Did this crackpot seriously wait to try contacting a witness till the night before testifying?🤣 I love that he spilled his guts and defended himself from the stand. I love seniors. TheY give zero Fs. 💕💕
The prosecution attorney needs to drop the , 1 to 100 certain not certain crap. Just ask are you absolutely positive? Yes I’m absolutely positive. It’s that simple.
Can someone explain to me why this trial seems like a joke? The way the attorneys and judge talk to each other make it unlike any other trial or court process I've watched before.. It's almost like they think it's all funny? And they're all super aggressive and argumentative
I can’t believe its tolerated. It’s enough to cause someone’s blood pressure to rise. I would get in trouble because if I were a witness, I would end up saying, look he’s guilty and you are RUDE !
So, if the defence states always that:"would you agree with me that your memory was better 35 hears before IN THE REPORTE, than it is now" it is something I don't agree. Because, the report of a detective might had been uncorrect. Not the recorded statements of course. So what's the meaning of the present of a witness right now? I can remember many things in my life, in detail when they are significant to me, before a lot of years, yes , in detail! The defence in those stamens or questions has the reports. OK. But here we have a wittnes and if is certain that a report is false at something, we have to respect the witness!!!
@@hubbleandtrouble I think they're all not used to dealing with a defense lawyer that's so dang petty. They're having to side step his constant objections that serve no real purpose and passive aggressive snark.
@@SilencedWoman DeGuerin has never been petty throughout the history of his career. Do your research. He is a well seasoned defense attorney. But yes I agree, Lewin's objections as well as questioning was confusing, repetitive and senseless.
It's not aggression...it's attention to detail.This is a tough case...at least partially because it involves events that occurred almost 40 years ago. And now a man who's clearly in his 70s...and maybe even 80s...is being asked "40 years ago did you tell Officer Smith that you had a hamburger on 1/31/82?" The bottom line is that his wife knew something about the Durst Organization...and disappeared. The vagrant caught him on a bad day and he was dismembered (they still haven't found his head). And Berman knew things about the wife and she was shot in the back of the head. But you'd think that he'd at least learn how to spell Beverly.
The State’s theory is that Bob killed Susan because she knew he had killed Cathie and he thought she was going to talk so they need to show that he killed Cathie in order to show motive for killing Susan.
@@NorthCountryOutdoorGuys that's tuff! to have to prove a murder that he is not even been tried or convicted for , or eveb a body has been found!! seems like u are doubling ur work load...
He doesn't recall when he bought that house but he recalls EVERYTHING about Durst, even about being scolded for trimming hedges. If this is THE worst behavior he's seen from Durst..🙄 just 🙄
I love these 2 witnesses - the Mayers'.... they do not crack under pressure
*the Mayers
Both were wonderful witnesses and did not allow defense attorneys to put words into their mouths. Perfect
Very quick
They've got spunk
I adore them.
@56:37 ...get ready for “PENURIOUS” Ashamed to admit that’s the first time hearing that word in 50 years.
Criminal law seems so interesting I wish I would’ve had a chance to take it when I was younger
I love you, Bill Mayer! Integrity, intelligence, honesty, & strength of character. :D
how much would it cost to falsify a police report in the 1980s
2 donuts and a ☕
@@sativarosegold3604 Truth
Justice was served. The Durst’s lawyers are fuming.
"I don't remember" Every single prosecution witness has said that multiple times.
And it's curious that every defense witness has a photographic memory.
@@jackfitzpatrick8173 the defense hasn't called anyone yet 🤷🏻
That detective struck, something going wrong with his reports.... I suspect...
Starts @18:15
Did this crackpot seriously wait to try contacting a witness till the night before testifying?🤣 I love that he spilled his guts and defended himself from the stand. I love seniors. TheY give zero Fs. 💕💕
The prosecution attorney needs to drop the , 1 to 100 certain not certain crap. Just ask are you absolutely positive? Yes I’m absolutely positive. It’s that simple.
Yes. He even mixes himself up and attaches the wrong certain or uncertain. Just forget the numbers and ask how certain are you or are you sure.
