Closing arguments in the murder case against multi-millionaire dismemberer Robert Durst are in full swing as the prosecution passed the baton to the defense Thursday. Prosecutor Habib Balian began the closing arguments by pointing out lies that he believes Durst told during his time on the witness stand. Durst was on the witness stand for fifteen days. Six of those days were as a witness for his defense. The other nine days on the stand came during the cross-examination of Durst by Deputy District Attorney John Lewin.
Balian played clips of Durst’s responses to questions during this very trial. One of the clips that stood out was an exchange between Lewin and Durst.
Lewin: “Have you lied thus far during your testimony at this trial?”
Durst: “No.”
Lewin: “But, if you had lied, given your last answer, you might not admit it correct?”
Durst: “Correct.”
“He would lie to you about whether he lied,” commented prosecutor Balian.
Durst Would Lie About Very Important Things
Balian later played another provocative clip for the jury where Durst admits he lies. “What I’m saying is mostly the truth,” said Durst. “There are certain things that I would lie about – certain very important things.” Balian then commented on that provocative clip: “We’re not here to hear mostly the truth; we’re here to hear the entire truth. He would lie about important things. What are those important things?” Prosecutor Balian then played three separate clips of exchanges between Durst and Lewin that suggest some very important things that Durst may lie about.
Lewin: “If in fact you had killed [Susan Berman], would you tell us?”
Durst: “No.”
Lewin: “Mr. Durst, if I were to ask you right now, if you had killed Kathie [Durst], and I asked you: Mr. Durst, you are under oath right now today, did you kill Kathie? Would you tell us?”
Durst: “No.”
Lewin: “Let me ask you, Mr. Durst, if you had murdered Morris Black, would you tell us?”
Durst: “No.”
All three questions were asked at different times during Durst’s time on the witness stand but were played consecutively on Wednesday. Balian then played another exchange between Lewin and Durst from Durst’s time on the witness stand. This time Lewin was almost laughing when he asked the question.
Lewin: “How am I supposed to figure out when you’re lying and when you’re telling the truth?”
Durst: “I don’t know.”
Durst could not help but smirk when he responded to Lewin’s question. Robert Durst had admitted that he would lie about “certain very important things” and that the answers he is giving on the witness stand are “mostly the truth.” In other words, everyone knows Durst is lying, but the question is what he is lying about.
The Roach and the Coke
There were two memorable metaphors offered by prosecutor Balian during his closing argument. The first metaphor was when Balian displayed a photo of a roach in a bowl of soup. Balian said that if someone were to be served a bowl of soup with a roach in it, they would send it back. There is no way to know which portion of the soup is tainted and which portion is not tainted by the roach. So one would send the whole bowl of soup back and they would likely not visit the restaurant again. Then Balian displayed a photo of many roaches in a bowl of soup. The roach is meant to be a lie and the soup is meant to be Robert Durst’s testimony. Balian wants the jury to disregard Durst’s testimony because of all of the lies that Durst told.
The second metaphor was an advertisement for Coca-Cola. Balian displayed a photo of a Coke and said that an advertisement is supposed to make a person want or like something more. Durst’s idea for doing HBO’s “The Jinx” documentary was to show his story and to make him more likable. But Durst told the jury over and over that the documentary’s director, Andrew Jarecki, gave Durst hints on what to say. All of the alleged hints generally made Durst look bad. But if the documentary was to be an advertisement for Durst, then why would he go along with disparaging hints that Jarecki allegedly gave to him? Durst said disgusting things like stating that he would talk about his penis to his wife’s parents. This was allegedly not his idea, but he was going along with the hints given by Andrew Jarecki.
Durst Case Closing Arguments Continue Monday
Dick DeGuerin began closing arguments for the defense on Thursday afternoon. DeGuerin began the defense’s closing by stating that there is little evidence of anything. Through Lewin’s objection, DeGuerin said that the prosecution’s case is purely circumstantial. Judge Mark Windham then admonished the jury that closing arguments are arguments and not evidence. DeGuerin also said that it is his personal opinion that Morris Black’s dismemberment is in this case only to play on the jury’s emotions. DeGuerin asked the jury not to base their decision on emotions, but to use logic. He also argued that the prosecution is attempting to get a do-over in the Galveston trial. DeGuerin also argued that the prosecution was beating up a sick old man, just as we speculated that he would do.
With the court dark on Fridays, the closing arguments will continue on Monday morning in the Los Angeles, California courtroom. On Monday, the defense will argue that Susan Berman could not have made the phone call to Kathie Durst’s medical school to say she would be absent.
Main Image: