Do you know What it is to Commit Suicide ?

He's a sociopath playing a role that he believes makes him a skilled actor or con man. The man is disgusting creature.

Because RDs defence attorney brought it up, giving the prosecutor free range to ask about it.

Okay, this has been explained in the trial already, but I’ll try again: Durst has been charged with the special circumstance of witness killing. Kathie’s case is relevant because there is substantial proof that Susan Berman helped Durst cover up his wife’s disappearance. That is the crime she is a witness to. Morris’s case is relevant because there is substantial evidence (literally Durst’s own words) that Morris found out who Durst was and could alert the Westchester County DA. Lewin has shown substantial proof that Durst deliberately killed Morris. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because they can’t *convict* him of the crime, and it’s allowable because it shows a *pattern* of witness killing - Morris was a witness to Durst’s attempt to flee potential prosecution. So, basically, the two crimes are relevant because they are directly tied to the special circumstance. So you know, admission of the other killings (Kathie and Morris) was already appealed by the defense to a higher court, and upheld. So even if you believe it’s just that this judge is biased (despite this ruling being made prior to trial), a higher court has already agreed.

@@TheWifeRottenRomance Great information. Thank you so much. Very interesting case!

@@lauravf3708 you’re welcome! It’s fascinating. Lewin is so, so good at his job. Adding the special circumstance does nothing to affect sentencing, but made sure all this evidence could be admitted. Adding that charge was sheer genius.

I agree no feeling so sad did Morris had children or family alive

But you need more than a lack of remorse to prove his guilt. I think he's guilty too but a lack of remorse isn't even considered circumstantial evidence given there's no defined absolutes with how people process/show emotion.

He is selfcentered, narcissistic and doesn't care for anybody but Robert Durst. The way he talks about Cathy and Susan is very telling. One should think, his young wife and his best friend were people, he cared about a lot and would speak positively about.

Durst was the first born in a rich, real Estate family. He learned earlier to shutdown emotionally. Durst is the mannequin, a shell with no ability to connect with the outside world in a meaningful way. Looking at the day planner even that relationship was not real.

I agree that Durst comes across totally cold and unemotional in describing a killing and dismemberment of the body. This man doesn't belong in the human community. He's a sociopath or psychopath with no reliability in anything he says.

When he brought out that bottle!

Robert Durst or the prosecutor? I think both.

Correct!

There is but they’re not actually talking in general. Lewin is referring to the actual testimony, so he can make limits on it.

Okay, this has been explained in the trial already, but I’ll try again: Durst has been charged with the special circumstance of witness killing. Kathie’s case is relevant because there is substantial proof that Susan Berman helped Durst cover up his wife’s disappearance. That is the crime she is a witness to. Morris’s case is relevant because there is substantial evidence (literally Durst’s own words) that Morris found out who Durst was and could alert the Westchester County DA. Lewin has shown substantial proof that Durst deliberately killed Morris. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because they can’t *convict* him of the crime, and it’s allowable because it shows a *pattern* of witness killing - Morris was a witness to Durst’s attempt to flee potential prosecution. So, basically, the two crimes are relevant because they are directly tied to the special circumstance. So you know, admission of the other killings (Kathie and Morris) was already appealed by the defense to a higher court, and upheld. So even if you believe it’s just that this judge is biased (despite this ruling being made prior to trial), a higher court has already agreed.

It dragged on due to all the lying. I think it was an extremely well done cross.

Good question- I’ll be watching too in case someone answers

which story?

He said that a woman in an office (dont know which one) prepared it on his behalf.

He prepared it for his lawyers during the Galveston trial

He wrote it as a way to get his lies straight for the Galveston trial. He and his lawyers used it as an outline for their strategy. After the trial he packed it up and shipped it, along with hundreds of other files, to Susan Giordano. At Durst’s request, she allowed Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling, the creators of The Jinx, access to those files. Because of what The Jinx uncovered, the FBI was able to seize the boxes of files, and the prosecution found it. NOW Durst is claiming he didn’t right it, that it was written by an assistant to one of his lawyers and by Emily Altman. You may remember that Emily Altman is the one whose testimony forced Durst to admit he wrote the Cadaver note.

