He’s literally facing away from the jury. The jury is to his right and kind of back, because they need to be able to see the proceedings. When is he looking to the jury and staring at them? Every now and then he turns back slightly, but I’m pretty sure it’s because he’s trying to hear the other prosecutors, and he’s hard if hearing.
When his own lawyers asked him questions he was fast answering because they went over the questions over and over just before he took the stand now he is not ready for Mr. Lewin questions because he is not ready to give the correct answers.
Lewin has a viable tactic, but he is being so badgering about it and his demeanor is so ignorant that it is backfiring. He just keeps doing it though. The cell phone thing was ridiculous. Durst was correct and even started out by saying it was far thicker... but the Lewin show just mowed over that and started show and tell to prove Durst right. The guy is an idiot.
I came to comment this as well! 😆 Just because a word wasn't in POPULAR usage at a certain time, doesn't mean there weren't people that used/knew it prior to that date. I suspect that a writer like Susan would have a broad range of words she knew and understood-- including words that were not "common". The fact the Lewin somehow wouldn't understand that situation is ridiculous.
Yes, an approximation ("Stay-cation") of the word was used once in 1944, in a beer advertisement in a local publication in Cincinnati. That did not propel either "stay-cation" or "staycation" into the popular lexicon. Merriam-Webster first published it in their online dictionary in 2009, having traced the "staycation"'s origin to 2005. Lewin referred to "when the word became generally used," not "the first time an obscure version of it was used.
@@pixielou3000 Yes, an approximation ("Stay-cation") of the word was used once in 1944, in a beer advertisement in a local publication in Cincinnati. That did not propel either "stay-cation" or "staycation" into the popular lexicon. Merriam-Webster first published it in their online dictionary in 2009, having traced the "staycation"'s origin to 2005. The fact that Susan Berman was a writer in no way makes it likely or even reasonably possible that she was using that word in 2000. Lewin referred to "when the word became generally used." If you believe "staycation" was part of the everyday vernacular in 2000, you should have no trouble finding countless examples of it in books, articles, and online comments that appeared that year. Good luck with your search.
Getting totally fed up listening to the same thing over and over it's time to stop now as it looks like this prosecuter is enjoying this far to much xoxoxo
John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
@@jennifermariejoyce No I think it is Lewin and his stupidity on trying to get Durst on assumptions and what ifs, nothing to do with 'circumstantial case'.
@@jennifermariejoyce I am watching the last part of today's hearing, and again it is assumptions and what ifs? No I am not an attorney. I just say what I see/hear.
@@MartinAllen612 I prefer forensic evidence like everyone else. That’s not what the state has. Inference and hypothetically themed questioning is exactly how a cross examination is supposed to go in a circumstantial case. A simple google search will confirm this for you. Obv you are free to think he’s terrible also. Haha.
Mr Durst is confused because he is trying his hardest to be consistent in what he previously testified in his last trial, what he said previously in the present trial, what he said during the "The Jinx", and what his attorneys have coached him to say. Unfortunately, due to jury fatigue caused by the prosecution's relentless and repetitive questioning and the optic that the prosecution is badgering a sick, elderly man, the jury may turn on the prosecution's arguments, even though Mr. Durst is obviously guilty.
@@A212K Agreed. I don't know if he killed Susan but the odds are against him. However, I can't help but feel bad for him in this feeble state guilty or not.
@@misskitty2562 don’t feel sorry for him at all. He has done what he wanted and lied and gotten away with things his whole life. I’d have no problem convicting him.
Oddly enough I see moments where he speaks very eloquently and sharply. Almost appearing to be honest about some things that I personally felt he shouldn't be so honest about. I also believe he may not remember some things. Heck, I can't remember what I did last year let alone 20 years ago. But at this point it looks like the prosecution is drilling him and it's not helping the prosecution. So far I can't find him guilty based on the prosecution's job, even though I may think he's guilty...anyone else agree?
Please! I think he's sharper than anyone gives him credit for. He may have some health issues but he's playing it up, being vague (which I don't blame him since he's on trial) and the "don't remember" helps him with not having to answer the question. The man states he doesn't "remember" what it was like to cut up a body. COME ON!!!
