WILL ROBERT DURST GO
 FREE AGAIN?

THE GREATER TRICK MAY NOT BE IN HIS DEFENSE,
BUT IN HIS PROSECUTION


 

UPDATE,  2-3-16

 2-3-16:  Robert Durst Pleads Guilty in Gun Case, Setting Up Possible Murder Trial, New York Times:  "Under a plea bargain arrangement, Mr. Durst will be sentenced to 85 months in federal prison": This is a start, and a result of his having been arrested in March 2015 for felonious gun possession.



Robert Durst: US millionaire held after saying he 'killed them all'


THE NEXT ROBERT DURST TRIAL

    Well, this is quite a story.  If you didn't see it on HBO, here's a summary:   this billionaire's son marries a nice, sweet young lady who's studying to become a doctor -- but after a few years, she can't take the emotional (and physical?) abuse anymore and announces her intention to separate and divorce.  So (some say) he murders her on the spot, and after a few days reports her "missing".  But the body is never found, and he's clever enough to talk his way out of a more complete investigation.  Then, after another couple of homicides of people close to him, and one acquittal ("Oh, he seemed like such a nice, sincere, and even timid guy in court -- surely no murderer he"), they finally got the goods on him last night on HBO (3-15-15) -- because he volunteered (asked!) to be interviewed on the show regarding these controversies years ago.  About time he paid his dues.



BUT DON'T BET ON A CONVICTION JUST YET...
After all, he'll have the best lawyers money can buy -- and having common sense is NOT a prerequisite for being selected for a jury (quite to the contrary, sometimes).  As a matter of fact, he has very little chance of being convicted -- unless he goes bankrupt (attorney fees), goes on a shooting spree (and survives) --  or is prosecuted by the very best team available.  All they have on him is:

  1) circumstantial evidence (he was in the same state when the California murder took place -- as were 30 million other people);

  2) a comparison of hand-printed block letters on two envelopes that look strikingly similar;

  3) a "confession", which is unsworn, ambiguous, and "taken" in a restroom.




Judging from his previous murder trial in Galveston, Texas, he might turn the certainty of conviction into shocking acquittal.  Consider what this very crafty and experienced gentleman might say to a skeptical yet strangely sympathetic jury, in his defense:


"Yes, I now freely admit that I sent the envelope containing information that a cadaver was at a certain location in "BEVERLeY HILLS" -- but here's what happened.  Susan Berman told me that her crazy mixed-up boyfriend from Columbia had been abusing her, and that she feared for her life, but was afraid to contact the police or any of her relatives (whom he threatened to kill) -- and I was the only one she felt she could turn to for help.

"So I very unwisely (but with the best of intentions) decided to fly over to see if I could knock some sense into this boyfriend, or yes, even kill him if I had to.  But as soon as I arrived, I found her bloody body, and surmised that he had already killed her a few days before, and had probably left the country.

"And so, there was nothing to be done:  I knew that if I reported this crime, everyone would accuse ME of killing her, without even bothering to check out the "crazy boyfriend" theory -- considering my falsely earned reputation for murder and deception.  So, I had no other choice but to at least make sure that the body of my dear, deceased, best friend would be found quickly, and not be left to rot or be eaten by rats for weeks, before finally being discovered -- as I did not want to see her poor, unfortunate survivors subjected to even greater horror than they were unknowingly facing already; so I sent the letter to the cops, as a last favor to her, and out of respect for her blessed memory.  The very fact that I took this risk surely proves my INNOCENCE, more than my guilt.  Would a cold-blooded, pathological murderer risk getting caught for such soapy sentimentality??

"And while I certainly hope the real killer will be found someday, that probably won't happen:  he's probably dead, or at the very least, dying in some horrible prison.  So I guess you'll have to take my word for it and acquit me, since you cannot PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that I murdered this wonderful friend of mine.  And oh, by the way -- the fact that my DNA was found at the scene of the crime?  That merely reflects my previous visits there."




THAT'S JUST ONE STORY HE COULD COME UP WITH
After all, it wouldn't be the first time he used the "Galveston Defense", which is ingenious in its simplicity:  just make sure the only other witness to the crime is dead (as in, not available to give contradictory testimony).  It would therefore behoove everyone involved in this case to NOT go around using the infamous term "Slam Dunk"!  Or soon we'll all be saying, "Not Again!!

    BY: Les Aspie, 3-17-15



Copyright © Upsidedown.com 2016: You may copy, quote, and redistribute this material in part(s) or in full,
so long as you include this link: www.upsidedown.com/durst

---

HOME  PAGE / INDEX:



• ASPERGER GENIUSES


• THE TRIALS OF ROBERT DURST


• FIGHTING CORRUPTION WITH CORRUPTION?


• EMP AND THE END OF CIVILIZATION

• NEWS BYTES:  Items you missed

• GLOBAL WARMING: GAME OVER?

• GOOD COPS, BAD COPS?


*SCHOOL SHOOTINGS and the Media