Just Because He Chopped Up the Body Doesn’t Mean He Killed Him


I had written a previous story called “Just Because He Lied Doesn’t Mean He Killed his Wife”. That was actually a quote from one of the jurors in that case, where they found the husband innocent of killing his wife.

The title to this story is not a quote from any juror, but it should be. “48 Hours” had a show on about Robert Durst the other night, and a strange jury to say the least.

Robert Durst the multimillionaire who is suspected of killing his first wife Kathleen McCormack Durst in 1982 in New York is going on trial later this year for the murder of his long-time close friend Susan Berman whom he apparently confided in quite a bit. So much so that the info she had regarding what happened to Durst’s first wife who disappeared and has never been found, might have been enough to try him for his first wife’s murder.

In between the two incidents, not sure I can technically call them crimes, he had a run-in with a neighbor Morris Black in Galveston, Texas where he had fled, and his lawyer argued in court, and Robert Durst even took the stand to claim Black’s death in 2001 was self-defense. Durst then cut up the guy’s body, putting various body parts in various plastic bags and tossed them in Galveston Bay. The bags didn’t wash out to sea, but hung around the shore and were discovered.

Durst was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, at least that’s what justice says it’s supposed to be, a jury of his peers. Durst is worth about a $100 million, and I doubt any of the jurors were worth quite that much, so a jury of his peers, you decide that one?

Did I fail to mention that police would like to talk to Durst about the disappearance of young girls in various cities over the years? They have confirmed in at least one case, maybe more, he was in those cities at the time the girls disappeared.

What got Durst in his current trouble is that he agreed to do a documentary about his life, or his activities, or whatever, again that is debatable as to why he did it. The lawyer that got him a not guilty in the Galveston case didn’t want him to do the documentary, but, after Robert Durst had paid that lawyer a fat sum of money in that case, I assume Durst didn’t think that lawyer was qualified to tell him what to do regarding the documentary.

During the videotaping of the documentary, Robert decided to take a bathroom break, not realizing that the bathroom had a live microphone in it. While he was in the bathroom, he mumbled out the words, “Killed them all.”

The lawyer who defended him in the Galveston case will defend him in his upcoming murder trial, and says that bathroom statement he made can be interpreted in many different ways.

I hate to be dumb here, but “Killed them all,” to me, means he killed his first wife, his neighbor in Houston and Susan Berman in 2000 in Lost Angeles. There is a debate about exactly why Durst paid Berman $50,000. She was in financial straits. Was she blackmailing him for what she knew about what happened to Durst’s first wife, or was Durst first generous with her, and then he decided she didn’t need to testify to the authorities, which she was about to do?

If Durst’s lawyer could transport the Galveston jury to Los Angeles, when it came time to present his defense case, he could just walk over to the jury and tell them, “I leave this case to your judgement”.

They would not even have to leave the courtroom, I don’t believe. They would just hold a whispering conference among themselves to arrive at another not guilty verdict. After all, saying he “Killed them all,” was a mere utterance of a man who was teasing because he knew there was a live mike in the bathroom.

That won’t happen because the jury will be chosen from those who live in Los Angeles County. He is in jail now on a concealed gun charge while he was in New Orleans. As a felon in possession of a handgun that netted him 7 years in prison. He will be moved to Los Angeles for the trial.

Still I do wish those jurors who decided the case in Galveston would send their comments to me, and I will post them, comments about exactly how they came to a verdict of not guilty in the chop-up case.

Does his comment “Killed them all” mean anything to that Galveston jury, or have they rationalized that as well into a what would have been another not guilty verdict in the Los Angeles case if they were allowed to decide the case?

Or is it just possible some of the Galveston jury who proclaimed him not guilty are now having second thoughts like, “How dumb could we have been?”  I don’t like to be the bearer of sad tidings, but you, the Galveston jury, do not get to try him again, it’s called double jeopardy.

Send me your comments, the twelve members of the jury in the Galveston case. I want to know what you now think in view of Durst’s comment, “Killed them all,” and see if your thick head, in my opinion, has allowed any additional knowledge to penetrate it. I am assuming all twelve agreed on the not guilty verdict, which I think had to be unanimous, otherwise there would have been a hung jury.

A jury of his peers (equals) in Galveston? I don’t think so. I think Robert Durst and his lawyer were a whole lot smarter than you twelve people.



Add comment