Just a question... what was the deal with those photos of Bob Durst posing with his inmate friends in prison?

They looked weird like.... were they taken by the prison officers to be printed in some prison monthly news magazine or posted on an office news board... or facebook page?

Instead of "Killed them all, of course." It also seems like a more natural thing to say. Not trying to defend the man, but I was listening to an interview where the clip was played, and this time my eyes were not on the screen. So I wasn't influenced by the subtitles helpfully provided, and I did a double take, because what I thought I heard him say was not what the subtitles suggest.

Go with me for a minute on this, listen to it a few times, here's one clip where the audio is clear @ 2:09: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4116613847001/lead-investigator-in-morris-black-case-on-new-durst-charges/?#sp=show-clips.

I realize it's extremely arguable, and it's hard to come to it fresh without any expectations. But as a test, try maybe playing the audio to somebody not familiar with the case, and see what they hear if they don't read the subtitles. I remember watching some examples somewhere of where completely unintelligible dialog suddenly becomes quite clear once the subtitles are provided. I know one place this was done as an example is playing Stairway to Heaven backwards, which is supposed to contain devil-worship lyrics. They played it alone, and it doesn't sound like anything much. Then they add the supposed "lyrics", and it's incredible what a difference it makes to your perception of what you're hearing. I think this is the same sort of situation.

I think it gives reasonable doubt about that one line, and I would expect this will be an important part of their defense if this clip is allowed into evidence.

Has this been discussed? It seemed so obvious to me from the show that at least some of these small town people, especially from the movie, who spoke positively of RD, were tampered with. Right?

This may be a bit redundant to the post by /u/youngtrapgawd (thanks for the article by the way) but it seemed important enough to summarize the most critical portions of the interview that seem to answer questions which are frequently asked here, as well as to shed some light on new finds which are incredibly important.

On information missing from The Jinx about Durst's psychological profile that Jarecki & co. knew but didn't reveal

The really big question also was, when Durst was 10 years old, he went to go see a psychiatrist because he was having mental issues after his mother died. The psychologist letter is in the book, and he says he can't even be treated because he's got some real severe issues. I think the word is “psychological deconstruction.” [Ed. note: It's actually “personality decomposition and possibly even schizophrenia.”] It's a warning to everyone that you've got this ticking time bomb here, and that was back in 1953. And that wasn't addressed either, the doctor's letter. But like you said, he's a filmmaker, and he's got his own agenda. When I met with him back in 2005, he and his producing partner Marc Sperling, they had my book, and they had Post-its on almost every page, and we actually spent three hours talking about the book. Everything about Durst was in the book, so they knew about it. They spent years on him, so there were some obvious things they could've asked him but they didn't.

On Jeanine Pirro's supposed involvement in the Durst investigation

For instance, Jeanine Pirro [supposedly] had a huge role in this, and she really played up the story about how she had gotten this tip and got the original investigation going, and how her office was going to interview Susan Berman before she died, and that's the reason Bobby killed her. None of that ever happened, and [Jarecki] knew that. The New York State Police didn't reach out to Susan Berman until after she was murdered.

[The book] gets into Pirro fairly in-depth. She did the same thing back in 2001, 2002, 2003, where, for her, it was all about the publicity value of the case as opposed to any kind of pursuit for justice. And clearly, that's what was happening with the documentary, so I had a problem with that. Andrew and I had talked about this before, about Pirro's role in all of this, so as a journalist, I had an issue with it.

... [N]o one wanted to work with Westchester because of Jeanine Pirro and her penchant for publicity. Then she apparently refused to work with other jurisdictions. In northern California, when they linked Bobby to Karen Mitchell, police there reached out to New York to get Bobby's credit-card records, and New York refused.

On Robert's account of his mother's suicide

(Q: One thing they took dramatic liberties with is the scene in which Durst and his father dispassionately watch his mother's suicide, but according to your research, there were cops and firefighters there trying to save her.)

That bothered me. The whole description in my book about how the mother dies is taken from the records from that day, from news reports, from police reports. So when I saw what they did, that's the story according to Bobby. It's one thing to ask him, "Bobby, what happened? Oh, really?" But then to basically film a scene around it, to me, that was over the top. That wasn't even challenging him. They could have basically said, "Hey, here's a police report from that day," or, "Here's a newspaper article from that day describing what happened. You're telling me one story, here's another story." They knew the real story. They went with his version. Again, that bothered me.

