• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Jinx on HBO

Say Hey Deac said:
At the very least he basically admitted to perjury, right? He sure seemed to remember the dismemberment process pretty clearly this go-round.

I am inclined to believe that the guy who cut up a human corpse with a saw and axe is also quite capable of murder.
Click to expand...

Shady/smart attorneys encouraged him not to remember it as well. Interesting that one of the attorneys said given the matter-of-fact way Durst talks, if they would have let him describe how he dismembered the body, he would come off as a cold-blooded murderer. Absolutely right.

Hard to believe dismembering a corpse isn't a crime in Texas.

Wish the interviewer would challenge Durst more, but his attorneys would immediately shut everything down if that happened.
 
I'm thinking that now that the story has been basically told, these last 2 episodes will be devoted to challenging Durst and trying to establish his guilt or innocence.
 
The prosecutors are idiots. You take away all the window dressing of the case and you've got a dead guy who by all accounts was a giant asshole and looks like a complete loser, who also found out the random cross-dresser with no friends next door is a millionaire, some shit goes down and he gets killed... Pretty much the only illegal thing that there's absolutely no way to prove Durst did is the only thing they charged him with - first degree murder.

I wonder how many years of prison the dismemberment, obstruction of justice, manslaughter, skipping bail, and perjury charges could have easily been pinned on him?

I loved the jury member noting that it was never close - that at no point in deliberation did more than a couple people vote anything other than not guilty.

The show is just fascinating - imagine him rooting through those bags for that severed head the next day. Wonder how long they looked for that damn head. Speaking of which, what did he say at the trial about the head? That he didn't remember? That he threw it in with everything else?

Maybe that's how the show ends - he tells them where he buried the dude's head and they go find it. That'd be fun.
 
They really didn't have a motive for him killing the dude out of malice. They speculated as to what it was, but never presented any evidence. But yeah, why not at least stack the charges since he most certainly did tamper with evidence, obstruct justice, etc...

The gal in California seems to be a stretch. They never do properly present a motive there. They imply that it was because he gave her $50k, but that's nothing for that guy. They imply it was to shut her up. Apparently he was living in LA at the time?

As for his wife, who knows? Volatile relationship. Killing her was certainly possible. I wish they would've explored more that the doorman supposedly never said he saw her, and that Kathy never actually called the Dean.

The guy is weird. Looks to be an Asperger's case, definitely autistic spectrum. His sociopathic tendencies combined with his cool demeanor make him oddly sympathetic.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
They really didn't have a motive for him killing the dude out of malice. They speculated as to what it was, but never presented any evidence. But yeah, why not at least stack the charges since he most certainly did tamper with evidence, obstruct justice, etc...

The gal in California seems to be a stretch. They never do properly present a motive there. They imply that it was because he gave her $50k, but that's nothing for that guy. They imply it was to shut her up. Apparently he was living in LA at the time?

As for his wife, who knows? Volatile relationship. Killing her was certainly possible. I wish they would've explored more that the doorman supposedly never said he saw her, and that Kathy never actually called the Dean.

The guy is weird. Looks to be an Asperger's case, definitely autistic spectrum. His sociopathic tendencies combined with his cool demeanor make him oddly sympathetic.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't go as far as oddly sympathetic, but I agree with the rest of the post. [Redacted] could be related to this guy.
 
DCDeac said:
The prosecutors are idiots. I wonder how many years of prison the dismemberment, obstruction of justice, manslaughter, skipping bail, and perjury charges could have easily been pinned on him?
Click to expand...

EatLeadCommie said:
But yeah, why not at least stack the charges since he most certainly did tamper with evidence, obstruct justice, etc..
Click to expand...

OK Nancy Graces....you guys realize that the show (i) isn't finished (ii) isn't telling his life story in a linear fashion and (iii) isn't telling the whole story, right?