The hypothetical questions are not difficult to follow, and I’m sure Durst knows what he is getting at, but there are surely a few jurors who are not following. There is almost never a need to ask hypothetical questions.
Do you mean in life or in a trial? Because this is more hypotheticals than usually seen, but there are so many inconsistencies that Lewin has to point out, and there are limited ways he can do it.
Go back and listen to what Lewin actually said. He referred to when it became common, entered regular usage. He was carefully NOT lying. It is extremely unlikely that Susan used that term in 2000, and since there’s no evidence they planned one anyway, it’s just to illustrate that Durst’s story was made up after the fact, and Durst didn’t realize how unlikely it was that Susan would have said that back then.
I mean... I remember hearing that term around year 2000 and I live in Eastern Europe (so I heard it on TV) and she lived in LA (and was a writer working with TV producers)...so I'm pretty sure she could have heard and used this term in 2000. 🤷
I’d like to know why he’s never been asked why he drove his car from his apartment to the Jewish synagogue to then go for a jog back to his apartment. Wtf why not just go for a run and return home. I hope I missed something
He didn’t like having his car parked near his apartment. He was trying to prevent anything from tying his presence to the apartment. (Hence the reason he rented it as mute woman). He’d park his car at the synagogue & then jog back to his apartment.
@@maryb6672 I agree that was his usual M.O. while staying in Galveston but the story he told about the killing day was that he WAS AT the apartment, decided to go for a jog so he drove his car FROM the apartment to the synagogue and ran home in jogging shorts and a tshirt.
@@maryb6672 totally agree. Can’t wait till verdict. Think it will take them minutes, hours, days or weeks. I’m going with a day not hours cause they have paperwork to do.
Is he really cross examining him on the word staycation? lol... Like, what are we doing here?? Didn't the judge say he was supposed to be done by Friday? What happened to that??
It’s like when Durst said that he played Frisbee. Disc games have been around for literally thousands of years, but Durst said he had specific memories of “Frisbee” and when called out on it, and Uno, didn’t recognize that he could refute it. It’s impeachment in a subtle, and pretty great, way.
They do. But what you’re seeing is the defense making unreasonable objections every time something damaging comes up, out of desperation and an attempt to throw Lewin out of his rhythm. You’re seeing x number of objections and them only “winning” a small percentage, but that’s because the number of objections that they SHOULD make is a fraction of what they are.
This animation is not a real recording and therefore nothing worth, I doubt that if you are in a hassle with someone pointing a gun at you, your main problem is to memorize where your hands exactly were! I also don't agree that your memory after a traumatic experience must be crystal clear! A lot of those people have ptsd and try to erase everything out of their memory regarding the traumatic incident.
@peterfuller It's all about what he stated about 20 years ago!?! And he has changed his story so many times that I'm yamning all over again... 😳🤢 He is soo guilty and should put in jail for the rest of his life, about 2 years from now.. Sorry, but I don't buy his bs.
@Kitty Kelly False memory is something that can happen with trauma survivors (I’m one), but it’s incredibly rare. It’s a myth that false memories of mundane things like this ever happen. Durst practices his lies when he talks to himself, so it’s more likely he just said it to himself a lot while he was memorizing his script. He’s bad a memorization 😊
Durst seems to have selective hearing and likes to play games with words I did not reside in Texas my residence is in N.Y. because he was not using his real name in those other places because he was using alias names and was also living 2 different times as a woman.
This prosecutor is so ignorant and badgering that it is hard not to see Durst as a victim. He is obviously trying to make Durst out to be a liar, but he is going so far and being so ridiculous that Durst just looks like a harassed old man at this point.
How is this guy a prosecutor? Berman had 3 dogs. Durst said he saw 2 dogs in the house. The neighbor saw 1 dog. Im not a genius but that makes three. I dont know how this questioning can even be allowed let alone thought of. Durst never said he saw all three, only two in the house, so that would mean that one was loose somewhere.
You haven’t watched the whole trial, have you? Susan’s neighbors testified that one dog was brought to a neighbor’s house, but the two others were running in the road. That was hours before Durst said he got there. He said the front door was closed (& locked iirc), and that he had to unlatch the gate when he went around back. If the dogs were running in the neighborhood at 9, and Durst didn’t get there until 11, there is literally no way there were 2 dogs in the house. If he got there *before* 9, which he obviously did, he wouldn’t have known that.
