode's drama about when and how they got Durst to sit for the second interview was mostly fiction. Neither is a very good look.
They clearly edited their documentary to make it more dramatic. No proof the bathroom "confessions" happened after Durst was shown the cadaver/ his earlier letter comparison. Possible tampering, none of the evidence may make it into a trial. D.A did decide to arrest so you have to think they have some confidence. Unless they find evidence that the victim knew Durst killed his wife, the he killed her to shut her up motive does not carry weight. The women was broke, not mentally stable, and made a living telling mob secrets. She owned money all over town, as they say, in the parlance of our time, so there were many people who could have killed her that nobody would be surprised about.

 
The mob stuff is hard to believe, as they said in the doc., because they would never write that letter beforehand.

His cell phone activity going dark around the murder was interesting.

Still think it's a longshot he gets convicted. Don't mind putting him through the hoops though.

 
None_More_Black said:
Jarecki cancelling interviews after inconsistencies in the timeline found.

Weird stuff. Sure sounds like Jarecki and Smerling are hiding something to me. Most likely its either (1) they kept the "Beverley" envelope in their possession for years before turning it over to LAPD, thus delaying justice for the sake of art; or (2) the Finale episode's drama about when and how they got Durst to sit for the second interview was mostly fiction. Neither is a very good look.
They clearly edited their documentary to make it more dramatic. No proof the bathroom "confessions" happened after Durst was shown the cadaver/ his earlier letter comparison. Possible tampering, none of the evidence may make it into a trial. D.A did decide to arrest so you have to think they have some confidence. Unless they find evidence that the victim knew Durst killed his wife, the he killed her to shut her up motive does not carry weight. The women was broke, not mentally stable, and made a living telling mob secrets. She owned money all over town, as they say, in the parlance of our time, so there were many people who could have killed her that nobody would be surprised about.
This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in ones head, man. Lotta strands

 
I think the hot mike bathroom stuff can be easily explained away. "What did I do? Killed them all of course." He was talking about agreeing to an interview ("what did I do?") and "killed them all, of course" was him relaying what he felt viewers would be thinking after they watched it. Many other ways to explain it all. An old man riffing in the mirror just after being ambushed. And I agree that his defense of the cadaver letter is going to be that he showed up at her house, saw her dead, panicked because of the suspicion he was under for his wife's disappearance and decided the best thing to do was get out of there and anonymously let the police know a body was there. He lied about not being there but he didn't kill her. Obviously he did kill her but I agree with others in that it won't be a slam dunk trial.

 
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The whispered words of Robert Durst recorded in an unguarded moment in a bathroom could come back to haunt him — or help him — as he faces a murder charge.

A possible move by prosecutors to introduce the incriminating material from a six-part documentary on his strange life and connection to three killings could backfire as interview footage did in the Michael Jackson molestation trial and the Robert Blake murder case.

In both cases, the defense was allowed under the "doctrine of completeness" to provide segments of interviews that presented their clients favorably without subjecting them to tough cross-examination.

"I submit that Blake didn't have to testify and Michael Jackson didn't have to testify because the prosecution foolishly wanted to introduce portions of their interviews," said attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., who represented both men. "They just got greedy. They were mesmerized by portions they thought could help them."

In the Jackson case, the defense used unaired footage to counter damage done by "Living With Michael Jackson," a damning documentary in which Jackson held hands with his accuser and spoke of letting children into his bed.

"I'd slit my wrists before I'd hurt a child," Jackson said in one outtake shown by the defense, according to Mesereau, who won the performer's acquittal 10 years ago.

In the Durst case, prosecutors could seek to play portions from "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst," that concluded with the eccentric millionaire off camera talking to himself in a bathroom with his wireless microphone still live.

"There it is. You're caught!" Durst whispered before the sound of water running can be heard. "What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course."

Durst was arrested in New Orleans on Saturday, the day before the final episode aired.

He has been charged in Los Angeles with first-degree murder in the 2000 killing Susan Berman, the daughter a mobster and a close friend who acted as his spokeswoman after his wife disappeared in New York in 1982.

Durst, 71, who is estranged from a family that has a real estate empire worth an estimated $4 billion, has long denied killing Berman and Kathleen Durst, who was declared dead even though her body was never found. Investigators had reopened that case and planned to speak with Berman when she was shot once in the back of her head at her home near Beverly Hills.

After the killing, Durst disguised himself as a mute woman and moved into a cheap Galveston, Texas, boarding house where he killed an elderly neighbor in 2001. He claimed self-defense and was acquitted of murder but convicted of unlawfully disposing of the man's body, which was found chopped up and floating in Galveston Bay.

While legal experts said Durst's remarks off-camera and to filmmakers during the production will most likely be admissible, prosecutors will have to decide if they outweigh the possibility that the defense would play other portions of interviews showing him denying any killing.

"I would see this moment of unguarded truth as worth a lot of those denials," said George Fisher, a former prosecutor and professor at Stanford Law School. "The flat out meaning of the statement is very clear on its face."

In the case of Blake, prosecutors sought to introduce a portion of a jailhouse interview of the actor discussing his family with Barbara Walters because it contradicted other evidence. The defense then successfully pushed to bring in the rest of the interview.

"It did a great deal both to humanize him and so he wasn't just seen as a celebrity," said M. Gerald Schwartzbach, who won Blake's acquittal on a murder charge involving the killing of his wife. "There was an image projected that a lot of people had about Robert as a difficult person. In this video, he came across as a very sympathetic person."

Prosecutors are not commenting on the Berman case while Durst is still held in Louisiana, where he also faces firearms charges. A lawyer for Durst did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

 
Just plowed through these episodes the past two nights. Quality stuff.

Didn't see it mentioned here...but that nephew sure did hit a homerun with his 3 allowed questions for Douglas. :lmao:

 
quality six hours which i binged on a flight    I did not think the "kill them all" was a damming as it was made out to be..   

 
Midway through re-watching this series. 

Criminal Justice & Law schools must have created entire curriculum's from this story.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top