OT: The Jinx on HBO
- Thread starter noelr
- Start date
I have very much enjoyed it. I didn't know how I would feel about the director becoming part of the story here, but it feels like a natural transition from his previous movie on Durst to now a documentary on him. I don't think the news today is any reflection on what the show is going to reveal tonight. We already saw the handwriting sample and it would lead one to believe that this outcome was a foregone conclusion anyway. I do question the journalistic integrity though of putting the handwriting sample in a safe deposit box and not immediately turning that over the police. As Durst has already demonstrated, he appears to be a flight risk.
Howerver...A really good, well done show though. I have recommended it to colleagues.
Howerver...A really good, well done show though. I have recommended it to colleagues.
wondering how the police got a copy. jarecki should have kept a copy and turned original over.
still wondering if the nephew knew about the letter to the BEVERLEY hills police about the cadaver at berman's house or was told by jarecki and then stumbled upon a similar letter with a misspelling in block.
still wondering if the nephew knew about the letter to the BEVERLEY hills police about the cadaver at berman's house or was told by jarecki and then stumbled upon a similar letter with a misspelling in block.
Pitt Girl, I slightly disagree with the opinion of objectivity. I think the Durst interview fell into his lap after he made the Hollywood movie on his life. I can't believe anyone with half a brain would believe all of these "coincidences" that have followed Durst throughout his life. I think you are seeing a very slick production; not necessarily a non-objective piece. I like the non-linear story telling here as well. Andrew J. has done a good job weaving a complex story together to make the viewers come back. That I have no problem with. As I state above, the moment that he received some solid/potentially huge piece of evidence, that should have been turned over to the police. I guess we might find some answers tonight as to the chain of custody regarding the evidence, but if he sat on that letter for a period of time, just to score a second interview with Durst, well I have a major problem with that...(though I know "journalists" have been known to do similar things while searching for a story...)
I think that anyone that has watched the series leaves with the opinion that this guy is a cold blooded killer. Very narcassistic behaviors. Manipulator. Liar. Etc...
But unless the LA/Beverley (ha) Hills police have actual forensic evidence, I don't see a conviction. Yes, the documentary probably tainted people views and probably towards the truth, but he has the best lawyers in the county.
He actually can create very logical explanations for the evidence. He was on the run because he wanted to avoid the public scrutiny. He will admit to writing the letter and state that he stumbled upon the body in LA after wanting to visit a friend, found her dead, panicked because he believed the police would connect the dots to his "missing" wife. His attorney will argue that just because he wrote a letter, does not mean he murdered Barbara.
As for the "confession" his lawyers will fight to keep that out of court because it occurred in the bathroom. From my law classes at Pitt, I seemed to recall something about not being able to tape in private restrooms. But lets say that it is allowed in court. His lawyers will simply argue that it wasn't a confession, but an internal monolouge that Durst was having with himself and he was just logically stating what the viewing audience was thinking of him. It wasn't a confession, but just his thoughts coming around to how he looked.
Now again, I think the viewers will say this guy did it. Too many coincidences of people he knew being killed. But unless the police have better forensic evidence somewhere, or a hand written note that wasn't shown on TV telling somehow how he did it, (a sort of OJ "If I did it" moment) I just don't see him seeing jail time.
Finally, I have attached a New York Times article discussing how the film's producers went through their own legal struggle with what to do with the evidence. Based upon the article, it appears that they properly handled the evidence, so I will withdraw my previous statement questing Jareki's morals and journalistic ethics.
I hope HBO not only covers this trial, but has a least an hour special discussing how their film work lead to this arrest. I liked the show, but to say that the story has been told would be incorrect....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/nyregion/robert-durst-subject-of-hbo-documentary-on-unsolved-killings-is-arrested.html?_r=0
But unless the LA/Beverley (ha) Hills police have actual forensic evidence, I don't see a conviction. Yes, the documentary probably tainted people views and probably towards the truth, but he has the best lawyers in the county.
He actually can create very logical explanations for the evidence. He was on the run because he wanted to avoid the public scrutiny. He will admit to writing the letter and state that he stumbled upon the body in LA after wanting to visit a friend, found her dead, panicked because he believed the police would connect the dots to his "missing" wife. His attorney will argue that just because he wrote a letter, does not mean he murdered Barbara.
As for the "confession" his lawyers will fight to keep that out of court because it occurred in the bathroom. From my law classes at Pitt, I seemed to recall something about not being able to tape in private restrooms. But lets say that it is allowed in court. His lawyers will simply argue that it wasn't a confession, but an internal monolouge that Durst was having with himself and he was just logically stating what the viewing audience was thinking of him. It wasn't a confession, but just his thoughts coming around to how he looked.
Now again, I think the viewers will say this guy did it. Too many coincidences of people he knew being killed. But unless the police have better forensic evidence somewhere, or a hand written note that wasn't shown on TV telling somehow how he did it, (a sort of OJ "If I did it" moment) I just don't see him seeing jail time.
Finally, I have attached a New York Times article discussing how the film's producers went through their own legal struggle with what to do with the evidence. Based upon the article, it appears that they properly handled the evidence, so I will withdraw my previous statement questing Jareki's morals and journalistic ethics.
I hope HBO not only covers this trial, but has a least an hour special discussing how their film work lead to this arrest. I liked the show, but to say that the story has been told would be incorrect....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/nyregion/robert-durst-subject-of-hbo-documentary-on-unsolved-killings-is-arrested.html?_r=0
Great show. Th "confession" is admissible by left to jury to assign weight
However the letter and confession in combination with the 3 murder narrative is pretty damning but it will depend on lawyers, jury instructions and the weight the jury assigns. I think he's cooked largely on the perception that he's killed 3 people over 3 decades and it's time to convict him
However the letter and confession in combination with the 3 murder narrative is pretty damning but it will depend on lawyers, jury instructions and the weight the jury assigns. I think he's cooked largely on the perception that he's killed 3 people over 3 decades and it's time to convict him
Similar threads
