NationStates

After months of following this trial and watching videos and streams of the two sides of lawyers engage in endless passive aggressive antics in court, it’s finally going to get decided.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnew ... ations.amp

The wife of Durst disappeared in 1982 (no body, no trial). Then in 2000, Durst travelled to Texas where he shot and dismembered his neighbor Morris Black. It went to trial but he claimed self defense and since the head wasn’t found, he was acquitted.

For this trial, the state is saying he shot his best friend Susan Berman because she threatened to go to the police about the wife’s murder.

There’s been a lack of evidence for years but then Durst decided to participate in a documentary about the murders whuch is what unearthed new evidence and got this second trial.

Has anyone been following this trial? Will the jury find him guilty or not guilty this time?

Trial has been messy, very intellectually hard to follow ("you can consider evidence from the Texas trial and the facts surrounding the unproven murder of the first wife but only as it relates to Motive and not in any other prejudicial way), prosecution tried to provoke Durst into making damning admissions for literally 9 straight days and because the case is somewhat circumstantial, its hypothetical after hypothetical question.

Things like: "Even if you didn't kill Berman, you would agree that she represented a threat correct?"

Both sides started to shout at each other at many segments of the trial. I mean just look at this level of acrimony at this time stamp (1:21:32), literal shoutings about accusations of lawyerly misconduct:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DPD7TBt4OdA

Anyways, what do you think?

Is the new case too circumstantial? Or will the jury convict? We may find out in a few days.

The guy confessed over a live mic in the can. He's guilty as a suck-egg dawg. Any twelve random morons could see that if you hit them each over the head with a hammer first.

Rich property developer gets away with murder, colour me shocked.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:The guy confessed over a live mic in the can. He's guilty as a suck-egg dawg. Any twelve random morons could see that if you hit them each over the head with a hammer first.

I think the tape was subsequently found to have been edited by the documentary producers.

But the Cadaver Note is a bit of a big plus for the prosecution.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Postauthoritarian America wrote:The guy confessed over a live mic in the can. He's guilty as a suck-egg dawg. Any twelve random morons could see that if you hit them each over the head with a hammer first.

I think the tape was subsequently found to have been edited by the documentary producers.

But the Cadaver Note is a bit of a big plus for the prosecution.

And what was edited out pray tell, the part where he said he didn't do it?

Postauthoritarian America wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I think the tape was subsequently found to have been edited by the documentary producers.

But the Cadaver Note is a bit of a big plus for the prosecution.

And what was edited out pray tell, the part where he said he didn't do it?

I used google so you don't have to.

robert durst wrote: There it is, you’re caught.

You’re right of course. But you can’t imagine. They want to talk to him. That’s good. I find them very frightening, and I do not want to talk to them. I don’t know. The washer.

Well, I don’t know what you expected to get. But…the rest of [unintelligible] I don’t know what’s in the house. Oh, I want this.

Killed them all, of course.

I want to do something new. There’s nothing new about that.

What a disaster. He was right. I was wrong. And the burping. I’m having difficulty with the questions. What the hell did I do?

[toilet flushes]

And the verdict is in. The wheels of justice ground slowly, slowly, but passing fine.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:And the verdict is in. The wheels of justice ground slowly, slowly, but passing fine.

The question at the start of this thread is dead in the water before the thread could even begin.

I think the big takeaway from this is that if you do get away with murder in court at least one time, it’s probably not the smartest idea to star in a documentary about it years down the road.

Durst fights back.

It’s not over.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Durst fights back.

It’s not over.

What else is he going to do?

Infected Mushroom wrote:Durst fights back.

It’s not over.

It'll be over once the court rules the first trial was completely fair. Until he files another appeal. Come to think of it him wasting his money on doomed legal appeals would be a form of justice. The cop union stopped paying for lawyers for George Floyd's murderer.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Durst fights back.

It’s not over.

It'll be over once the court rules the first trial was completely fair. Until he files another appeal. Come to think of it him wasting his money on doomed legal appeals would be a form of justice. The cop union stopped paying for lawyers for George Floyd's murderer.

Was it really though?

They allowed the DA to re-run portions of another murder trial he was already acquitted from, but had some heinous imagery like him chopping up a corpse. Now I know the judge said “it’s admitted jury but ONLY consider that in terms of the motive, don’t let anything else presented prejudice you,” but is that humanly possible? I think there’s room to argue what was admitted was so prejudicial that instructions like that really don’t guarantee a fair trial.

“Oh yeah. Let’s allow them to talk about the other trial too. If you hear anything guys, remember to turn on that switch in your brain where that only speaks to Motive and not anything to do with guilt as a whole.”

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Postauthoritarian America wrote:
It'll be over once the court rules the first trial was completely fair. Until he files another appeal. Come to think of it him wasting his money on doomed legal appeals would be a form of justice. The cop union stopped paying for lawyers for George Floyd's murderer.

Was it really though?

They allowed the DA to re-run portions of another murder trial he was already acquitted from, but had some heinous imagery like him chopping up a corpse. Now I know the judge said “it’s admitted jury but ONLY consider that in terms of the motive, don’t let anything else presented prejudice you,” but is that humanly possible? I think there’s room to argue what was admitted was so prejudicial that instructions like that really don’t guarantee a fair trial.

“Oh yeah. Let’s allow them to talk about the other trial too. If you hear anything guys, remember to turn on that switch in your brain where that only speaks to Motive and not anything to do with guilt as a whole.”

Whenever a criminal proceeding results in the conviction of someone with that much money = ability to hire top "legal" talent I'm incined to conclude, "yes. Yes, it was really, really, really completely and entirely fair."

Postauthoritarian America wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Was it really though?

They allowed the DA to re-run portions of another murder trial he was already acquitted from, but had some heinous imagery like him chopping up a corpse. Now I know the judge said “it’s admitted jury but ONLY consider that in terms of the motive, don’t let anything else presented prejudice you,” but is that humanly possible? I think there’s room to argue what was admitted was so prejudicial that instructions like that really don’t guarantee a fair trial.

“Oh yeah. Let’s allow them to talk about the other trial too. If you hear anything guys, remember to turn on that switch in your brain where that only speaks to Motive and not anything to do with guilt as a whole.”

Whenever a criminal proceeding results in the conviction of someone with that much money = ability to hire top "legal" talent I'm incined to conclude, "yes. Yes, it was really, really, really completely and entirely fair."

The Cosby trial is an answer that disagrees with your point.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Postauthoritarian America wrote:
Whenever a criminal proceeding results in the conviction of someone with that much money = ability to hire top "legal" talent I'm incined to conclude, "yes. Yes, it was really, really, really completely and entirely fair."

The Cosby trial is an answer that disagrees with your point.

And how much money did Cosby spend on lawyers to argue that some agreement that never existed gave him a get out of jail free card? At least he had to spend a bunch of days hearing "hey Cos, gimme your pudding."

Postauthoritarian America wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:The Cosby trial is an answer that disagrees with your point.

And how much money did Cosby spend on lawyers to argue that some agreement that never existed gave him a get out of jail free card? At least he had to spend a bunch of days hearing "hey Cos, gimme your pudding."

Your kidding right? Cosby never would have waived his 5th amendment rights in the civil suits without that agreement. It would have been malpractice by his lawyers to testify without it.

That evidence never should have been allowed in the criminal trial.