Transcript
Speaker: Sleuthhounds, have you ever considered creating your own podcast? Have you been inspired by listening to some of your favorites and thought? I'd love to try this out on my own. Whether it's a true crime podcast like ours, a motivational podcast, or maybe one filled with tips and strategies for those interested in the same activities you are,
Speaker: When Maggie and I first decided to start our podcast, we knew absolutely nothing about what podcasting would entail. But when we found that the platform Buzzsprout was one for which we didn't need any special equipment, just a computer microphone, some quiet space, and each other, we knew that this was the way to go.
Speaker: It is intuitive to use, fun to play around with, and so helpful in getting analytical data about our number of downloads to track trends and from where our listeners hail. Best yet, Buzzsprout is affordable, even by our teacher salary standards. Buzzsprout will get your podcasts listed on every major podcasting platform. So, what are you waiting for? Fulfill that dream of yours and start today.
Speaker: If you use our Coffee and Cases referral code, 709 -643, linked on Facebook and in our show notes, not only will you help support our show, but you will receive a $20 Amazon gift card after your second month on a paid plan. It's that easy. Podcasting isn't hard when you have the right partners.
Speaker: Join over 100 ,000 podcasters already using Buzzsprout to get their message out to the world. Now it's time for the world to hear what you have to say. The psychologist wrote that he suffered from personality decomposition and possibly even schizophrenia.
Speaker: While the term personality decomposition is an antiquated one, what it implies is in essence, psychosis. A view of reality different from others. A distorted perception of what is real. Intrusive thoughts of delusion are sometimes a symptom of schizophrenia. It can also impair motivation, speech, and some daily functioning.
Speaker: Perhaps that is why this man murdered his neighbor and what he claimed was self -defense and decided that the best course of action was to cut the neighbor's body up into little pieces and dispose of the evidence in garbage bags thrown into Galveston Bay.
Speaker: Perhaps it is why he believed that he could disguise himself as multiple other people and pass through life unnoticed with upwards of 10 aliases, including the man whose body he dismembered. Perhaps it is why, despite having millions of dollars, he tried to steal band -aids and a chicken salad sandwich.
Speaker: Perhaps it is why he urinated in public on multiple occasions. Perhaps it is why his younger brother always kept a weapon handy in case he posed a threat. Perhaps it is why he believed he could run from all his troubles.
Speaker: When his mother passed away tragically, he tried to flee reality. When his wife disappeared, he ran. When the investigation into her death was being reopened, he ran again. When he killed his neighbor, he fled.
Speaker: When his best friend was found executed, he ran. For him, life was just one giant race, a race away from all of the horrific events and ghosts that were always chasing him. This is part two of the case of Robert Durst.
Speaker: Welcome to Coffee and Cases where we like our coffee hot and our cases cold. My name is Allison Williams. And my name is Maggie Dameron.
Speaker: We will be telling stories each week in the hopes that someone out there with any information concerning the cases will take those tips to law enforcement. So justice and closure can be brought to these families with each case. We encourage you to continue in the conversation on our Facebook page, coffee and cases podcast, because as we all know, conversation helps to keep the missing person in the public consciousness, helping keep their memories alive. So sit back, sip your coffee and listen to what's brewing this week.
Speaker: You did it, Sleuthhounds, and right in time for our one -year anniversary. As we told you last week, you got coffee and cases to over 150 ratings on Apple Podcast. We could never thank you enough. Coffee and cases has been on the air one year as of last week, and we're feeling blessed for the growth we've seen during that time. We are hopeful that 2021 will bring even greater thanks to our podcast and to the world.
Speaker: We all need a little positive thinking right now. As promised, we will be giving you a bonus episode. We thought to start 2021 off right, we would release that episode on January 1st. So tomorrow. Thank you Sleuth Hounds for helping us reach our goal. You really are the best.
Speaker: Sleuth Hounds, this week's episode is a continuation of last week. So if you haven't yet, please first listen to last week's episode when Maggie and I explore the things that we know to be true of Robert Durst, as this week we're gonna explore the uncertainty. So Maggie could tell you last week was. It was a lot. Yeah, it's a lot of just like shocking moments and like gasps. Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, it was a lot to keep straight, too, I think. Right. So hopefully this week we'll kind of go back enough to last week's episode to clarify everything. As we explored last week, there were lots of demons in Robert Durst closet. Yes. But the event from which all of those others seemed to stem, for me, was the disappearance of his first wife, Kathleen McCormick Durst. She was called Kathy. So that's where we're going to start
Speaker: this week. It kind of made sense for me to start there. That's something that we didn't talk about last week because this is still a cold case. Okay. So it's one of the uncertainties associated with Robert Durst. And then from there we'll explore the potential connection between his first wife's disappearance and another cold case, the one for which Robert Durst will soon face trial, the death of his friend Susan Berman.