I like the prosecutor, but sometimes I feel that he's making a mock of Mr Durst.. It's not a good choice as I see it regarding how the jurymembers experience it all ... Facts are facts! Do not make fun of serious matters ...
He has an obligation to cover all of Durst’s lies. He would be remiss in his duty as a prosecutor if he didn’t. Remember, he has to convince a MINIMUM of 12 people of guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt* against someone who already got away with murdering and dismembering someone. He HAS to be thorough, and he absolutely should be.
The neighbors saw all three dogs out of the house. One was with a neighbor. Another neighbor saw the other two dogs running in the neighborhood around 9. Durst said he got there at 11. That the door was closed (and, iirc, locked), the gate from the backyard was latched. Meaning there’s no way the dogs could get in/out. If he actually got there at 11 and the door and gate were closed, there is no way that there were 2 dogs in the house.
Durst on direct....she was real mad at me before she took a shower and afterwards she wasnt nearly so mad at me...facial expression says he stabbed her in the shower(kathy)
@@stevetrivago He has given lots of evidence. I know everyone keeps saying THIS ISNT EVIDENCE but there’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It’s just not as simple as if there were DNA evidence, or if we were dealing with a more average defendant. Everyone is frustrated with Lewin… I am frustrated that people are complaining like it’s a boring tv show. Not saying you’re doing that. I wish I could teach a little seminar on circumstantial cases. Haha.
@@stevetrivago I’ll say one other thing. If it seems like Lewin is totally blowing it, try to entertain the idea that it’s possible the expectation is what is slightly off, and that there could be something to learn that will clear it up. I had to do exactly that around day 30. I kept researching until it clicked.
@@jennifermariejoyce I think people aren’t used to watching full trials. They’re used to seeing shows about them that condense the trials and highlight the important parts. This kind of minutia is what makes up a circumstantial case, but it’s not always thrilling or exciting. CSI has convinced people there needs to be DNA/fibers/fingerprints. But MOST cases are circumstantial. Defense lawyers like to say something is “just” circumstantial, but it’s real, valid evidence.
aahh doesn't he look nice today i wondered why he was on trial with jail clothes on...i don't know if he is guilty or not but he isn't in great shape and my heart goes out to older people they should let him go and if he is a threat put an ankle bracelet on him and let him stay with family or friends....just my opinion
@@suz4182 wouldn’t proving his alibi or story is a lie be evidence? He’s lucky they can’t find his wife but he is definitely going to jail for Susan’s murder. He’s already in there for poor old Morris.
Gosh I am tired of Lewin's endless questioning, can the judge shut this crap down soon?? And his arrogance when laughingly asking questions or when Durst responds I find extremely rude. I don't care how good ppl think he is his demeanour and tone are slimy and unprofessional imo. Durst will be dead by the time this is finished ffs
Also why drop off a single blanket to the dry cleaners with blood on it? Why not just throw it away..??? Seems kinda dumb. Almost too dumb. Unless he was cheap.
@@infinite8382 there was speculation that he did it TO get caught - either consciously or unconsciously - he wanted to get resolution so he could go on with life.
@@marym2811 that thought did cross my mind. Also he's just an idiot for stealing a sandwich when he has thousands in cash in his car and also he likes to steal.
I wish I could see the jury’s faces!
SAME. I’m scared for them when Bobby looks at them with his death eyes.
@@jennifermariejoyce I wonder if they all gave the name Dorothy Ciner as aliases.
@@bunnielebowski2007 hahahaha they need to make Dorothy Ciner masks for tomorrow. Have you seen the photo of Dorothy??
@@jennifermariejoyce I googled her but can’t find a pic.
When Lewin is being sarcastic or humorous to the defendant, he stares at the jury like a comedian to an audience.
Sometimes he couldn't contain his Glee🤣
He’s literally facing away from the jury. The jury is to his right and kind of back, because they need to be able to see the proceedings. When is he looking to the jury and staring at them? Every now and then he turns back slightly, but I’m pretty sure it’s because he’s trying to hear the other prosecutors, and he’s hard if hearing.