He was charged with a litany of lesser charges from the Galveston killing. He was scheduled to be tried separately for those charges after the murder charge (maybe not the best strategy in hindsight), but after being acquitted in the murder, he took a deal and pleaded guilty to bond jumping and tampering with evidence, which earned him a 5 year sentence. He received credit for 2 years time served from when he was arrested through the trial, and then he was paroled after an additional year, serving probably a little over 3 total for the incident.

It is only through a comedy of errors that this guy isn't locked up though, and barring a miracle he will probably die institutionalized in one form or fashion. He is currently dealing with charges of pissing the candy counter at a CVS just last summer.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309...ttv.com/trials/durst/092904_pleadeal_ctv.html
 
Last edited:
qcdeac said:
Wouldn't go as far as oddly sympathetic, but I agree with the rest of the post. [Redacted] could be related to this guy.
Click to expand...

That's a bit much, isn't it? I mean, Durst has an antisocial personality disorder and is likely a murderer. He's may have even committed multiple murders. But it's pretty low to compare him to Buzzdick.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
OK Nancy Graces....you guys realize that the show (i) isn't finished (ii) isn't telling his life story in a linear fashion and (iii) isn't telling the whole story, right?

He was charged with a litany of lesser charges from the Galveston killing. He was scheduled to be tried separately for those charges after the murder charge (maybe not the best strategy in hindsight), but after being acquitted in the murder, he took a deal and pleaded guilty to bond jumping and tampering with evidence, which earned him a 5 year sentence. He received credit for 2 years time served from when he was arrested through the trial, and then he was paroled after an additional year, serving probably a little over 3 total for the incident.

It is only through a comedy of errors that this guy isn't locked up though, and barring a miracle he will probably die institutionalized in one form or fashion. He is currently dealing with charges of pissing the candy counter at a CVS just last summer.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309...ttv.com/trials/durst/092904_pleadeal_ctv.html
Click to expand...

Going all-in on a first degree murder charge, losing, then afterward tacking on less than 5 years is not the same thing as you're insinuating. He got what, time served plus less than a year of actual jail - then parole with travel?

Should have been way more than that, and it was the idiocy of the prosecution that screwed it up.

For a murdering nut job who's admitted to all that he's admitted to yet spent a tiny amount of time in prison, not sure how you could have any confidence that he'll die in prison. Sounds like wishful thinking.
 
I mean, do you know for sure that it wasn't due to a procedural reason that they had to try that charge separately? Im not a TX atty, and Im not going to dig any deeper, but its certainly possible. If anything it would seem like an advantage to deal with those separately, in that if you failed on the murder charge, you could then amend the minor charges to include any lesser charge imaginable. Again, Im not an expert on TX criminal code so I cant say whether they properly charged him on the lesser deeds.

At any rate, if you read the article the minor charges they threw at him carried a total sentence of 10 years. He struck a deal for 5. He had unlimited resources, so he would have likely stretched that hearing out as well. You have to remember that its a rare situation where you have a guy with unlimited resources and nothing to lose. Most people will cop a plea to keep their name out of the papers. This guy's name can't get any worse so he doesnt care if he throws 1MM bucks at any case if it keeps him free. So I really dont think getting 3 years on those charges is that big of a loss.

I will agree that the prosecutors made some mistakes in the murder trial. Besides totally blowing the cross, their biggest misstep was not including lesser murder or manslaughter charges. Still, though, due to Texas' 'stand your ground' style laws letting citizens protect their residence, I'm not sure that Durst was even legally guilty of murder in Texas from these events.

The other guy had a history, and he had a gun in Durst's apt. That's really all you need to kill a person with a gun in your house in TX. No eye-witnesses and two crazy people fighting over a gun.

The more I look at it, the more I think the prosecution didn't achieve a terrible result with the facts presented.

I didnt say he will die in prison I said institutionalized. He is off the rails at this point, its only a matter of time. He's averaging an arrest a year at this point.

