The high-profile defense team of Robert Durst announced that it rests its case Wednesday after prosecutor John Lewin’s nine-day cross-examination. “I just want to savor this moment,” quipped Judge Mark Windham after Durst’s defense attorney Dick DeGuerin specified that there would be no surrebuttal to Lewin’s rebuttal to the defense’s case. Lewin’s rebuttal was only a short statement read into the record.

Durst’s testimony seemingly took forever. He was on the witness stand with John Lewin hounding him for nine days about the murder of Susan Berman. Berman’s murder is what Durst is actually charged with in this particular case. But Lewin also brought Robert Durst’s former wife, Kathie Durst, into this case. Kathie mysteriously went missing in 1982 in New York. Robert Durst was always under suspicion of murdering her. But Lewin does not have the jurisdiction in New York with which to charge Robert Durst with Kathie’s disappearance or suspected murder.

In addition, Robert Durst not only admitted to killing a neighbor in Texas in 2000 but admitted to dismembering him. Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney John Lewin set out to prove that Durst is guilty of that murder as well. But there is a problem: Robert Durst already faced a murder trial in Texas for that crime and was acquitted of murder. That has not stifled the star cold-case prosecutor Lewin from cross-examining Durst about the Texas killing. Lewin wants to prove that Durst not only murdered Berman, but Kathie Durst, and his Texas neighbor Morris Black. To that end, Lewin has seemingly tried everything he can think of to show the California jury that Robert Durst is a liar during his cross-examination.

Durst Freely Admits to Lying but Is It Enough to Convict?

Robert Durst freely admits that he would lie on the witness stand to avoid prison. Prosecutor Lewin asked Durst multiple times during this trial, “If you had killed Susan Berman, would you tell us?” Durst responded multiple times with one word: “No.” He also says that he told lies in the murder case against him in Texas, but he generally says that the lies were not purposeful or that he was unaware that what he was saying was not true at the time.

So the real question is whether or not the jury will hold his answer against him. It is obviously an honest answer that he would not tell the court about killing Susan Berman if he had killed her. But he also says that he did not kill Berman. Some jurors may believe both answers are true because he was so honest about the first answer. But logically, the jurors ought to believe that he would not tell them if he killed Berman. Why would he want to tell them that? The jury would find Durst guilty and he would go to prison. But they should not believe Durst when he says that he did not kill Berman because he would not tell them if he had killed her. He told them he wouldn’t. So why would it be prudent to believe him when he says that he didn’t kill her?

Durst Defense Rests Case, Now Trial Moves on to Closing Arguments

Time will tell whether or not the jury will use their logical reasoning skills to determine not to believe Durst’s answers. Lewin did point out a lot of discrepancies both in Durst’s present and past statements. Some have said that Lewin seems like he is bullying a poorly-aging man, but he brought out multiple lies. Durst claims they were misstatements by a feeble old man. Lewin claims they are calculated lies by a clever murderer who has been evading authorities since 1982.

The Durst defense team will likely argue that it has been a long time since Berman’s murder. Berman was shot in the back of the head in December of 2000. Twenty-one years is a long time to remember small details like whether Berman’s phone was cordless or corded. It’s a long time to remember whether or not Berman’s dogs were in the house when Durst arrived at Berman’s home or if they were outside. Prosecutor John Lewin is likely to argue that those statements were lies and not misstatements made by Durst.

Dick DeGuerin will likely say that Durst is simply aging poorly and his memory is failing along with his health. During Wednesday’s reexamination of Durst, DeGuerin already set the table for this argument by bringing up various ailments that Durst is facing. DeGuerin is one of the premier attornies in Texas and is a big part of the legal team that got Durst off of the murder charges in Texas.

The closing arguments will likely be entertaining. Both DeGuerin and Lewin are passionate about this case. DeGuerin wants to see Durst out of jail. Lewin wants to see Durst spend the rest of his life in prison. Many other people want to sit back and watch the Robert Durst show.

Main Image:

Embed from Getty Images