Lewin: "Mr. Durst, I want you to assume for a moment..."
Bobby thinks: "oh Jesus, here we go again"
Funny I thought the same thing Bobby did lol
He needs a different line to use Bobs not gonna crack on assuming 🥴🥴
@@carolined8676 16:00 Min. "Maybe Susan was ahead of her time" This was a perfect good answer . I was really thinking the same
When his own lawyers asked him questions he was fast answering because they went over the questions over and over just before he took the stand now he is not ready for Mr. Lewin questions because he is not ready to give the correct answers.
Lewin is NOT SNEAKY He needs to STOP
Lewin has a viable tactic, but he is being so badgering about it and his demeanor is so ignorant that it is backfiring. He just keeps doing it though. The cell phone thing was ridiculous. Durst was correct and even started out by saying it was far thicker... but the Lewin show just mowed over that and started show and tell to prove Durst right. The guy is an idiot.
@@smcneil9584 exactly.
had he just kept his mouth shut, lived a quiet life, he had gotten away with all of it. But he couldnt.
That's so true. He did what he did because he is who he is, to paraphrase him.
Take a Stay-cation instead of a Va-cation, this year.
-Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 July 1944
Good catch Rosemary!
I came to comment this as well! 😆 Just because a word wasn't in POPULAR usage at a certain time, doesn't mean there weren't people that used/knew it prior to that date. I suspect that a writer like Susan would have a broad range of words she knew and understood-- including words that were not "common". The fact the Lewin somehow wouldn't understand that situation is ridiculous.
Yes, an approximation ("Stay-cation") of the word was used once in 1944, in a beer advertisement in a local publication in Cincinnati. That did not propel either "stay-cation" or "staycation" into the popular lexicon.
Merriam-Webster first published it in their online dictionary in 2009, having traced the "staycation"'s origin to 2005.
Lewin referred to "when the word became generally used," not "the first time an obscure version of it was used.
@@pixielou3000 Yes, an approximation ("Stay-cation") of the word was used once in 1944, in a beer advertisement in a local publication in Cincinnati. That did not propel either "stay-cation" or "staycation" into the popular lexicon.
Merriam-Webster first published it in their online dictionary in 2009, having traced the "staycation"'s origin to 2005.
The fact that Susan Berman was a writer in no way makes it likely or even reasonably possible that she was using that word in 2000.
Lewin referred to "when the word became generally used." If you believe "staycation" was part of the everyday vernacular in 2000, you should have no trouble finding countless examples of it in books, articles, and online comments that appeared that year.
Good luck with your search.
@Kitty Kelly It will be interesting to see if DeGuerin brings it up on redirect.
Getting totally fed up listening to the same thing over and over it's time to stop now as it looks like this prosecuter is enjoying this far to much xoxoxo
i can assure you that Lewin is not enjoying talking to bob "the compulsive liar" durst one bit.
exactly. There is something wrong here, even if Durst is guilty there is something wrong with the conduct here.
I really think some of you aren’t used to watching full trials. His technique is a little different, but his kinds of questions aren’t.
John 8:44
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
Why the shirt and jacket today?
Trying to impress the jury!
@@captrockh2055 you would really like that?.
@@speakupify Yes I absolutely would like nothing more for than that to happen .. the Prosecutor is a complete idjit
@@captrockh2055 good if he looks strong they'll be less likely to feel sympathy
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lewin is once again basing everything on assumptions and what ifs.
It is called “inference” and it’s a core element of a circumstantial case. It is… to quote Bobby … Correct!
@@jennifermariejoyce No I think it is Lewin and his stupidity on trying to get Durst on assumptions and what ifs, nothing to do with 'circumstantial case'.
@@MartinAllen612 hahaha. Are you an attorney? Did you watch what happened within the last hour?
@@jennifermariejoyce I am watching the last part of today's hearing, and again it is assumptions and what ifs?
No I am not an attorney. I just say what I see/hear.
@@MartinAllen612 I prefer forensic evidence like everyone else. That’s not what the state has. Inference and hypothetically themed questioning is exactly how a cross examination is supposed to go in a circumstantial case. A simple google search will confirm this for you. Obv you are free to think he’s terrible also. Haha.