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-wo...t-charged-with-trespass-on-family-5950449.php
 
Last edited:
I don't really care to argue about it. I'm not a lawyer, but we have a few in the family/friends department and to hear them talk I got the impression that the prosecution was spectacularly bad. I mean, even in the show you can see the defense attorneys showing regret about how dominant they were. You have a guy who dismembered a body by his own admission, and you never had the jury even close to considering him guilty.

And yes, I do know for a fact that there is no procedural reason to try to pin murder 1 on a guy when you have no solid motive, witnesses, or conclusive evidence - and your own lead detective isn't on board with your strategy.

Bottom line - if you think the prosecution did pretty well to get Durst in prison for less than 3 years... That pretty much ends the discussion.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
At any rate, if you read the article the minor charges they threw at him carried a total sentence of 10 years. He struck a deal for 5. He had unlimited resources, so he would have likely stretched that hearing out as well. You have to remember that its a rare situation where you have a guy with unlimited resources and nothing to lose. Most people will cop a plea to keep their name out of the papers. This guy's name can't get any worse so he doesnt care if he throws 1MM bucks at any case if it keeps him free. So I really dont think getting 3 years on those charges is that big of a loss.
Click to expand...

Another one of the fascinating points about this show. He and his wife couldn't agree on which attorney to hire, so they hire both. Don't recall the exact quote, but it was something like he was "paying $1.8 million to my attorneys, and God, I hope it gets me acquitted."
 
DCDeac said:
I don't really care to argue about it. I'm not a lawyer, but we have a few in the family/friends department and to hear them talk I got the impression that the prosecution was spectacularly bad. I mean, even in the show you can see the defense attorneys showing regret about how dominant they were. You have a guy who dismembered a body by his own admission, and you never had the jury even close to considering him guilty.

And yes, I do know for a fact that there is no procedural reason to try to pin murder 1 on a guy when you have no solid motive, witnesses, or conclusive evidence - and your own lead detective isn't on board with your strategy.

Bottom line - if you think the prosecution did pretty well to get Durst in prison for less than 3 years... That pretty much ends the discussion.
Click to expand...

My question regarding procedure was trying the murder separately.

I do think they did a crappy job, the scene where Durst is esentially directing the prosecutors with the gun on cross, that should NEVER happen. You want to essentially control every word out of a witnesses mouth on cross.

Its hard to tell from the show, bc you dont see all the evidence, but still, even if they had done a good job, Im not sure what lesser charge would have been a slam dunk. You have two crazy people in a room, no eyewitnesses and only one person who even heard shots. The guy that ended up dead had a prior history of violently threatening people on the block and owned guns. Not sure how you wiggle out of reasonable doubt with those facts.
 
qcdeac said:
Another one of the fascinating points about this show. He and his wife couldn't agree on which attorney to hire, so they hire both. Don't recall the exact quote, but it was something like he was "paying $1.8 million to my attorneys, and God, I hope it gets me acquitted."
Click to expand...

Oh his wife is quite the character. Loved the prison phone call where she is telling him he can't go with the insanity/incompetent strategy because then his brother will take away their money. What a worthless golddigger. They're perfect for each other.
 
Haven't watched tonight's episode yet, but the show is fascinating. The story of him as a seven year old is ridiculously awful, the abortion story was insightful and the "did he say not first" at the verdict was interesting too. The guy has more money than he could ever spend and this is what he does with his life. Go figure...
 
Well that certainly kicked things up a notch.

How bad is that guy feeling about taking the college tuition money now...
 
If the lady that raised you was killed why the hell are you sitting on boxes of old evidence for 20 years?

Its just crazy to me that they didnt lift one print or fiber or hair follicle from that house to preserve for later.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Jesus, that letter gave me chills. He fucking killed her.
Click to expand...
What gave me more chills was when he said something to the effect of "well sure, based on the media reports a lot of people look at me and say I'm the one that killed 3 people in cold blood......and probably a lot of others". I wasn't thinking there were more but...now I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top