To me, it seems like the last episode was just staged. Too many things just conveniently come to light, including the ending.
Edit: I just realized the director of the film was a producer on Catfish. Now, I am sure this entire thing was staged. Probably by both Durst and Jareki. It's pretty obvious that Susan Berman's son was implicit in the ruse, as well. This is just one big FU from Durst, I think.
Tin foil hat time.
shareYES.
shareWell, it wasn't "staged", but it was definitely edited for effect. The "final" interview wasn't the last thing they did. Of all places, there is a "Cracked" podcast on documentaries that goes into pretty good detail on this and other modern docs. One thing they did pretty well, was the way they made the guy's eyes look like sharks cold, black holes. He truly looked kinda evil.
In the final episode all I could think was how stupid the little round faced Galveston Juror was. He honestly thought that Durst was just a misunderstood, insanely rich eccentric. Just the unluckiest man in the world. Really, man? He would also have to be one of the stupidest, as well. Is Durst really this persuasive and likeable in real life? I think more than that, this shows some insanely poor police work. The way they fell for the "doorman saw her" trick, planted by Berman? That's embarrassing. And what was that lady thinking? She was portrayed as a saint, but she was protecting what she knew was a murderer.
Anyway... Yeah, it was edited to make a narrative, but not "staged".
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyyBv-6jO-M
What is the theory on why his eyes seemed so dilated? Was this due to an intentional lighting technique they were using, or was he possibly on some kind of medication?
shareNot sure about being staged, but I do believe it is a definite FU from Durst.
shareI did find it strange that after the interview was complete, they didn't take off his microphone and collect it, as many people usually do after interviews. They turned off the lights and left the room as well.
Maybe they were hoping for exactly that, that he would talk to himself unaware of the line mic as he did in the first interview.
Maybe they were hoping for exactly that, that he would talk to himself unaware of the line mic as he did in the first interview.
Yea, and to be honest? I don't believe for one minute it took incredibly long for the film makers 'late discovery' of his 'ramblings'.
I believe they got hung up on what should be their 'ethical responsibility vs. making a good doc' approach to the new information.
Like, maybe they even tried to score a third interview with the secret tapes as the linchpin.
I agree. I do not believe for one minute that they just discovered this footage.
shareI don't know about the authenticity but it sure did make for compelling TV. My best guess is that Durst was in on it. My second best guess is they've held on to the "killed them all, of course" recording for years and then put together this 6 parter knowing they had such a shocker that they could play at the very, very end.
A couple becomes a couple when there's a house on the horizon
IMO....of course it wasn't staged. How would Durst....who appears to want to stay out of prison.....benefit from staging a scene where he says "I killed them all?" It makes no sense.
What does make sense is that, still shaken from being confronted with the damning letter, he forgot that he was still mic'd when he walked into the bathroom, being as how he was in a state of shock.
 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 
Probably for the same reason he stole a hoagie with 40k in cash on him. Probably the same reason why he would even contact a movie producer in the first place. I'm pretty sure he thinks he's untouchable. I would probably think so too, if I got away with 3 murders.
shareYou have a point there. Doing this interview was just plain crazy. He got away with it all, and would have to his dying day, if he had just shut up and led a quiet life.
Looking at the news footage of him in the back of the police car, he looks like he is just thrilled at the way things have turned out. A classic narcissist.
 The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news. 
Um he got away with ONE murder, and that was the dismembered body. The FBI has been investigating him for several years now. So he would've been arrested to Susan's murder.
Whether it's just clever editing or not, it'll all come out when he goes to trial.
Exactly!
shareMy feeling as I watched the interview was that Jarecki and the film crew wanted out of that room as soon as possible.
I think Jarecki was honest when he said that he had tried to keep an open mind when the project started - but that all shifted when Berman's step-son showed him the letter.
Up until that point, I think Jarecki had been trying to see Durst's viewpoint - and had developed a comfortable relationship with him. But he knew that the second he showed the letter to Durst, his relationship was over. Durst would view Jarecki as an enemy and as a threat to his freedom.
Knowing how Durst might have treated these situations previously - I don't think it's outlandish for Jarecki to have been honestly scared about what might happen.
Was it likely that Durst was going to go full psycho on the film crew, whip a gun out of his bag and shoot them all down. No.
Was it possible? Yes.
At best, it had to feel like it does when your spouse is served with legal papers regarding a divorce.
My thought is the microphone stayed on Durst simply because everyone wanted out of the room.
Note how Jarecki was "Sure, take the photo of Berman... it's yours..."
I think the key thing about that "gotcha" interview is Durst must have gone into it without lawyers. He might have assumed it would be more like a friendly chat on the telephone. Apparently that had happened many times without legal representation.
And I thought Jarecki accurately described when, how, and "if" the interview would take place...