Durst has been charged with the special circumstance of witness killing. Kathie’s case is relevant because there is substantial proof that Susan Berman helped Durst cover up his wife’s disappearance. That is the crime she is a witness to. Morris’s case is relevant because there is substantial evidence (literally Durst’s own words) that Morris found out who Durst was and could alert the Westchester County DA. Lewin has shown substantial proof that Durst deliberately killed Morris. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because they can’t *convict* him of the crime, and it’s allowable because it shows a *pattern* of witness killing - Morris was a witness to Durst’s attempt to flee potential prosecution. So, basically, the two crimes are relevant because they are directly tied to the special circumstance. So you know, admission of the other killings (Kathie and Morris) was already appealed by the defense to a higher court, and upheld. So even if you believe it’s just that this judge is biased (despite this ruling being made prior to trial), a higher court has already agreed.

Where is the evidence in THIS case? I feel like I’m still waiting for it!!! I’ve heard that this prosecutor hasn’t lost a case…. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this was his first. As so many people have commented here, he’s gotten too close. He’s no longer thinking surgically~ he’s letting is emotions run the show.

Okay, this has been explained in the trial already, but I’ll try again: Durst has been charged with the special circumstance of witness killing. Kathie’s case is relevant because there is substantial proof that Susan Berman helped Durst cover up his wife’s disappearance. That is the crime she is a witness to. Morris’s case is relevant because there is substantial evidence (literally Durst’s own words) that Morris found out who Durst was and could alert the Westchester County DA. Lewin has shown substantial proof that Durst deliberately killed Morris. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because they can’t *convict* him of the crime, and it’s allowable because it shows a *pattern* of witness killing - Morris was a witness to Durst’s attempt to flee potential prosecution. So, basically, the two crimes are relevant because they are directly tied to the special circumstance. So you know, admission of the other killings (Kathie and Morris) was already appealed by the defense to a higher court, and upheld. So even if you believe it’s just that this judge is biased (despite this ruling being made prior to trial), a higher court has already agreed. Additionally, he is highlighting the similarities between the cases. At face value they appear different. But as Lewin delves into them, the similarities become clear. If you have watched the entirety of the trial to this point and still don’t think Lewin provided evidence of Durst’s guilt, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. He put on a *tremendous* amount of compelling evidence, and combined with everything else, there can be (and in fact there was no) doubt about his guilt.

Yes exactly my view also, Durst lives in his own little world.

No, that’s a terrible strategy. A prosecutor without passion for their case is one that will LOSE. He should be passionate, because unlike expert witnesses or the judge, he is supposed to be an *advocate* - for the victims and for the truth. His passion is one of the reasons he has a 100% success rate as a cold case prosecutor.

Same here, get to Berman. He started this morning with the dogs, but then switched, again, to Galveston for which Durst was acquitted. Isn't the judge limiting him to today for cross? And is Jurecki supposed to testify?

I do wish he would get to the meat of this murder trial - if there is any?? I want to hear about Susan’s murder...

I think he is repeatedly impeaching him on the stand so that the jury can look at all the inconsistencies together

@@marthest-louis7128 Where was the part about the dogs please ?. Im sure I watched it from the first video today, but didnt hear anything about dogs. Cant wait for Jurecki.

The dogs are discussed in the first video of the day, part 27, at the 4 min mark. Just before this he asked about Berman moving into his San Francisco townhouse.

He is very impressed with himself.

I’d love to know how you think he’s smiling to the jury. He is literally facing away from the jury. They are to his right and slightly behind him. The only time he turns is to make contact with the other prosecutors. He’s also hard of hearing, so he turns his ear to who is talking to him.

a trial that Durst admitted lying in. Just goes to prove he can’t be believed.

Okay, this has been explained in the trial already, but I’ll try again: Durst has been charged with the special circumstance of witness killing. Kathie’s case is relevant because there is substantial proof that Susan Berman helped Durst cover up his wife’s disappearance. That is the crime she is a witness to. Morris’s case is relevant because there is substantial evidence (literally Durst’s own words) that Morris found out who Durst was and could alert the Westchester County DA. Lewin has shown substantial proof that Durst deliberately killed Morris. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply because they can’t *convict* him of the crime, and it’s allowable because it shows a *pattern* of witness killing - Morris was a witness to Durst’s attempt to flee potential prosecution. So, basically, the two crimes are relevant because they are directly tied to the special circumstance. So you know, admission of the other killings (Kathie and Morris) was already appealed by the defense to a higher court, and upheld. So even if you believe it’s just that this judge is biased (despite this ruling being made prior to trial), a higher court has already agreed.

For some reason the defence agreed to to allow testimony from Morris's trial to come into evidence. So they can't really object.

@@whitethorn1969 actually, they didn’t agree, but the judge ruled it admissible because it proves the special circumstance of witness killing. The defense appealed that ruling to a higher court and it the appeal was denied. They had no choice but to allow it.