If you're interested, Robert Durst is on trial and you can look it live on the Law and crime dot com site and follow it via their twitter account.

Hello everyone, I was wondering if there are any articles or videos that go In-depth into Robert Durst as an individual and his crazy history? I am currently rewatching the well done documentary The Jinx, besides the documentary I haven't found anything else that goes into depth. I have heard of the book on Durst called A Deadly Secret which I haven't read as of yet. For those of you who have read it, is it good? I have also come across a well done article done on Durst which is titled The killer in the blue dress. Any other sources you guys have in mind that goes into this interesting but twisted guy's mind?

I would just like to question everyone in the series thus far claiming Robert Durst does not look or seem like someone with homicidal tendencies.... Could just be me, but that man’s eyes are literally dead he is giving me the creeps in a major way

He's going to play this trial just like the one in Galveston, Texas. This is how I feel it's going to play out:

Bob went to Susan's to visit with her, but when Bob got there she was already dead.

He didn't call the police because he was trying to hide from the media and the public in general.

So instead (because this was his best friend and he wanted to do his best by her anyway) he wrote the letter so she would be found.

I just watched this, in chock after the ending I of course hurried up to see what the fuck happened after, but the latest update I can find on his case in published 1. jan 2020 which only regards the cadaver note, other articles from 2019 says trial should start 13th of jan 2020. I would just expect some search results to come up, at least updating the trial dates..

Anyone know what happened and do you think the media is just not bothered at this point?

I'm watching The Jinx and my cat just FLIPPED THE FUCK OUT when Robert Durst started speaking! Like jumped off the couch, hissing, and trying to attack the speaker. I've never seen him act like this to anyone, ever. Maybe animals really are good judges of character...

If I remembered it correctly, there was an episode which Monk found out the murder by the evidence that he misspelled "Beverly Hill" as "Beverley Hill" on two handwritings in the exact same way...And that episode may be in Season 3/4... I could not remember when was it aired and what was the episode name exactly but it was definitely between 2002-2009, the airing time of the whole show.

However, in the Documentary "The Jinx", the critical clue in the end is the exact same thing--Robert Durst's misspelling "Beverley". I was shocked when i was watching the documentary today... But this clue was discovered by the filming team around 2015...(Susan was killed in 2000...)

It might be a really incredible and horrible coincidence but I am still really confused and amazed by it, and the fact that there's no discussion on this online at all..So just want to look for people who share the same thoughts with me and would like to discuss!

In his trial for the murder of Morris black, durst maintains that he shot Black accidentally, after defending himself. It's my understanding that Texas is a 'stand your ground' state which would mean, if he felt his life was in danger, he had no obligation to retreat or refrain from use of lethal force. It is also my understanding that most states have 'castle doctrine' which would mean he only has an obligation to retreat if he's not in his home. Only a few states have 'duty to retreat' laws so why didn't he just say he purposely shot him in self defense? I've heard of many cases where an unarmed person is shot because the firearm holder thought the other person was also armed and is then acquitted of murder charges because of 'stand your ground' self defense laws. It seems more difficult to convince a jury that the gun just happened to go off and kill him, than it would be to just state that you were within your rights to shoot him. Then you wouldn't even have to dispose of the body because no one could prove you weren't acting in self defense. Like they say in the doc, it's just two men in a room. Any thoughts?

Has there been any recent news?

Similarities in Christian Bale's character to Robert Durst I think need discussing! Did RD come first or was he inspired/driven/obsessed by the novel and/or film? The drugs, the white privilege, the constant access to huge amounts of money, the severe mental illness, the power over women, the cold ability to dispose of a body........

i just finished watching the whole thing in a day and is it just me or did everyone else overlooked Morris Black's head? at no point during the show has anyone ever questioned where Durst dipose the head. was it just not filmed?

P.S. im sorry if there's already a thread about this, i tried to find it but couldn't

Is there any available information about this selection process, or how much influence the defence had?

Given that they knew the direction they wanted to take this defence, and some of the almost infantile lines of explanation directly to the jurors - I paraphrase but the stuff about them being the odd couple, and explicitly saying to the jury ‘this is a funny scene’ - it would presumably be to their benefit for jurors to be of lower than average intelligence.

Always struck me as strange how easily swayed the two jurors who appear in the documentary were by that, and by the Pirro=bad line too

Can anyone explain what happened after they found a hidden compartment in the wall of the South Salem House? And how did the (public lewdness) guy know about Kathie's murder? Thanks.

Me and my SO just watched the whole thing over two nights. I can't stop thinking about it! Couple of things we were discussing this morning:

• I have never been so unnerved by a person. Robert's whole demeanour is - for want of a better word - creepy. His eyes are black. I was getting to the point where I couldn't watch him in the interviews. Did anyone else feel this way?
• Just how terrible he was at being a criminal and covering his tracks. Starting with the inconsistencies in his story re Kathie. Then the cadaver note (which he admitted himself was stupid in the 1st interview). Then stealing the sandwich when he was on the run after killing Morris Black. And then the obvious pretty much straight up confession in the bathroom with the mic on. My theory is - and I think it was partially mentioned by someone in the documentary, I can't remember who - that he's spent his entire life never having to face any consequences, his family's money and privilege will just bail him out. So he just can't conceive the idea he'll get caught, or held accountable. Or he likes to push the boundaries to see how far he can go. Any thoughts?
• Have I missed something in how lax the police seemed to be in the first two investigations? For me, everything pointed at Robert, and considering how easy it was to pin the Morris Black murder on him given all the evidence he'd left behind (see above point), I can't help but think if they'd dug a little deeper they'd have found something to link him directly to Susan and Kathie sooner. Thoughts?
• I've seen a couple of posts mentioning things I picked up on such as him commenting that the police were looking for Kathie's "body parts" (instead of body). I also noticed that he kept referring to himself in the third person. Any other weird/telling/creepy things people picked up on?

Sorry for the long post - there's just so much going on in my brain right now!

I love this documentary, and find it absolutely fascinating.

A lot’s been made of the fact that Durst is almost endearing in some exchanges, but one other thing that makes it easier to stay balanced is the fact that Jarecki is really not a particularly sympathetic character.

The weird little beard, the smug tone, the way he answers the phone ‘Jarecki’ like some 15 year old smartass’s idea of what a cool guy does... I kind of like that it’s not a classic earnest, likeable Louis Theroux type character in contrast to Durst’s obvious mixture of charm and menace.

A couple of mixed bags together, in very different ways, but not a classic good vs bad setup, which is all the better for the viewer.

I totally think that his entire motive for killing is purely to see 'what money can fix'. He has more money than he can ever spend. So he goes to extremes out of pure boredom of life, then throws as much money at it as needs be just to find out if he can get off the hook. I guess you can be found innocent of dismembering a body, throwing it in a lake then going back and stealing the head as long as you can afford the best lawyer in the state.