• 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

Junebug said:
How could they possibly be considered government actors? They were making a movie, not conducting an investigation on behalf of the government.
Click to expand...

If a private citizen is acting under the instruction/direction of law enforcement, there is an issue. But it looks like they were advised of that and prevented any issue.
 
wakelaw13 said:
If a private citizen is acting under the instruction/direction of law enforcement, there is an issue. But it looks like they were advised of that and prevented any issue.
Click to expand...

Well sure, but I didn't see anything in any of the articles I have read that even suggested they were acting under such instructions. All I saw was a reference to some idiot advice that they shouldn't go to the authorities "too soon," which makes absolutley no sense considering the crucial question relates to their motivations for making the recording, not for turning it over to the authorities.
 
Agreeing to this series of interviews was beyond crazy. I'm sure his lawyers told him to STFU and go away. But he's 71 years old and has been doing things like urinating on candy bars in drugstores. In what's remaining of his effed up mind, I think he viewed this interview process as a game and a way to remain somewhat relevant and in the news. I also think he viewed it as a way to stick it to his brother, who certainly didn't want Robert back in the news. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say he wants to go back to jail, I think there is a part of him that wants to confess, but there's also a bigger part that wants the notoriety of another big show trial. And if it means going back to jail rather than living a hermetic life pissing on candy bars, then so be it.
 
Junebug said:
Well sure, but I didn't see anything in any of the articles I have read that even suggested they were acting under such instructions. All I saw was a reference to some idiot advice that they shouldn't go to the authorities "too soon," which makes absolutley no sense considering the crucial question relates to their motivations for making the recording, not for turning it over to the authorities.
Click to expand...

It's not senseless advice. Had they gone to authorities, it's plausible the authorities would (stupidly) have asked them to take further specific actions. Avoiding the authorities altogether just simplifies any future issue about being a government actor.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
It's not senseless advice. Had they gone to authorities, it's plausible the authorities would (stupidly) have asked them to take further specific actions. Avoiding the authorities altogether just simplifies any future issue about being a government actor.
Click to expand...

This. You know his defense will eventually be looking to keep most of this out of the record. Might as well keep it simple and have no interaction with the authorities, instead of creating doubt about whether the film makers were acting at their direction.
 
So many legal hottakes here. Just read the prev linked Times articles and interview with the producers. It explains the timeline so you don't have to just spout wrong guesses and theories.
 
My question is, so what if they did sit on the evidence to time it with the release of their show? I would have done the same. Better for business and brings more attention to the case when it does get released.
 
pinochadeac said:
My question is, so what if they did sit on the evidence to time it with the release of their show? I would have done the same. Better for business and brings more attention to the case when it does get released.
Click to expand...

If he had killed again, they'd have blood on their hands, and, depending on who it was, some crafty plaintiff's lawyer may have been able to create a civil lawsuit on behalf of the decedent. Strictly speaking, though, there would be nothing legally wrong with doing that.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
So many legal hottakes here. Just read the prev linked Times articles and interview with the producers. It explains the timeline so you don't have to just spout wrong guesses and theories.
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm sure if the producers had sat on the evidence because they wanted to release the movie first and get their payday they'd just admit it.
 
Dude. They contacted police back in 2013 after the finale interview. You do realize that the Times usually confirms stuff they print, right?

My hottake is that LA's case still could fall apart very easily for numerous reasons, and LA law enforcement has been following/watching Durst for 2 years hoping that in a panic he would lead them to more evidence, or say something on the phone. Basically just waiting and building their case.

They likely knew that since he was unaware of the hot mic, once the last episode aired his flight risk would exponentially escalate, so they had to bring him in at that point, whether they were ready or not.

At this point, I really think that hammering him on the Nola charges might be the best bet. He has no defense to those. Convicted Felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm and a controlled substance are pretty serious crimes. Dude is 71 years old. He really has no defense to those crimes, and they could possibly put him in jail for 10 years.

So, try him for the LA murder, but get those convictions in the bag first.
 
Maybe I missed this... what did he do in nola? Unregistered gun?

I would have been scared of Durst after that last interview
 
The FBI has clearly been following him. They arrested him for the LA murder last sat night, the day before the airing of the final ep. The fear was that he might flee the country, to Cuba perhaps.

He had checked into the JW Marriott in NOLA under a fake name. When they took him in, he was in possession of weed an an illegal firearm. Having a firearm as a convicted felon is pretty bad news in most states.

Anyone with sense and his finances should have walked out of that last interview, gone to the bank, wired a shitload of funds to Switzerland, taken out two giant suitcases of cash, and booked a Gulfstream for Venezuela.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top