?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
What exactly were these people thinking? - Karen's Musings
Random Rambling
estherchaya
estherchaya
What exactly were these people thinking?
November 11, 2003

Durst Found Not Guilty of Murdering 71-Year-Old Neighbor


the New York Times
By MARIA NEWMAN
and CHARLES V. BAGLI

Robert A. Durst, the millionaire real estate heir from New York who was living like a drifter in Texas, was acquitted today of charges that he murdered a 71-year-old neighbor in Galveston two years ago.

Mr. Durst, 60, admitted killing Morris Black in September 2001, butchering him, putting his body parts in garbage bags and dumping them into Galveston Bay. But he steadfastly maintained that the death was the result of a struggle and not murder.

Click here for the rest of the article It's a NY Times article, so you'll need to register to read it, I think, but you won't have to pay anything.

I'm positively stunned.

Current Mood: indescribable

6 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: cecerose Date: November 11th, 2003 11:28 am (UTC) (Link)

They weren't thinking...

apparently... It's at least manslaughter...
estherchaya From: estherchaya Date: November 11th, 2003 11:32 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: They weren't thinking...

They couldn't go for manslaughter. The defense opted for an all-or-nothing verdict and cut out the lesser charge option.

This is the same thing that happened in Boston with that au pair (nanny) about 5 years ago. Except, she took the gamble...and lost. She opted for all or nothing, the jury didn't feel they could let her off with nothing in good conscience, so she was found guilty of 2nd degree murder. The judge overturned the verdict and imposed manslaughter, saying that it wasn't fair to allow such a gamble to a defendant.
yermie From: yermie Date: November 11th, 2003 11:52 am (UTC) (Link)
IF the guy's telling the truth, he's guilty of some health violations (improperly disposing of meat, littering), but the killing was in self defense.

Having not seen the evidence (or heard anything about it until a few minutes ago), I can't judge him one way or the other.

Plus, it may be that the jurors couldn't find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
estherchaya From: estherchaya Date: November 11th, 2003 12:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
He would also be guilty of obstruction of justice. Tampering with Evidence. And fleeing from the authorities. And jumping bail.

I'm not saying the man is definitely guilty. And I didn't see the evidence either. But this man killed a guy (in self defense according to him), cut the body into a bunch of pieces, hid it, and then fled to Texas posing as a woman. When he found out that some of the body parts had been found, he fled Texas with $500,000 cash in his pocket. Eventually, he returned to Texas, where he was arrested, posted bail, and then evaded the authorities for 6 weeks until he was caught shoplifting a sandwich in Pennsylvania (with $500 in his pocket).

Based on that, I'd seriously find it hard to believe that he's not guilty. I could see there being an accident and trying to hide the body out of fear that no one would believe that it was an accident. But then fleeing, posing as a woman, fleeing again (with a buttload of cash), getting caught, posting bail, and fleeing just doesn't add up to innocence in my mind... Insanity? Sure. But innocence? There'd have to be one helluva reason for me to believe that the case hadn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
yermie From: yermie Date: November 11th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Maybe I misread something, but I thought he came _to_ Texas disguised as a woman. Now, fleeing, stealing a sandwich, etc... that was stupidity.

Ah well, there's no telling with some people...
estherchaya From: estherchaya Date: November 11th, 2003 12:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
he fled NY and went to Texas disguised as a woman.
6 comments or Leave a comment