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.