Mayer was good in The JinX
Thanx ML! 😊
This judge seems very unprofessional
That wasn't a trial that was a hit, the judge and the prosecution should be hit with a RICO charge
Can someone explain to me why this trial seems like a joke? The way the attorneys and judge talk to each other make it unlike any other trial or court process I've watched before.. It's almost like they think it's all funny? And they're all super aggressive and argumentative
I’m pretty sure every state has different ways of running the court this is very different to what I know of.
They're delirious after all the delays.
This case covers individual investigations that span 39 years. I don't know of any other trial like it.
Short answer? Money. Durst can afford to pay enough for attorneys that are willing to embarrass themselves acting petty and childish in court.
Durst team are bullies to these elderly witnesses
I can’t believe its tolerated. It’s enough to cause someone’s blood pressure to rise. I would get in trouble because if I were a witness, I would end up saying, look he’s guilty and you are RUDE !
What does her drinking have to do with whether Durst killed her or not?
Who is "her"? Durst is on trial for the murder of Susan Berman here.
I think they have some of it just out of order. I think the blue light was right he hid the car
I might have missed it but why is the blue light relevant? And he hid his wife's car?? did they find her car I don't remember
oooo r they trying to say he had a blue light for blood? it just clicked for me... if that's the reason.
So, if the defence states always that:"would you agree with me that your memory was better 35 hears before IN THE REPORTE, than it is now" it is something I don't agree. Because, the report of a detective might had been uncorrect. Not the recorded statements of course.
So what's the meaning of the present of a witness right now?
I can remember many things in my life, in detail when they are significant to me, before a lot of years, yes , in detail! The defence in those stamens or questions has the reports. OK. But here we have a wittnes and if is certain that a report is false at something, we have to respect the witness!!!
Does anyone agree there are many grounds for successful appeal if Durst is convicted?
Defense should share its fee with prosecution for making defense's case.
@@michaelkroll2300 I agree!
On what grounds?@@alexjofdeci
@@michaelkroll2300 his lawyers will find some grounds. It's a big discussion!!
Honestly, is this prosecution attorney in class here? It sounds like the judge, and even the defense attorneys are trying to educate him on the fly.
I thought the same thing. Why is the judge coaching him on how to ask his questions?
I think both lawyers are actually really good... this is gonna b a gr8 back and 4th
@@hubbleandtrouble I think they're all not used to dealing with a defense lawyer that's so dang petty. They're having to side step his constant objections that serve no real purpose and passive aggressive snark.
@@SilencedWoman DeGuerin has never been petty throughout the history of his career. Do your research. He is a well seasoned defense attorney. But yes I agree, Lewin's objections as well as questioning was confusing, repetitive and senseless.
The prosecution is being aggressive to their own witnesses.. not a good look for them
It's not aggression...it's attention to detail.This is a tough case...at least partially because it involves events that occurred almost 40 years ago. And now a man who's clearly in his 70s...and maybe even 80s...is being asked "40 years ago did you tell Officer Smith that you had a hamburger on 1/31/82?"
The bottom line is that his wife knew something about the Durst Organization...and disappeared. The vagrant caught him on a bad day and he was dismembered (they still haven't found his head). And Berman knew things about the wife and she was shot in the back of the head.
But you'd think that he'd at least learn how to spell Beverly.
I feel that this trial will go nowhere! I wish that is not like that. Let's see.....
None of this has ANYTHING to do w the killing of Susan burman it’s a waste of time
The State’s theory is that Bob killed Susan because she knew he had killed Cathie and he thought she was going to talk so they need to show that he killed Cathie in order to show motive for killing Susan.
@@NorthCountryOutdoorGuys exactly.
I completely agree. It's absurd and no one knows if his wife is in fact dead.
@@NorthCountryOutdoorGuys that's tuff! to have to prove a murder that he is not even been tried or convicted for , or eveb a body has been found!! seems like u are doubling ur work load...
@@kelleylynch4490 🙄
He doesn't recall when he bought that house but he recalls EVERYTHING about Durst, even about being scolded for trimming hedges. If this is THE worst behavior he's seen from Durst..🙄 just 🙄
🙄
The old guy is unreliable. The defence did a good job
That wasn't a trial that was a hit, the judge and the prosecution should be hit with a RICO charge