the jinx

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:33 pm

HBO true crime docu-series about Robert Durst, part of one of the wealthiest fams in NY, whom many believe has gotten away with 3 murders.

seems like HBO trying to get in on the Serial hype, but i'm down. R U DOWN?

bbatson1 · Post by **bbatson1** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:32 pm

great show. If there's any show i wish i could binge watch now it's this. The wait is killing me. Dude definitely has a screw lose.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:05 pm

his twitch is wild...it's like it emphasizes every lie he tells.

Raphael De La Ghetto · Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:38 pm

Gonna check this out. I was in a Wikipedia vortex and stumbled across this guy's page, decided to google him and found out about this mini series. I'm all for Serial inspired true crime shit.

Raphael De La Ghetto · Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:07 am

Didn't realize the guy doing this is the same guy that did "capturing the friedmans".

bbatson1 · Post by **bbatson1** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:12 pm

What do you guys think about the second murder? It seems like they just kind of threw it in there. The way they made it sound she could have been killed by any number of people. I can see why no charges were brought up for that one.

Raphael De La Ghetto · Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:37 pm

Seems like he hired someone for that one. I think they were trying to imply a little that he hired her step son, and didn't give him that money to just be allies when the heat came. The first and third murder seems like he did it personally, and always tried to hide the body.
The step son thing would also explain the note to the cops. But I doubt he did it.

blastmaster · Post by **blastmaster** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:03 pm

Phat shouts to Wegmans subs.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:10 pm

absolutely insane what good lawyers can do for you.

bbatson1 · Post by **bbatson1** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:51 pm

how did dude not get time for mutilating a body? That's still illegal.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:29 pm

i low key fell asleep for part of it, but my girl was saying "he was only on trial for murder, not for mutilating a body, and in texas if the killing is deemed self defense then it isn't murder." forgive me if that sounds obvious if you watched the whole episode.

it's insane to me that you can chop a body up to try and hide the fact you killed someone and it still be deemed "self-defense."

Tommy Bunz · Post by **Tommy Bunz** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:07 pm

Just binge-watched the first 4 episodes. Pretty great.
The DA fucked up by only charging him for murder. They could've hit him with a litany of charges but thought they had a lay-up murder charge.
But he absolutely should've gotten off for that, they never established motive whatsoever.
I also kinda don't get why Durst would've killed him in cold blood anyways. If the guy find out who he was and was threatening to blackmail him, it would have been easier for him to just relocate then to murder the guy.
Not saying he didn't do it obv.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 11:40 pm

that handwriting looks like pretty damning evidence.

edit: though i guess he could be like "yeah i drove down, saw her already dead body, felt bad, wrote a letter, drove back to sf."

Blockhead · Post by **Blockhead** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:26 am

Damning evidence? it's pretty obvious this dude killed all these people.
The fact he got off after chopping up that guy is insane (obviously) but there's no doubt in my mind he killed everyone people assume he killed.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:20 pm

well yeah...i personally have no doubt that he killed all the people he is accused of killing. that seems obvious as fuck to any rational human being.

at this point i'm watching this show going "okay, hopefully they find something that proves beyond reasonable doubt he killed these people so he can be put in prison."

it blows my mind that he is still out walking around, but i guarantee you there are people (even on this board) that go "THAT LETTER DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING." the whole catch to this show is the "nanny nanny boo boo you don't have proof" element because dude can afford the best lawyers, so unless footage from a security camera shows him shooting someone while he's staring into the lens and flipping it off while wearing a jacket with his name on it and then leaves the gun at the scene that says "property of robert durst" he's not gonna get in any trouble.

bbatson1 · Post by **bbatson1** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:14 pm

That last episode was dope! He obviously doesn't cop to anything since he's not in jail as of today, but that would have been crazy if he just said fuck it.. "yeah i did it."

Also the guy that is doing the interview seems super sleazy himself.

TheBigSleep · Post by **TheBigSleep** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:05 pm

Jarecki? Yeah, if you read up on any of the post-Capturing the Friedmans news about that story, it certainly makes him look bad. And he has money from selling Moviefone to AOL back in '99 for almost four hundred million dollars I think.