To paraphrase Jarecki...
"Some days Bob wants to talk, some days he doesn't... If I schedule an interview with Bob on a day he wants to talk - I will get an appointment on his calendar... if that day arrives, and Bob doesn't feel like talking - the appointment will be canceled... if that day arrives, and Bob feels like talking - the appointment will go through..."
Jarecki knew it was dicey whether or not Durst would show up... but he was prepared to wait and see what happens.
Clearly the film couldn't have been made on a tight time table.
My thought is the microphone stayed on Durst simply because everyone wanted out of the room.
Hi,
The last part of the documentary was a fait accompli. Jarecki confronting Durst about his handwriting was right out of a Columbo episode! Spot on.
Absolutely chilling. There was a nervous reaction from Durst with the hiccup and burp.
Wow that was awkward .. and scary!
A couple of things came to mind about the wife.s disappearance and the fact that they weren't able to find her body all these years.
In 2000, Durst, an old man, still strong enough to tackle, kill, and dismember another man.
One would think he had no trouble at all killing his wife in 1982, and dismembering her body.
But where did he dump it? as gruesome as this may sound ... it occurred to me that he tossed her in the fireplace.
No, I.m not sick, I just think the man is a classic psychopath, and anything is a possibility at this point.
Any thoughts?
He wasn't an old man, he was in his 50s at the time.
shareThere are many forest around there where he could have buried her. Look at the list where he mentioned shovel and dig. They searched the house and lake, but not the forest and it had been years since she "went missing". Fire wouldn't be clever as it would be very smelly I'd bet.
shareI was wondering about this too, creepy. But he didn't have his bag with him when he sat at the interview table with the film crew.
Remember towards the end when everyone got up, Jarecki asked someone from the staff to return Bob.s bag to him.
I would think potentially dangerous people get checked before giving an interview, just like at airports.
For some odd reason, I don't think Durst would hurt Jarecki, as he is a fellow Jew.
Jews don't hurt Jews.
But then again, he killed Susan Berman.
PS: did anyone find it strange that he asked to keep Susan.s photo? Perhaps he felt so awkward after he got "caught" he just wanted to say something just to break the silence.
by sixoneninereymysterio » 1 day ago (Thu Mar 19 2015 20:05:10)Durst was known to say incriminating things not knowing that his mic was still hot. Please revisit final moments of Episode 4.
IMDb member since June 2006
I did find it strange that after the interview was complete, they didn't take off his microphone and collect it, as many people usually do after interviews. They turned off the lights and left the room as well.
Maybe they were hoping for exactly that, that he would talk to himself unaware of the line mic as he did in the first interview.
Durst loves the attention and not only did Jarecki and HBO get a hit but the story is now big on all the other networks, 48Hrs, Dateline, 20-20, Fox w/Jeanne..heck, this Durst is now a cottage industry for TV land!
Durst benefits as well as he loves all the attention as Narcississt do.
As far as thinking Jinx is legit, just use you're common sense. I used to think all the storylines on Deadliest Catch were real too, until I started reading blogs from the "stars" and they revealed how fake the stories truly are.
A couple becomes a couple when there's a house on the horizon
Totally true.
And jarewcki even said at some point that "durst likes to be in the fire" ( paraphrased)
Could also be a "telltale heart" sort of deal. Or maybe durst feels he can do anything and won't be stopped, even making this show
(Maybe he's wrong, maybe not)
maybe durst feels he can do anything and won't be stopped, even making this show
It was my impression that the whole "turning off the lights" thing was more an artistic interpretation and allowed us to focus more on what he was saying and less on whatever bustle was going on outside of the bathroom.
Wouldn't it seem mighty suspicious to you if you went to the bathroom and noticed that everything outside of the room got super quiet - especially after you basically just got caught for murder?
Nah, I think that they just laid the audio over an image of them taking everything down long after he'd left.
^ This. The image and audio wouldn't be happening at the same time in that way. There's no way they timed the lights perfectly after his confession. They just put the audio over some footage they had of the room being closed up.
shareWhen Bob gets up and leaves, you can see the mic VERY prominently at the top of his shirt. In the recording in the bathroom you can hear him running the sink. So he doesn't notice the mic on his shirt in the bathroom mirror? He's obviously very stressed at the moment, and who knows how his f-ed up mind works, but I can't believe something that blatant could slip by him.
I actually think it's more likely the mic did come off and they were recording him with some second hidden recording device. The filmmakers don't scruple from other little manipulations and deceptions, so this is definitely not past them.
He probably didn't notice his mic was on his shirt when he was in the bathroom, just like he had forgotten that it was on his shirt when they took a break from their other interview and his lawyer had to advise him to stop talking.