OMG he didn't have remorse when he dismembered his friend 😳
Mr Durst is confused because he is trying his hardest to be consistent in what he previously testified in his last trial, what he said previously in the present trial, what he said during the "The Jinx", and what his attorneys have coached him to say. Unfortunately, due to jury fatigue caused by the prosecution's relentless and repetitive questioning and the optic that the prosecution is badgering a sick, elderly man, the jury may turn on the prosecution's arguments, even though Mr. Durst is obviously guilty.
It is very possible. Seems like his health has rapidly deteriorated since The Jinx. It almost seems like this trial could very well outlast him.
@@A212K Agreed. I don't know if he killed Susan but the odds are against him. However, I can't help but feel bad for him in this feeble state guilty or not.
@@misskitty2562 don’t feel sorry for him at all. He has done what he wanted and lied and gotten away with things his whole life. I’d have no problem convicting him.
Oddly enough I see moments where he speaks very eloquently and sharply. Almost appearing to be honest about some things that I personally felt he shouldn't be so honest about. I also believe he may not remember some things. Heck, I can't remember what I did last year let alone 20 years ago. But at this point it looks like the prosecution is drilling him and it's not helping the prosecution. So far I can't find him guilty based on the prosecution's job, even though I may think he's guilty...anyone else agree?
Please! I think he's sharper than anyone gives him credit for. He may have some health issues but he's playing it up, being vague (which I don't blame him since he's on trial) and the "don't remember" helps him with not having to answer the question. The man states he doesn't "remember" what it was like to cut up a body. COME ON!!!
why going on he was found not guilty
The hypothetical questions are not difficult to follow, and I’m sure Durst knows what he is getting at, but there are surely a few jurors who are not following. There is almost never a need to ask hypothetical questions.
Do you mean in life or in a trial? Because this is more hypotheticals than usually seen, but there are so many inconsistencies that Lewin has to point out, and there are limited ways he can do it.
15:23 The first use of the term "staycation" is from 1944. Lewin is a liar.
Go back and listen to what Lewin actually said. He referred to when it became common, entered regular usage. He was carefully NOT lying. It is extremely unlikely that Susan used that term in 2000, and since there’s no evidence they planned one anyway, it’s just to illustrate that Durst’s story was made up after the fact, and Durst didn’t realize how unlikely it was that Susan would have said that back then.
I mean... I remember hearing that term around year 2000 and I live in Eastern Europe (so I heard it on TV) and she lived in LA (and was a writer working with TV producers)...so I'm pretty sure she could have heard and used this term in 2000. 🤷
Durst must have been told by his lawyers it's not looking good coz his form is totally different to the last 2 weeks
I’d like to know why he’s never been asked why he drove his car from his apartment to the Jewish synagogue to then go for a jog back to his apartment. Wtf why not just go for a run and return home. I hope I missed something
Or “I don’t recall “ or perhaps “I miss spoke” in other words….I’m lying or I can’t remember my lie I said at that time.
He didn’t like having his car parked near his apartment. He was trying to prevent anything from tying his presence to the apartment. (Hence the reason he rented it as mute woman). He’d park his car at the synagogue & then jog back to his apartment.
@@maryb6672 I agree that was his usual M.O. while staying in Galveston but the story he told about the killing day was that he WAS AT the apartment, decided to go for a jog so he drove his car FROM the apartment to the synagogue and ran home in jogging shorts and a tshirt.
@@jimjenkins673 Huh. I must have missed that first part. That definitely doesn’t make any sense. Course little he’s testified too has made sense.
@@maryb6672 totally agree. Can’t wait till verdict. Think it will take them minutes, hours, days or weeks. I’m going with a day not hours cause they have paperwork to do.
Susan Berman was blackmailing poor Bob...
Well when you have juicy dirt on a sociopathic multi-millionaire killer that’s what you do!
Why is he "poor Bob"? What do you think she was blackmailing him about?
@@JudgeMeUnforgiven dont know...dont care... hes a fine specimen of masculinity imo
@@susiefoxy8130 Ha haa, now you def gotta be trolling, or you need to make an appointment with Specsavers.
