Attorney: Ordeal made Durst a better person

Galveston News ^ | 11/12/03 | Scott Williams

[vetvetdoug]

When I saw this on television, I thought it was the OJ Simpson jurors talking again.

[TSgt]

Now he only kills people.

He no longer chops their bodies up.

[per loin]

A better person? Does that mean that he will use a more refined instrument in dismembering his next victim?

[Brilliant]

He's got no where to go but up.

[Xenalyte]

If I hadn't seen them for myself, I wouldn't believe the moronitude of the jurors. One of them, a woman, said, "I didn't know you could have a murder trial with no head." (I assume she meant Black's head, but one never knows.) Another, a guy, said he "went back and forth over and over again" during deliberations, but that he was "totally 100% comfortable" with the verdict. (So why'd you go back and forth, eh?)

[Just mythoughts]

Next he will be on the talk shows giving "how to pick jurors" advice.

[alloysteel]

Even if this Robert Durst has become a "better person", he is still a long ways from being rehabilitated into being a "good person".

Child of privilege and poor excuse for claiming to be of protoplasmic origin. Green algae would be more remorseful at this past behavior.

[ChadsDad]

Green algae would be more remorseful at this past behavior.

__Great Line!

[ambrose]

If I hadn't seen them for myself, I wouldn't believe the moronitude of the jurors. One of them, a woman, said, "I didn't know you could have a murder trial with no head." (I assume she meant Black's head, but one never knows.) Another, a guy, said he "went back and forth over and over again" during deliberations, but that he was "totally 100% comfortable" with the verdict. (So why'd you go back and forth, eh?)

Because if you're "going back and forth", it means that you have doubts as to guilt, perhaps even reasonable doubt. I'd be 100% comfortable voting not guilty if I had reasonable doubt as well, as that is what the law requires.

[Dionysius]

That's fine for Durst; what's it going to take to cure the lawyer?

[NYCVirago]

“I didn’t hear from any member of the jury that Bob Durst bought his way to freedom,” he said at a press conference after the verdict. “That just didn’t happen.”

Of course they're not going to say that. This jury was so stupid, they couldn't spell "cat" even if you spotted them the "c" and "t"!

[NYCVirago]

If I hadn't seen them for myself, I wouldn't believe the moronitude of the jurors. One of them, a woman, said, "I didn't know you could have a murder trial with no head." (I assume she meant Black's head, but one never knows.) Another, a guy, said he "went back and forth over and over again" during deliberations, but that he was "totally 100% comfortable" with the verdict. (So why'd you go back and forth, eh?)

My "favorite" juror was the one who said that Durst "was not the only crazy person in Galveston." No kidding -- it looks like there are at least 12 others!

[Liz]

The brain dead Galveston jurors unmitigated contempt for justice is appalling.

Durst killed at least three people. He tried to kill his own brother and may have tried to kill others. No question this depraved individual will kill again. His family has already sought police protection.

To call the jurors "stupid" is a compliment. They actually believed outlandish, concocted defense statements and ignored the guilt of this weird admitted killer.

Durst is without conscience and is so depraved he brutally dismembered his victim’s body and tossed it away like so much garbage. His wife’s body has never been found leading reasonable people to draw similar conclusions about his role in her demise and the body's whereabouts.

And here we all thought the OJ jury was the dumbest. The Galveston jurors will go down in history as the biggest dumb
bells ever to sit on a jury.

[Conspiracy Guy]

What? The Durst killings were just accidents. </sarcasm>

[frodolives]

The question for the jury was NOT "Do you think this guy did it?" (Well, Duh! He CUT HIM UP and threw the hunks in the BAY!)

The question was "Did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?" Entirely different question. Like OJ, this is just a total failure of prosecution. Looks like the Jury did their job.

[Liz]

Yeah, Durst "accidentally" dismembered with a chan saw a man he admitted he shot dead.

Hey, it could happen (but only if you get tried in Galveston).

BTW, that little gem one juror spouted about there being no case without a head was a lulu, eh?

Where did this idiot think the guy's head was supposed to be? In the courtroom? As evidence?

[FeliciaCat]

Well, the verdict will certainly make him a better serial killer.

[Liz]

The question for the jury was NOT "Do you think this guy did it?" ....The question was "Did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?" Entirely different question. Like OJ, this is just a total failure of prosecution.

Oh, please. The state had an admitted killer. What else did they need?

The state did not have to prove a thing.

Durst admitted he shot the man. Even the dismemberment -- heinous as it was -- was immaterial to the case.

I would love to see the directions the judge gave to the jury as she sent them out to deliberate. That oughta be good for a laugh or two.

[Conspiracy Guy]

It is a sad case of sub-atomic particles being selected for a jury. Those people are so dumb that they don't even have molecular structure. If I ever decide to commit a crime, I'm going to Galveston.