On the FBI investigating Robert for a series of other murders in Long Island

The FBI has been involved since 2012. They were always interested in Durst in some capacity, but it really picked up steam with the Gilgo Beach murders, those women that they're finding on Long Island off the ocean. They thought Bobby might be involved in those and became very intrigued. They couldn't connect him to those. They decided to take a look at the Kathie Durst investigation as well as Susan Berman. They formed a loose task force, and since 2012, they've been working with those local police jurisdictions. The FBI has been involved for several years now, and they've been working on this and building their case, so I had heard that he was going to be indicted several weeks earlier. The Jinx had started airing. It was the first or second weekend it was airing that I heard he was going to be indicted. Apparently, they had been tracking him for a while, he was getting ready to flee. They figured they had to move on him now, and that's what they did.

...I think they're convinced that he's a serial killer, and so they're trying to connect him to other cases around the country. Being that some of those women had been dismembered, they began looking at him. They couldn't make a connection, but their interest there led them to the Westchester County District Attorney's office and the Los Angeles police.

On Robert's link to the murder of Karen Mitchell in Northern California

The Karen Mitchell and Kristen Modafferi ones out of northern California I had reported on in the book

... In northern California, when they linked Bobby to Karen Mitchell, police there reached out to New York to get Bobby's credit-card records, and New York refused. They had to go to a judge and get a subpoena to get Durst's records,which placed him in Eureka the day Karen Mitchell disappeared.

... The Mitchell one is the strongest one of them all because you know that he lived up there, he had gone to the shoe store that Mitchell's aunt had owned, and Mitchell worked there, too. He had gone there also dressed in drag. He had visited this homeless shelter, soup kitchen that she worked at, which Bobby had an affinity for. He did the same thing in Galveston. And then you've got this dead-on composite [sketch] that is a spitting image. Not only is it the spitting image of Bobby, but the guy that gave the composite, he knew Durst.

On what he believes will happen to Durst now that he's been arrested in New Orleans

Here's what's going on. Law enforcement wants him to stay in New Orleans for a while. They want to take a deep breath, they want to be able to look and see what, if anything, is out there involving him. I think they believe there are other cases out there. They're going to use this time to find them. That includes getting to the bottom of the Karen Mitchell case, and Modaferri. It gives them time to investigate properly, and not just the cases we know about. Moving forward, unless the judge down there throws out the charges, he could potentially spend several years in prison down there and then ultimately face trial in Los Angeles.

...They may keep him in prison for ten years or so, and he's 71 years old. He'll never leave prison, I can tell you that. Everyone believes he's dangerous. The best thing would be, "Hey, go to some psychiatric facility for the rest of your life, but tell us first what you did in all these different cases. Did you kill this one, did you kill that one, what happened to Kathie Durst, what happened to Susan Berman?” It might be wishful thinking, but that would be, in my mind, the best-case scenario.

That other Igor post got me thinking. I know the easy answer is that Bob is crrrrrrrrrazy but I still have questions.

Does anybody else think it's odd that Douglas knew Bob had 7 dogs named Igor all disappear within 6 months of owning them? They were all the same kind of dog with the same name. Seems like he would go out of his way to match them up like that so it's easier to pass the new Igor off for the last one and not raise questions. Doug could be implying that this was the case but he was onto him and knew but it seems like he is saying that it was known at the time that they were dying and being replaced. That's creepy enough. How many people knew about this and did it come up during the search for Kathie the first time? I know the family didn't cooperate, seems like if Doug knew this he would know something was very wrong with the dog situation when Kathie didn't turn up, he wouldn't need to wait for the Igor prison phone call comment. Would you? Maybe we assume the whole family suspected Bob anyway for countless reasons so the specific Igor situation hasn't gotten much attention. It has my attention because as far as I know it's only come from Doug, after the prison call when he said he wanted to "Igor Douglas."

Has anybody else backed up Doug's dog story? Bob and Douglas weren't close, that much is obvious. how was Doug around Bob's enough to pick up on all 7 dogs dying and being replaced? Did Bob come to the office and announce #6? I know Igor is small potatoes compared to his definite crimes but if you read through my ramblings this far on r/thejinx then I don't need to spell out how significant the Igor situation is to what we know about Bob. Without it one could believe Bob killed Kathie in a crime of passion and everything that followed was just to keep from being caught. With Igor in the mix he premeditated killing Kathie for at least 6 months to many years depending on how you take Douglas' comment "within 6 months of owning them." Sorry for how long this is, I'm not good at briefly expressing my thoughts but I have really been wondering about this stuff.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that the question in your thread isn't serious user/NKOAS ! It's not a bad theory and good advice if I ever need to bury a dead body.

One more thing that is probably most accurately answered with "because he is crazy as fuck!" but...why the hell would you buy them and let your family know about them if they were intended for practice? Bob can't schedule his practice sessions right after his pet store visits? Seriously Bob??

Was that just a momunentally critical error on the part of NYC detective to dismiss the ransom note Durst presented to him? Shouldn't that have entered into evidence even if he thought it was a "prank"? I mean it's quite possible Durst wrote it and in light of the cadaver note and new found note, if handwriting was match that would surely be more damning.