So between being rich at a young age, being caught lying about important legal issues, his fascination with ambiguity, his family members' success (in their business of filmmaking), it all kinda parallels Durst's life in some small strange way.

Versive · Post by **Versive** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:31 pm

Show's great. Bing-watched 1-3, watched 4 Sunday. This was in the paper yesterday, timed perfectly: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/nyreg ... pened.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the district attorney in Los Angeles has recently reopened an investigation into the killing of Mr. Durst’s friend, Susan Berman, in December 2000, and is tying it to the case about his missing wife in New York, according to four people who have spoken to investigators.

Seems like he'd have the best chance of beating this one if all they have to go on is a note, but maybe the justice system has finally had enough of dude. Or maybe fuck that, illuminati rituals yo. And yeah, dude's twitch is ridiculous.

Blockhead · Post by **Blockhead** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:15 pm

When I first saw Jarecki I thought his facial hair was fake on some witness protection program shit. He looks like Eli Roth in "Cabin Fever".

Blockhead · Post by **Blockhead** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:35 am

Oh dip!
http://gawker.com/robert-durst-has-been ... socialflow" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seagrams hotsauce · Post by **seagrams hotsauce** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:23 pm

Welp, I was fully expecting this to be Serial-esque in it's lack of any concrete resolution, and boy was I wrong!

Versive · Post by **Versive** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:50 pm

Dude said "Killed them all of course" ... Possibly with dick in hand

Blockhead · Post by **Blockhead** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:05 am

That was an incredible ending. Like, almost too incredible. And he got arrested the day of the finale? Nuts.

YouTube · Post by **Philaflava** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:21 am

will watch now because of the ending. more excited to peep than listen to the new lamar album tbh.

blastmaster · Post by **blastmaster** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:54 am

That burp/gurgle situation was awesome. It was like all of the ticks exploded at once.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:44 am

gratifying ending.

i feel like if they just left him mic'd up dude would keep forgetting and eventually just kill someone else on a hot lav.

the fact there is still a juror in texas that thinks he's just "the unluckiest man alive" makes me think a conviction is still harder than it looks (because it looks like it should be an open and shut case).

Versive · Post by **Versive** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:11 am

Blockhead wrote:That was an incredible ending. Like, almost too incredible. And he got arrested the day of the finale? Nuts.

The article in today's NYT revealed that Jarecki and them supposedly have had this audio for years since the interview actually took place and didn't realize it until recently. Goes on to say that it may or may not be admissible in court; alone in bathroom might fall under privacy law or something, but a Columbia professor says it is admissible as long as it can be proven the audio was never tampered with.

Like you said, though, it's almost too incredible. And when you add in that the producers claim they didn't even know about this until years later. Sounds like bullshit.

Durst killed at least 1 of these people, could've put out a hit on victims 1 and/or 3. It would be a shame if Jarecki's irresponsible film-making/questionable character interfered with a possible conviction.

Versive · Post by **Versive** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:08 pm

And now, in this interview, http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/ ... w-jarecki/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Jarecki is saying that the 2nd Durst interview actually occurred before the arrest for violating his brother's order of protection, which is totally out of step with what is shown in the episode (unless that's an error on the NYT interviewer's part, which it very well might be). Dude probably needs to shut up.

Blockhead · Post by **Blockhead** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:19 pm

The fucked up thing is that , even if they're allowed to use that footage in court, I could see a lawyer making a case that what he was saying wasn't an admission. It sounded like he was talking to himself so when he said "What did I do? Killed them all of course" could have been him explaining why he would look guilty after that interview. Keep in mind, the dude DID kill all those people but I definitely see how that footage could be flipped into something that won't hold up in court. The handwriting is still the most damning evidence.

intuition · Post by **intuition** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:38 pm

Versive wrote:Durst killed at least 1 of these people, could've put out a hit on victims 1 and/or 3.

huh? he admitted in court to killing and dismembering victim 3 himself.

Blockhead wrote:The handwriting is still the most damning evidence.

and like i was saying earlier, hypothetically that could be defended if they weave some story about him showing up to visit, finding her dead, then sending the note to be nice but not wanting to get involved.

his on camera freakout all but proves he killed these people according to his body language...but i don't think body language will hold up in court.

the jinx

the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx

Re: the jinx