@@JudgeMeUnforgiven hehe.
“why did u use the word would and not did” Omg this prosecutor is the most boring thing i’ve ever seen. what a complete waste of court time
Is he really cross examining him on the word staycation? lol... Like, what are we doing here??
Didn't the judge say he was supposed to be done by Friday? What happened to that??
It’s like when Durst said that he played Frisbee. Disc games have been around for literally thousands of years, but Durst said he had specific memories of “Frisbee” and when called out on it, and Uno, didn’t recognize that he could refute it. It’s impeachment in a subtle, and pretty great, way.
DOES THE DEFENCE EVER WIN AN OBJECTION
They do. But what you’re seeing is the defense making unreasonable objections every time something damaging comes up, out of desperation and an attempt to throw Lewin out of his rhythm. You’re seeing x number of objections and them only “winning” a small percentage, but that’s because the number of objections that they SHOULD make is a fraction of what they are.
This animation is not a real recording and therefore nothing worth, I doubt that if you are in a hassle with someone pointing a gun at you, your main problem is to memorize where your hands exactly were! I also don't agree that your memory after a traumatic experience must be crystal clear! A lot of those people have ptsd and try to erase everything out of their memory regarding the traumatic incident.
@peterfuller
It's all about what he stated about 20 years ago!?! And he has changed his story so many times that I'm yamning all over again... 😳🤢
He is soo guilty and should put in jail for the rest of his life, about 2 years from now..
Sorry, but I don't buy his bs.
Durst can't remember all his lies and constantly gets tripped up and caught in every one.
@Kitty Kelly False memory is something that can happen with trauma survivors (I’m one), but it’s incredibly rare. It’s a myth that false memories of mundane things like this ever happen. Durst practices his lies when he talks to himself, so it’s more likely he just said it to himself a lot while he was memorizing his script. He’s bad a memorization 😊
Screw this prosecutor. I would acquit just to spite him.. the prosecutor is the one who should be on trial for bringing this case decades too late.
Lol, he pulled out his old suit jacket from the 90's. He aint fooling no-one...
Durst seems to have selective hearing and likes to play games with words I did not reside in Texas my residence is in N.Y. because he was not using his real name in those other places because he was using alias names and was also living 2 different times as a woman.
47.27.. rumbled again, the telling laughter that mocks the dead
For ALL his wealth and his family money this is what his life has come too.
This prosecutor is so ignorant and badgering that it is hard not to see Durst as a victim. He is obviously trying to make Durst out to be a liar, but he is going so far and being so ridiculous that Durst just looks like a harassed old man at this point.
What’s going on?
Skip to the 27:00 minute mark
@@whitethorn1969 you’re good people
@@sarac1118 ❤️
He’s acting like he’s drugged up today
He has a suit on instead of his jail clothes but they are also oversized too
He's playing the car of dementia.
Mr Durst….the King of Wordsmiths!!
How is this guy a prosecutor? Berman had 3 dogs. Durst said he saw 2 dogs in the house. The neighbor saw 1 dog. Im not a genius but that makes three. I dont know how this questioning can even be allowed let alone thought of. Durst never said he saw all three, only two in the house, so that would mean that one was loose somewhere.
You haven’t watched the whole trial, have you? Susan’s neighbors testified that one dog was brought to a neighbor’s house, but the two others were running in the road. That was hours before Durst said he got there. He said the front door was closed (& locked iirc), and that he had to unlatch the gate when he went around back. If the dogs were running in the neighborhood at 9, and Durst didn’t get there until 11, there is literally no way there were 2 dogs in the house. If he got there *before* 9, which he obviously did, he wouldn’t have known that.
@@TheWifeRottenRomance exactly their was three dogs some people need to go back and watch 🙌😂
I like the prosecutor, but sometimes I feel that he's making a mock of Mr Durst..
It's not a good choice as I see it regarding how the jurymembers experience it all ...
Facts are facts!
Do not make fun of serious matters ...
So?
He has an obligation to cover all of Durst’s lies. He would be remiss in his duty as a prosecutor if he didn’t. Remember, he has to convince a MINIMUM of 12 people of guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt* against someone who already got away with murdering and dismembering someone. He HAS to be thorough, and he absolutely should be.
