The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office could have called Andrew Jarecki to the stand to shut the door on Robert Durst’s coffin, but they did not do so. If I was a juror in the case, I would be wondering why. The jury knows that Jarecki edited the version of the bathroom soliloquy that the public ultimately heard in HBO’s “The Jinx.” Jarecki was the director of the hit documentary series. The statements that Robert Durst made to himself were rearranged to make it seem like he said, “What the hell did I do? Killed them all of course.” But that is not the actual order of the sentences as they were stated. Because of that, the jury knows that Jarecki is open to dishonesty himself in order to present a better documentary for viewers.
So what is to stop Jarecki from giving hints to Robert Durst about what he should say about how to make for a more entertaining documentary? It is not ridiculously outlandish for a juror to wonder about such things. It would not have taken much time to call Andrew Jarecki to the witness stand. How many questions would the prosecution need to ask him if all he need do is deny it? Outside of the jury, we were told that Deputy District Attorney John Lewin wanted more time to cross-examine Durst. But the jury is not privy to that information. The defense could attempt to capitalize on this by simply rhetorically asking why the prosecution refused to call Jarecki. Is there something the prosecution is attempting to hide by not calling him as a witness? Calling Jarecki to the stand could have shut the prison door on Durst for life.
Jarecki Could Have Shut the Door, Shuts Up Instead
If the jury finds Robert Durst not guilty of murder, for the second time in his life, Jarecki’s silence is the reason. This is not to blame Jarecki, but the prosecution for not calling him to the stand. Instead, they simply argue that it’s ridiculous that Jarecki would give hints. It was seemingly more important to keep Durst on the witness stand for fifteen days. Nine out of those fifteen days were for the prosecution’s cross-examination of Durst. Why not take an hour out of those nine days and put Jarecki on the witness stand for a rebuttal?
Is There Enough Evidence Against Durst?
Dick DeGuerin argued that there is no evidence that Kathie Durst is dead and he is correct. All the prosecution has is evidence that Robert Durst went to a store that sells tools like shovels. The store also sells a lot of other items as well. So, Robert Durst made a purchase at a store that sells lots of different products. That is not really evidence of a murder. The prosecution expects the jury to make the connection between the hardware store where they have not even proven that Robert Durst purchased the bow saw that he used to dismember Morris Black and the store that Robert Durst made a purchase at shortly after Kathie’s disappearance that sells some tools.
There is a problem, however. Robert says he purchased the bow saw used to dismember Morris Black at a hardware store, but the prosecution has proven that he did not purchase the bow saw when he says he purchased the bow saw. They claim that proves premeditation, but they do not have proof of when he purchased the bow saw. The prosecution does not have proof of where Durst purchased the bow saw. They simply say that they sell that particular brand of bow saw at the hardware store in Galveston. So how do we know that Robert even purchased the bow saw at that particular store? The prosecution needs this connection because they are arguing that this is Robert’s second murder of the same kind. Remember, Robert is supposed to have gotten away with two murders by the time he dismembers Morris Black.
Susan Berman was murdered prior to the death of Morris Black. Kathie Durst went missing prior to the murder of Susan Berman.
Durst Declines as a Killer
The strangest of all things that the prosecution needs the jury to believe is that Robert Durst deteriorates from murder to murder. Think about it. His first murder is supposedly his first wife, Kathleen Durst. One day Kathie simply vanishes and nobody ever sees her again. There was no body. There is no evidence of foul play. No murder charges are ever brought against anyone. It was a perfect crime.
The second murder that the prosecution claims Durst committed was Susan Berman. Not only was her body found, but the police received a note announcing that there was a body, or more famously a cadaver, at her Beverly Hills home. Berman was lying in a pool of blood with a gunshot wound to the back of her head. Her dogs were out and about, which alerted her neighbors that something was wrong. There was a nine-millimeter shell casing near her body. The famous cadaver note had a similar stamp on the envelope to stamps that Berman had in her desk. This murder was sloppier than Kathie Durst’s.
Then there is Morris Black. Morris was dismembered and his body parts were divided into garbage bags and dropped into Galveston Bay. Not only did the bags not sink, but they also did not float out to sea. The bags containing Morris Black’s body parts remained floating in Galveston Bay. The bags had evidence leading directly back to Robert Durst’s apartment. There was blood evidence in the trash cans outside Durst’s apartment. There was a receipt from an optometrist with Robert Durst’s name on it also in the trash. Morris Black’s blood spatter was on the wall of Durst’s apartment. Morris Black’s head is still missing. This alleged murder is the sloppiest murder of all three.
Do murderers usually decline with experience?
This Does Not Mean Durst Is Innocent
The case is not yet over, but the jury should have seen Andrew Jarecki shut the door on Robert Durst’s chances. This is not to say that I personally think that Robert Durst is innocent. If I was on the jury, I would be likely to think he is guilty. The problem is that I have been privy to more information than the actual jury in this case. I have seen and heard arguments from the attorneys on both sides of the aisle that were outside of the jury’s presence. But I would like to have seen the prosecution shore up some of the loose ends in the case. I believe that Andrew Jarecki is a loose end. We’re talking about people from Los Angeles. I am from Los Angeles. I know that Hollywood changes true stories to make them more entertaining. True stories become untrue legends in that sense.
The prosecution ought to know that a jury from Los Angeles may wonder if a director truly is attempting to skew a story to make it more entertaining. Jarecki already did it once with “The Jinx.” Everyone in the courtroom knows that Jarecki made edits in order to make the bathroom statements seem like more than what they were. This is why Robert Durst was able to make an attempt to argue himself out of his statements. As Vincent Vega says in Pulp Fiction, John Lewin “Better should have known better.” He should have called Andrew Jarecki to shut Durst down. Now we will all wait to see what the defense has to say with the remainder of their closing argument, along with the prosecution’s rebuttal. The defense’s closing argument resumes on Monday morning.
Main Image: