Such a great point!!!!

Rubbish... you could recall events as far back if you were asked.

Interesting

Good point to ponder. Thanks

@raga raga defense will say that Durst is old and sick and confuses things now and also the murder is a long time ago.I hope the DA focuses again on the actual evidence of the susan murder in his closing

He’s reveling in being the center of attention

Would you agree that...?

I caught that too!

Yes. The Lewinator missed that one.

@Sally b. It doesn’t matter. He pled guilty for that years ago. He was found innocent of murder due to self-defense.

Freudian slips are real. Lol. This is the second example I've noticed this week on KZfaq videos with killers speaking.

I agree

The judge has actually had to explain this to the defense numerous times. On cross examination, a witness can be asked the same questions for several reasons. 1) to see if the answers remain consistent. 2) to ensure they *actually* answer the question (Durst usually doesn’t). 3) to show inconsistencies in the testimony. Lewin is doing this partially to show that Durst’s testimony is NOT consistent. His answers vary sometimes wildly. He’s also not letting Durst get away with refusing to answer questions without essentially saying he won’t answer the questions. The judge has *some* discretion in this, and the “352” objection is usually applied. The part of 352 that applies is that it is a waste of the court’s time. The judge has sometimes sustained that, but has also sometimes overturned it. So essentially, yes, you can ask the same questions repeatedly to try and illicit a different response. It’s well within the law. The judge is right to allow most of it. The Defense had that right under cross examination as well, and used it repeatedly with Nick Chavin especially. The difference is that the defense is not as knowledgeable of CA law. DeGuerin often doesn’t make objections when he should, and very frequently makes objections that aren’t part of CA law. The difference is that Lewin is an *expert* in case law and uses it to his advantage. Whether you like his style or not, Lewin is actually an amazing prosecutor. He focuses almost exclusively on cold cases. He pursues them with such dogged determination that he essentially becomes an expert on them. He remembers details that the other players don’t. He has a 100% cold case conviction rate because he makes sure he has every single piece of evidence he can possibly collect before he brings someone to trial. And because he has such an incredible grasp of case law, his convictions don’t get overturned. He is actually careful about not allowing the judge to include things he shouldn’t. Because Lewin doesn’t want to give any reason to lose an appeal. It’s why there are so many stipulations in this case, and why he offers them so freely. It’s protection.

The event was 20 years ago. They used whatever technology they had available at the time. If it were, it would make sense they did.

I Have a video movie type memory can see them clearly

Well, if his memory was so great he wouldn’t have to be inconsistent with his answers..?? Just an observation.

It’s only so amazing because he’s making it all up!! It seems like he has a superior memory because he - like other good liars - relies on the added detail to make it seem more truthful. Reminds me of Casey Anthony and Jodi arias.

he now has until wednesday

@@Tom-lv2mv ok thanks. Out of interest, how did you find that information as I didnt hear/see it on any of yesterday's videos. thanks.

IF jarecki testifies, he could dispel the many lies that bob told about Jarecki telling bob to say certain things in The Jinx doco.

@@infinite8382 i cant wait !

If the jury doesn't care by now to find this man guilty nothings changing their minds, let it go already and bring a verdict.....

@@grandparock9815 But, DA has a responsibility to present all the pertinent evidence he has at hand. It's overkill, but necessary.

Some , all or none of the testimony, with ANY witness, this is the law the jury is supposed to follow. Judge CANNOT TELL jury which testimony to believe or not.

@@grandparock9815 w

@@DoubleAplusJ W W

Agree!!!

@@carrie2945 Thank you both!! This is the first time I have commented and not been attacked by pro prosecution useful idiots!!

Agree it’s odd, but if defendant takes stand, they can be questioned about prior acts, cases, etc, I think

I concur!!

Get over it

I mean… don’t watch trials in their entirety then. There are frequently a lot of them. If you watch shows or listen to podcasts about the trials, they’re usually condensed.

You would too if you were 78 and had cancer.

he has at best 6 months left

Yes he is!!

Your breath is always warm, coming from a warm body. Dead people don't breathe. He also said he got that idea from when he went skiing, his breath felt cold, implying it was made up.

Yes - I was thinking he shot her then bent down to make sure she was dead, and there was still some life left in her

It’s the best way to conduct a cross examination. It’s repetitive because Durst has so much to answer for. It’s to avoid confusion when people answer solely yes or no. Frequently if you ask something like “do you mind if I have this?” And the person answers “no,” some people interpret that as “no, you can’t have this,” rather than “no, I don’t mind.” It may be boring, but it’s just the way trials often are.

Must have been a glitch for you, cuz I didn’t have that. Try reloading.

@@Cali-Girl thanks, I'll try

Monday

@@dariahughes5564 thank you, I thought the Judge said 9am tomorrow! I’ll watch again on Monday.

Seriously? Durst is as sharp as a whip.

They officially allowed it, so yes they can

@@sallyb6030 😮😮😳

@@sallyb6030 it's appealable as a habeas case against his attorneys

@@lmp19791 it’s not because of the charge of special circumstances. The Kathie related evidence is allowed because it proves Susan was a witness, hence the charge of witness killing. The Morris related evidence is allowed because it is a prior similar bad act, in that Morris was ALSO a witness, specifically to Durst’s identity and location, and that is why Durst killed him. The reason this case took 5 years to get to trial (from arrest) was litigating points like this. AND the decision to allow it was already appealed - the defense lost.