YES THEY HAD DOGGIE DOOR IF YOU LISTEN TO GIRL SHE RAISED
The neighbors saw all three dogs out of the house. One was with a neighbor. Another neighbor saw the other two dogs running in the neighborhood around 9. Durst said he got there at 11. That the door was closed (and, iirc, locked), the gate from the backyard was latched. Meaning there’s no way the dogs could get in/out. If he actually got there at 11 and the door and gate were closed, there is no way that there were 2 dogs in the house.
Durst on direct....she was real mad at me before she took a shower and afterwards she wasnt nearly so mad at me...facial expression says he stabbed her in the shower(kathy)
R.d must think 🤔 he's at a picnic 🥪🧃
Lewin obviously doesn’t 🏃 run so how would he know what is bulky! Please get Lewin off this interrogation! It’s hurting the state case!
Lewin is following the law as pertains to circumstantial cases. He only works cold cases, and has never lost one in 30 yrs!
@@stevetrivago He has given lots of evidence. I know everyone keeps saying THIS ISNT EVIDENCE but there’s overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It’s just not as simple as if there were DNA evidence, or if we were dealing with a more average defendant. Everyone is frustrated with Lewin… I am frustrated that people are complaining like it’s a boring tv show. Not saying you’re doing that. I wish I could teach a little seminar on circumstantial cases. Haha.
@@stevetrivago I’ll say one other thing. If it seems like Lewin is totally blowing it, try to entertain the idea that it’s possible the expectation is what is slightly off, and that there could be something to learn that will clear it up. I had to do exactly that around day 30. I kept researching until it clicked.
@@jennifermariejoyce I think people aren’t used to watching full trials. They’re used to seeing shows about them that condense the trials and highlight the important parts. This kind of minutia is what makes up a circumstantial case, but it’s not always thrilling or exciting. CSI has convinced people there needs to be DNA/fibers/fingerprints. But MOST cases are circumstantial. Defense lawyers like to say something is “just” circumstantial, but it’s real, valid evidence.
aahh doesn't he look nice today i wondered why he was on trial with jail clothes on...i don't know if he is guilty or not but he isn't in great shape and my heart goes out to older people they should let him go and if he is a threat put an ankle bracelet on him and let him stay with family or friends....just my opinion
He murdered 3 people! He's putting on a good show. If butter would melt 😂
@@sharonb9199 hahaha. Agreed! I bet Cathryn, Susan and Morris would love to be at home with friends and family….but this old as*hole killed them all.
If you don't know he's guilty then yes you are fully blond.not just ash....lol
This questioning and proof of lack of memory means nothing without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt!
@@suz4182 wouldn’t proving his alibi or story is a lie be evidence?
He’s lucky they can’t find his wife but he is definitely going to jail for Susan’s murder. He’s already in there for poor old Morris.
This Prosecutor, Lewis, is a BIG TIME BULLY!
The Jodi Arias fog strikes again
Gosh I am tired of Lewin's endless questioning, can the judge shut this crap down soon?? And his arrogance when laughingly asking questions or when Durst responds I find extremely rude. I don't care how good ppl think he is his demeanour and tone are slimy and unprofessional imo. Durst will be dead by the time this is finished ffs
I've been trying to find out if Robert Durst was convicted of murder of Susan berman
The closing arguments aren't even over until later today. How can he be convicted before the trial is even over, Einstein?
He was.
Also why drop off a single blanket to the dry cleaners with blood on it? Why not just throw it away..??? Seems kinda dumb. Almost too dumb. Unless he was cheap.
he's very cheap. he stole a sandwich while he had thousands of dollars cash in his car!!! cheap & dumb.
@@infinite8382 and got welfare too at one point
@@infinite8382 there was speculation that he did it TO get caught - either consciously or unconsciously - he wanted to get resolution so he could go on with life.
@@marym2811 that thought did cross my mind. Also he's just an idiot for stealing a sandwich when he has thousands in cash in his car and also he likes to steal.
Taking the sandwich was more about entitlement and impatience.
That's basically what he said in The Jinx.
He simply just didn't want to wait in line.