why would any filmmaker agree to make it then?

sounds like they're going to go after Jarecki during the trial

Also they are going to claim handwriting analysis is junk science...
since the police handwriting experts believed the letter was first written by Nyle Brenner before finally settling on Durst...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2155461

How can it not be at least a little junk science? Its open to interpretation. Even arson investigation has been under attack the last decade as more of an art than a science, in which different investigators can come up with different conclusions. Hell, a Washington attorney was arrested and held for weeks because the FBI said his fingerprint was on a bag that contained detonators used in a terrorist attack in Spain. It turned out to be a fingerprint of an Algerian terrorist.

http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue..._mayfield.html

Kam,

From what they said on the doc plus some articles I've read, it sounds like his lawyers tried pretty hard to get him not to do the interviews for this doc.

Crazy series.. It's weird but I was rooting for the guy in some odd way, even tho I assumed he was 100% guilty in all murders. I was yelling no at the tv for his stupidity with the letters

That is very strange, in fact. Might want to check to make sure your moral compass is working.

Part of me was too. Kind of like with the Unabomber. I didn't like that people got hurt or killed, but I got a kick out of their style.

I mean it's absolutely fascinating to see him continue to get away with murder. I get that. I just think it's a little disturbing if you were actually rooting for him to the point where you're yelling at the TV when he gets caught.

Oh, that? Yeah, that's kinda wicked.

I also like the idea of his defence being that he walked in on Susan already dead, but couldn't report it as himself because of the media and stuff with his wife, so he wrote the letter.

As for the people saying they were rooting or the guy, now you know why the jury let him off in Texas, he is not super unlike able on the surface. Obviously once you know everything he says is a lie it is easy to call him a psychopath, but if you have doubt you can easily end up siding with him.

I really want to find out what he did with his wife though, hopefully he confesses and tells us how he did it.

Yeah, the wife is still the most intriguing aspect of this for me. I think Doug had a whole lot to do with it. If not the death, at least the disappearance.

Apparently Judge Jeanine is now dating that cop who was crying about letting God down when he was found not guilty

judge jeanine had on the detective from galveston and they mentioned that the juror (chris something) loudest in durst's favor was seen on vacation with durst in mexico sometime after the trial.

I can't recall what he said in bathroom,something like I don't know what's in the house. I wonder if he was referring to evidence maybe left behind from his wife murder? Since they never did originally check it out. I'm sure wasn't looked at from a forensic stand point.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/police-robe..._campaign=wcvb

Police think Durst may be linked to a disappearance of a Vermont girl in the 1970s.

Yeah, the "I'm God's warrior" line was a little narcissistic, lol

lolwtf is this real life

http://abcnews.go.com/US/middlebury-...ry?id=29879573

Today the police confirmed that Schulze purchased dried prunes from Durst's health food store called All Good Things the day she went missing.

Seems like he's just the person to Blaim these days., no body no evidence just a smear campaign

Just the unluckiest guy in the world imo.

Anyone else see this gem on his Wikipedia page:

damn that's unlucky

Trob,

Exposing himself and urinating in inappropriate environments is sort of his thing.

One of the reasons the family business wasn't super fond of him was his habit of urinating in the office trash cans.

urinating in office trash cans is frowned upon?

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/ny...ther.html?_r=0

One evening in the early 1990s, catching up on correspondence after returning from a vacation, Douglas said, he filled his wastebasket with paper. When he tried to empty it, he felt something wet. There was urine in it.

“I asked the cleaning staff the next day, and they said, ‘It’s your brother, and he does it frequently,’” Mr. Durst recalled. “So I went to my father and uncles and complained, knowing exactly what they would say. Which was, ‘Maybe he had to go.’ Nothing happened until he peed in my uncle’s wastepaper basket. Then he had a stern talking-to. He stopped peeing in wastepaper baskets.”

But there was another, more profound response. “One result of the wastepaper basket incident was I was able to convince my uncles to name me as the successor trustee,” Douglas said. That did not dilute Robert’s share of the trusts, but shifted control to Douglas.

I wonder what his response would've been if they asked him about that in one of his interviews.

I find it very strange that he seems to be so recklessly impulsive at times (urinating on a rack of candy at CVS, stealing a sandwich while on the lam with thousands of dollars in his possession) but also self possessed enough to be so good at hiding evidence (wife's body never found, the head of the old guy he killed never found). It just seems like someone who behaves in such ways must have screwed up somewhere. It just boggles my mind that their isn't any ironclad evidence against him (which kind of makes me believe the family cover up of wife's murder theory).