...it's not a slam dunk. Durst is such a weirdo, the jury could easily believe the arguments of his excellent lawyers that he was just talking himself through the consequences of the interview or mimicking what he thought people would assume. I wouldn't trust anything that goofball said either way. I hope the prosecution has more than that.
shareNothing would surprise me with this guy tbh, could go either way imo. At least he's gonna be in prison for the next six years though, which is something.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I said a while ago that what his attorneys are going to argue about this evidence is this:
1) Durst went to see Susan Berman and found her dead in her house. He knew that the police would suspect him so he got out of there but he wrote an anonymous letter to the cops so that they could find her body.
2) His "confession" in the bathroom was just, as you say, him talking ironically about what people would think of the interview.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
I thought the same thing, except now that he said something conflicting in the interview, I think it will be much harder for them to succeed with that argument (#1).
shareHe never has to admit to being at a Berman's home at the time of the murder. All they have is the letter and that is circumstantial. They just need an expert to say the handwriting isn't the same. He left no DNA on the letter or in the home. They cannot prove he was there.
shareI never thought of that as a confession. It was a guy talking to himself. If I was on the jury, I wouldn't put too much weight on that "evidence".
share