It's not the same thing, forgetting you have a mic on and not noticing a microphone blatantly sticking out of your shirt when you're looking in a bathroom mirror. Again, you can hear him running water (and grabbing paper towels) so he's certainly in front of a mirror. No matter how you spin it, that's a huge stretch to suggest that even Bob wouldn't see it.
shareYeah, but this guy is nuts. He has a known history of rambling to himself, and he was under incredible stress at the moment. He also has a history of being a little sloppy/careless, so I don't really doubt that he wasn't thinking about the mic. Maybe he was too into his head to really notice anything. It's hard to say how one would react in a situation like that, because who can even relate? It's all so crazy.
shareAgree. You could see the stress building & building during the handwriting questions, where he was twitching and doing all sorts of weird stuff like the over the top yawning etc, clear stress symptoms. After that was done he looked to me like he just wanted to get away from everyone/thing and the whole situation, hence running to the bog as quick as he did.
The mic imo would have been the last thing on his mind. He'll have been just replaying the whole interview to himself in his mind, saying to himself what the hell did I just say and how did I come across, have I just dug my own grave and obviously as we all heard, he had a tendency to talk to himself especially when under said stress.
Tbh I didn't think we would have got the ending we did. We knew from the other interviews he had his lawyer there. When he turned to him & told him he was live talking to himself. TBH I'd have thought his team would have maybe seen the whole documentary before it aired, like what usually happens in situations like this. But boy was I wrong.
Just shows how hard it is to read and predict men like Durst.Psychopath, sociopath, narcissist you name it.
You're talking about the same guy who sends a letter in his own handwriting to the police and even points out in an interview that this letter points out who the killer is. The guy doesn't seem to be the brightest, he just happens to have money and people advising him and he seems to just want to see how much he can get away with.
sixoneninereymysterio, I agree with your post wholeheartedly. I don't think Durst is on planet earth from time to time and I don't think he even realized what he did. This is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen and I love when Andrew calls or answers his phone by just saying 'Jarecki.' I get a charge out of that. I hope he makes more pics like this one! And Durst willfully killed Susan Berman though the other two weren't premeditated, nonetheless he should've got life for those as well.
shareWhy wouldn't they leave the mic on him? During their previous interview they picked up his ramblings as well and his lawyer told him to stop and that he could be heard. So wouldn't it be smart on the part of the filmmakers to let him keep it on so they could record more audio?
As for the OP, yeah I doubt it's a ruse by Durst, the filmmakers and everyone just as an FU. Especially since the FBI has been investigating him for the past 3 years and he will be extradited to California for Susan Berman's death.
It happens all the time. After an interview, crew are busy doing things and sometimes you forget to take off the mic. I used to work in TV and many times went running after someone as they were leaving the building because we had forgotten to get their mic.
And now I'm an actor and I was recently mic'ed up for a film shoot. One night, late, we finished shooting and I got changed. Got out to my car as the sound guy was walking by. I wondered if he got his mic back (there were a bunch of us with mics that night). I went back to wardrobe and found my mic was still on and was still in the inside pocket of the coat I had on.
I have little doubt Durst forgot about the microphone.
I have no doubt Jarecki and crew were well aware that they were still recording with a live wireless microphone. Why not take it off him, especially as he was using the restroom? Why not stop recording? This was the most important, meticulously planned interview in the documentary. They had caught Durst in the previous interview muttering to himself. They wanted to get every potential soundbite from him until he was out of wireless range, at which point they would retrieve the microphone.
The claim that they didn't discover the audio until months later is laughable, typical of Jarecki and for legal/storytelling reasons.
I love Jarecki's work and this is one of his finest.
Guys maybe you should look up the latest news on Robert durst..he was arrested and is going to be charged in Susan's murder. The documentary will be a piece of evidence, especially the confession part.
shareVery weak case. Can't be placed in LA at the time. There is no murder weapon, there is nothing to place him at the scene.
shareuhhh.. this lead to his arrest and extradition to California. It also lead to his being arrested as a felon while holding firearms and drugs. Those probation violations alone can give this pathological liar a life sentence. Paranoid much? Don't over think.. These film makers slightly balanced the scale in an otherwise flawed justice system and gave closure too many people.
share[deleted]
Oh, it was briliant!!!
I think the mike on was the crew's last attempt to get a confession if the showing of the letter and note evidence did not work, as they thought they wouldn't. We can see in the documentary how they realise he is simply not going to admit to have written the cadaver note, as it happens. But they also knew he had a tendency to talk to himself, specially under stress, so they had their last desperate chance and it worked? Is it enough to charge him with murder? specially if we include other evidence digged by the documentarists on the porter of the building, on the investigator withdrawing (he is gonna talk if summoned)... I think they've got a case, speacially with a jury trial.
Now, how will we follow it?
We want a second season with the trial!!!
