MovieChat Forums > The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst (2015) Discussion > Did this seem sleazy to you

Did this seem sleazy to you

posted 10 years ago by Esl21599
44 replies | jump to latest

I didn't fine ending to be compelling but actually sleazy. I think the film makers at the end came off as tabloidish or sleazy from a content standpoint. Leaving the mic on and him running his mouth in the bath room might have sealed his fate. A street guy once said "law enforcement only knows what you tell em"

Law enforcement should still be ashamed of themselves. They dropped the ball on all three cases and now need a HBO documentary to find evidence. these people are in charge of protecting the public. The lack of physical evidence and how they can't even place him in LA at the time.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] swlabr 10 years ago

Yes very sleazy. I doubt anything used in this film would be admissible in court. No chain of custody on the letter. And self incrimation leaving the mic on. I am not a lawyer but I have watched every episode of Law and Order. Lol. BTW I live in Galveston, Texas

[–] vegarover 10 years ago

You could always argue that what he was saying in the bathroom was what he thought people would perceive of him, and not an admission. He even said in previous interviews that if he were on the outside looking at himself even he would think he's guilty.

[–] sagaz99 10 years ago

The confession should be admissible as a statement against self-interest exception to the hearsay rule.

[–] Marieke-7 10 years ago

except in NYS, you cannot sound-record someone unless they know they are being recorded. Bob will say that he did not know that he was being taped because the interview was over.

[–] sagaz99 10 years ago

That may be true but the case will be in California. They may have different rules.

[–] milamj09 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure the rules are the same because that law was brought up in the whole Donald Sterling ordeal.

[–] sagaz99 10 years ago

Possibly but this will be decided by the criminal rules of evidence. If the Sterling case went to trial, it would've been using the civil rules of evidence. there may be differences.

[–] Kompressor_Fan 10 years ago

He knew he was being recorded:

1) he was wearing a microphone, and he was aware of it.

2) he previously had been recorded talking between interview sessions, and had been advised that his microphone was "hot" between sessions. This, in itself, establishes that he knows he is being recorded any time he wears the mic.

 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 

[–] bobbyh-568-148826 10 years ago

Your ASSUMPTIONS that you listed in a fact like fashion are dependent on the fact that this guy is flawless and misses nothing.. he was just cornered in an intelligent way and was not in a rational state of mind. Hence the burping and his acknowledging it in hindsight.

[–] lynxx55 8 years ago

California is a two party consent state for recording conversations, which means that both parties must be aware of the taping.

[–] cookiela2001 10 years ago

I am not a lawyer but I have watched every episode of Law and Order.

Duly noted.

I myself am a graduate of the School of 48 Hours. With Special Studies in Snapped!

(A bit OT, but I've always wondered what the term Dateline means. Is that a totally made-up word? What at all does it have to do with the show??)

.

[–] jkloling 10 years ago

A dateline is the little city tag before a printed news article.

Atlanta - A dog was found this week on Pryor Street. etc. etc.

Like that.

You're welcome.

[–] SadakoGirl 10 years ago

(A bit OT, but I've always wondered what the term Dateline means. Is that a totally made-up word? What at all does it have to do with the show??)

It's the line before an article saying where/when the piece was filed.

[–] glo-co 10 years ago

You know what I find sleazy? Murdering three people in cold blood.

[–] swlabr 10 years ago

Yes I find murdering 3 people in col blood sleazy but can this be proved in a court of law?

[–] Buymemoney 10 years ago

Would you convict if you were on the jury?

[–] swlabr 10 years ago

If the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[–] JDuggernaut 10 years ago

Would you convict if you were on the jury?

Well he said he was from Galveston, so probably not. Haha

Wait until they get a load of me.

[–] blubird-1 10 years ago

No & Durst invited the filmmakers, he contacted Jerecki to make the documentary.

[–] pancakes328 10 years ago

The part of the documentary that I found to be the most distasteful was the beginning credits, with the reenactments of Bernice and Kathie Durst's deaths. Set to music, shown in slow motion. Came off as slick and salacious. Just what their families want to see!

[–] swlabr 10 years ago

I just watched the local news. DeGeurin got him off in Galveston and thay said he would be representing him.

[–] Melissaslist 10 years ago

Yes, I thought it was sleezy and yet I could not look away.

Regarding the letters as being the most damning evidence; I am not convinced of the authenticity of these letters. The first thing that Durst did when he looked at the envelope was notice the misspelling of Beverly. So he only recently learned the correct spelling of the word? Or he intentionally misspelled in both letters? I don't know.

I don't think he's innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but yes, I think "accidentally" leaving his mic on was sleezy. I think a lot of the ways he was set up to trap himself was sleezy. I think it's sad that it took a documentary filmmaker to catch this guy when the police couldn't. It's compelling for sure, but it's just kind of pathetic when you think about it and makes me wonder about the evidence gathering in order to create this documentary.

[–] glo-co 10 years ago

I'm sure Durst realized he misspelled Beverly as Beverley back in 2003 when the LAPD did their original handwriting analysis. Up to that point in his life, he probably thought that's how it was spelled. I bet it was a huge deal back then when they were trying to figure out who the killer was.

[–] elchiponr1 9 years ago

I don't think leaving the mic on was intentional. The guy was obviously not feeling well (he started gagging in the interview) and needed to go to restroom in a hurry.
As was mentioned by others on this board, he had also been warned about his mic in the first interview.

[–] Fibre_Optic 10 years ago

I didn't find it sleazy at all,it is what it is. A documentary that Durst actively wanted to do and participated in, in the thought he could convince people he was somehow being unjustly treated in the media and to tell 'his' side of the story. They've tried doing it the right way for years but somehow because of some reason or another he's got away scott-free. As the saying goes karma's a bitch and lets hope something does come of this and he gets royally nailed.

Watching his reaction to the 2 letters was priceless, he looked like he was going to have a stroke or something, burping and mumbling away. Convincing himself that because he wrote in block caps no handwriting analysis could be done. It's the same as a typewriter he says. For someone who's supposed to be intelligent he doesn't come across that way.

[–] glo-co 10 years ago

I know. I kept thinking, "why didn't you just use a typewriter?" Or even a ransom style note. It was as if getting a typewriter or cutting out letters was just more effort than he was willing to put in.

[–] joeykeo 10 years ago

Also the same thing happened in the first interview. Remember when the lawyer came in and told him the mic was still live and he stopped talking. That was when he was saying he didn't lie he just didn't tell the whole truth. . .

Jo

All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

W.B. Yeats

[–] baz678 9 years ago

I was glad Jarecki decided to play Durst. Durst had been playing him all along. Cat and mouse.