Durst says he was 'overwhelmed' by acquittal

Associated Press ^ | November 13, 2003 | Associated Press Staff

[MeekOneGOP]

Durst says he was 'overwhelmed' by acquittal

10:05 AM CST on Thursday, November 13, 2003

Associated Press

NEW YORK - Real estate heir Robert Durst said he "felt great" after a Texas jury acquitted him of charges that he murdered a neighbor but that he was "upset" by televised remarks by a prosecutor.

"I was overwhelmed," Durst told The New York Post by telephone from the Galveston, Texas jail. "When I heard the word 'Not' I couldn't breathe. People wonder how I kept my sanity throughout the trial. I don't know if I am sane after all this."

Durst was interviewed by the Post in four 10-minute phone calls, the newspaper said in a story published in its Thursday editions.

The eccentric millionaire admitted during the trial that he mutilated and dumped Morris Black's body and ran from authorities but said he accidentally shot Black in a struggle over a gun. Jurors found him innocent on Tuesday after deliberating for five days.

Durst called the trial "fair and square." He said that after the verdict, he saw District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk say on television, "Robert Durst is not welcome in my home."

"When I heard the verdict, I felt great," Durst told the Post that day. "When I got back to my cell, I felt great, great, great. But the truth is, I was feeling greater earlier today when the verdict was reached than I feel now. And that's because I saw the DA say this on the air."

Durst said he was "upset" by Sistrunk's comment and did not know whether prosecutors would pursue charges of bond-jumping, which is punishable with two to 10 years in jail.

Durst said he had been accused of something he did not do and that he ran away when he was charged with murder "because I was scared."

He said he had already served two years in prison and that he hoped he would not be sentenced to additional jail time on the bond-jumping charge.

"I'm hoping we can make a deal like community service or an ankle bracelet or something like that," he said. "You don't usually serve for bond-jumping if you're acquitted of a crime you didn't commit."

Defense attorneys took an all-or-nothing strategy in Durst's trial, asking that jurors consider only a murder charge, rather than a lesser charge such as manslaughter in addition.

If he had been convicted on the murder charge, he could have been sentenced to five to 99 years in prison and been fined up to $10,000.

---

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/tsw/stories/111303dntexdurst.4801bc1d.html

[GalvestonGal.com]

I just posted on the old thread. I'll jump to this one.

"It is the prosecutions job to Proove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.
They didn't do it."

That was what the jury separated out from all of the rest of the story.

I agree with another freeper who said "Why have humans?" I think it was a verdict devoid of justice. I guess Durst got a jury of his peers - coldblooded and not in touch with reality.

>/sarcasm on< Why this jury weren't bumpkins, they were legal scholars. They could be Supreme Court Justices.

As to the headline. The truth is even better. He didn't cut him up with a chainsaw. He went over a few blocks to the hardware store and bought a hacksaw, blades, drop cloth, and some other items. One of the leads for the police as to who did it was the sales slip for the items in Durst's trash.

Every part of the story is wild. Durst actually got bail on a murder charge where the body had been hacked up. Then duh, he jumps bail. The police, the court, the prosecuters were HANDED the case and the guy is found NOT GUILTY!!!!!

BTW, he's not roaming around free. He's still in jail on the jumping bond charge. That one will be a little harder to beat, but hey, give me a Galveston jury any day. Maybe the jury can be convinced that he WANTED to adhere to the terms of bail, but he was dazed and confused and therefore not liable for his actions.

This post will probably wrap up the bump in the news on Robert Durst's verdict, so I do want to get in a few words about the comments on Galveston.

I think everything previously said about the isle is true. It is a very rich and complex stew. It is not homogeneous. It is not bland. It is never dull. It is like living in another country.

Dear God, if I'm going to live a long time, just don't let it be dull......GalvestonGal 1947

[OldFriend]

As that brilliant juror said.......didn't think you could have a murder with a head.

Really, there are no words!

[StormEye]

"Real estate heir Robert Durst said he "felt great" after a Texas jury acquitted him of charges
that he murdered a neighbor but that he was "upset" by..."

I'm sure he feels wonderful now that he's free to murder someone else.

[OldFriend]

OOPS..sorry.......couldn't have a murder WITHOUT a head.

[GalvestonGal.com]

"Durst said he was "upset" by Sistrunk's comment and did not know whether prosecutors would pursue charges of bond-jumping, which is punishable with two to 10 years in jail."

Question to the legal scholars in the audiance (no not the Galveston jury) -
Is there a trial on bail jumping? or does he just go before a judge?

[GalvestonGal.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/13/nyregion/13DURS.html?ex=1069759821&ei=1&en=f9036b23f22cf509

Article in the New York Times where even his brother says he "will kill again".

[OldFriend]

According to today's NYPost.....the Judge is going to decide whether to try him for bail jumping.

I have no confidence in this process in this venue.

[GalvestonGal.com]

This is worth inserting into this current thread on Durst. SO9 just answered me on the old thread:

To: GalvestonGal.com

"I agree with another freeper who said "Why have humans?" I think it was a verdict devoid of justice. I guess Durst got a jury of his peers - coldblooded and not in touch with reality."

So9 reply:
The alternative to requiring the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt is allowing conviction on a wink and a nod. Conviction because 'everyone knows he did it' or 'he could have done it' or 'he's one of those'.
Once juries start figuring out things that were not said in the trial, we are all guilty until proven innocent.

If a District Attourney is stupid enough to send a second string prosecutor up against Dick DeGuerin, he is gonna lose every time, regardless of guilt.
If people are mad about the outcome, they should direct all their anger where it belongs, at the DA who screwed up from start to finish.

So9


158 posted on 11/13/2003 6:12 PM CST by Servant of the 9 (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Thanks So9. You're right.

[NYCVirago]

What's the reaction of people in town about the verdict?

[cherry]

not buying it.......

There was plenty of evidence, plenty of history, plenty of motive, plenty of opportunity......

in short.....the jury ignored what they wanted too...

in that case, when a jury does not evaluate the evidence, if they are making a "statement" against authority, or when they are purely idiotic people with little capability to actually think , then no DA in the world is going to convince them......

this is what you get when jury pools eliminate people that watch the news, read books and newspapers and magazines, or listen to the radio....

IOWS .....the jury pool eliminates anyone who keeps current on news, science, business, crime......

they want dodo's for jurist and that's what they get too often, sadly....

[doug from upland]

People wonder how I kept my sanity throughout the trial. I don't know if I am sane after all this."
============================================

He wonders if he is insane? Is there any doubt?

[Spirited]

Isa 59:14
And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

[MeekOneGOP]

I cannot believe he got away with this. Since they didn't nail him on the murder rap, I hope he is put away for a long time. If/when he gets out, I would certainly think he is very capable of murder again. I'd almost bet that he does repeat (and I'm not a betting kind of person) ...

[GalvestonGal.com]

Just another embarrassment.

Somewhat on the order of when in the '50's the Sheriff went before a state committee investigating open gambling on the island. He was asked a long winded question about why he didn't raid the Balinese CLUB. He said, "I'm not a member".