I would like to hear the recording of after Durst leaves the bathroom. Before Durst enters the bathroom - Durst is speaking to other people in the room saying "I am going to go use the restroom which is right here." You can hear another person talking to Durst - even prior to Durst saying that he was going to the restroom you can hear a person laughing about how many sandwiches they have.
What happens when Durst leaves the bathroom? There has to be a recording of Durst saying goodbye - the film makers / audio people retrieving the microphone that is attached to and recording Durst.
I do not know if Durst bathroom ramblings mean anything. It seems as though Durst does show human emotion when it comes to the murder of his best friend. He requests that picture of her. Durst seems to have indicated that since his first wife had gone missing - everyone believed that he was guilty. He did not want to be Durst any longer so he his in TX where he ends up murdering and chopping up a man. By the time that the interview reaches the discussion about the handwriting - Durst seems to be over the interview. He has lied to the film makers about being in Madrid and seems to be avoiding the project - even telling the film makers to find a "new kid."
Durst's bathroom ramblings could have been Durst talking to himself verbalizing what he though everyone would be saying about the handwriting "there it is. You're right, of course. But you can't imagine. Arrest him." It also seems as though he is having a conversation with himself - as if we are witnessing the recordings of a mad mind splitting in two (with the moaning / groaning).
Durst says "Oh, I want this." What is he referring to? Is he referring to the picture? Is he referring to the attention that he hopes the discovery of the handwriting will bring? The son of the Durst's murdered best friend gives the film makers the letter, correct? I realize that the police have the letter directing them to Durst's murdered best friend "cadaver in Beverley Hills." However, it appears as though law enforcement have never seen / looked at / viewed / found the letter sent from Durst in NY to his murdered best friend in Beverly Hills (the letter that more than likely had a check enclosed).
How is it that law enforcement never saw this letter from Durst before now? It appears as though Durst's murdered best friend's son (the one that Dust had given $100,000 to) tells the film makers "I have this letter and the handwriting matches the letter sent to "Beverley Hills" law enforcement, and, the word "Beverley" is misspelled." The film makers then seem to put the letter in a bank lock box - explaining that this will help law enforcement because they will not have to file anything to get the letter if Durst admits to writing it.
Again, how is it that law enforcement never saw this letter to begin with? One would think that the son would have shared the letter with law enforcement before sharing it with film makers.
The Durst Family all seem to be odd. It would not surprise me if the younger brother wanted to be the "head" of the family so badly that he took advantage of his brother's weaknesses somehow creating "The Mad Man Durst."
The story of Durst's father saying "come see Mommy and Mommy was outside on the roof I waived to Mommy but I don't know if she saw me." If that is true - why would Seymour Durst have his young son watch his mother commit suicide (or whatever happened to her). Was Mrs. Seymour Durst suicidal - and Seymour thought that if the Mrs. saw the children she would not jump to her death?
During Durst's Bathroom Ramblings - he says "I don't know what's in the house. Oh I want this." Is it possible that he is referring to his childhood home - and feeling as though he was never able to get belongings, pictures, special items out of the family house because his brother pushed him out of the family? His current wife says that his younger brother had a diabolical plan to push "Bob" out and what "Bob's" younger brother did is awful.
Durst Bathroom Ramblings
I am going to go use the restroom which is right here.
Or maybe this is the bathroom.
You're right this is the bathroom.
There it is. You're caught. You're right, of course. But you can't imagine. Arrest him.
Sound of Running Water
I don't know what's in the house. Oh, I want this.
Sound of Paper Towels
What a disaster.
Sounds of Grunts.
He was right. I was wrong. And the burping.
Sound of Moans / Groans.
I'm having difficulty with the questions.
Sound of possible gulping
What the hell did I do?
Groan / Moan / Groan
Killed them all of course.
WinkerAugusta, I really like your post, you invested a lot of time thinking about this case.
I do not know if Durst bathroom ramblings mean anything. It seems as though Durst does show human emotion when it comes to the murder of his best friend. He requests that picture of her.
Durst's bathroom ramblings could have been Durst talking to himself verbalizing what he though everyone would be saying about the handwriting "there it is. You're right, of course. But you can't imagine. Arrest him." It also seems as though he is having a conversation with himself - as if we are witnessing the recordings of a mad mind splitting in two (with the moaning / groaning).
Again, how is it that law enforcement never saw this letter to begin with? One would think that the son would have shared the letter with law enforcement before sharing it with film makers.
The story of Durst's father saying "come see Mommy and Mommy was outside on the roof I waived to Mommy but I don't know if she saw me." If that is true - why would Seymour Durst have his young son watch his mother commit suicide (or whatever happened to her). Was Mrs. Seymour Durst suicidal - and Seymour thought that if the Mrs. saw the children she would not jump to her death?
[deleted]
[deleted]
No one is saying this ? Do you understand how TV is made ?
share