Speaker: So much. Yes. Robert Durst, Maggie, met both of the women in the mid -60s to early 70s. After graduating from college, Robert Durst enrolled in a doctoral program at UCLA in 1965.
Speaker: So he was smart. Right. And it was there that he met Susan Berman and they became fast friends, even though in 1969, so only a few years later, Robert actually withdrew from UCLA and went back to New York where he tried unsuccessfully to find fulfillment in his role in the Durst organization.
Speaker: that might have something to do with him peeing in trash cans there. Right, in his uncle's trash can. I mean, that could have something to do with it. But he and Susan bonded over their love of animals. They had both grown up very wealthy, so they kind of understood the lifestyle, I guess. And both of them had unique upbringings. So I'll talk a little bit about Susan's unique upbringing in a bit. Unique doesn't sound positive in this situation.
Speaker: Well, it's uncommon. But in the fall of 1971, Robert met Kathleen Cathy McCormick.
Speaker: And she was a lot different than most of the women that he had known throughout his life. She didn't grow up in that world of wealth that Robert did, but they found that they had a lot in common. And he kind of seemed at the time like this prince charming to her. You know, I mean, he had the wealth. He could like shower her.
Speaker: you know and and all of this and so it was kind of like one of those Cinderella stories right and what's interesting though and a little quick
Speaker: But after two dates, two, into their relationship, Robert invited Kathy to move in with him in Vermont and to help him run a health food store. Okay, a little quick, but you know, if you know, you know, I guess. Right, and so, I mean, that's kind of fitting with what we talked about last week with Robert, how he didn't feel comfortable wearing a stuffy suit, like he was more of like a, I guess a hippie in a way. I was literally getting ready to say that. Yeah, so he wanted her to help him run this health food store,
Speaker: And she did. But despite the fact that Kathy did move in, Robert Durst's father continued to prompt him to return to the city and work for the family business. And I totally get that too. I mean, it's this lucrative business. And he was the oldest son. He's the eldest son. Yeah.
Speaker: And finally Robert did bringing Kathy in tow to Manhattan. So right at this point she's still girlfriend. Okay. Right. But the young couple actually did get married on Robert's 30th birthday on April 12, 1973. So just two years, not even two full years.
Speaker: after they had met in the fall of 71 at least it was years though and not like days i mean even though she moved in after yeah yeah and things seemed a lot better for the couple on the surface than what they actually were and i feel like that's the case with a lot i was about to say that that's a case with a lot of
Speaker: the things we talk about, the episodes we talk about. Especially with families, it seems all hunky dory and then there are problems everywhere. Robert actually admitted that he was abusive to Kathy.
Speaker: since those who were close to the couple were aware of the abuse. Their first inclination was to blame Robert Durst, when Kathy, who was then a fourth year medical student at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, disappeared on January 31st, 1982.
Speaker: So they had been married for several years at that point, but he had been abusive for quite some time. So it was for a lot of their friends, it was kind of an automatic inclination to think that Robert had something to do with her disappearance because they knew of the abuse. So people knew that he was abusing her. It wasn't something that they just kind of kept quiet.
Speaker: right there the friends knew okay but she like they would urge her to press charges but she would never press charges and so that was that was i guess kind of
Speaker: the problem is that she wouldn't take the next step. So because she disappeared Maggie, Kathy never got to realize her dream of being a pediatrician and she was actually only months away from graduating when she was last seen. I would be so upset. That's so much money you just spent on an education and didn't get to... I know. A few weeks before her disappearance, because she disappeared last day of January,
Speaker: Around the first week of January, 1982, Kathy had been treated at the Bronx Hospital for facial bruises, and she admitted to her friends that it was Robert who had caused them, but again, she didn't want to press charges against him.
Speaker: But I mean, like, we might make a face, but I do feel like that's pretty common for people that are in abusive relationships. And when you hear what I'm getting ready to tell you about too, you'll, I think, understand a little bit more of the control that Robert had over her and maybe why
Speaker: She didn't want to take that step. So you might be wondering what prompted the abuse, you know, this time with a facial bruising. According to an article in the New York Post by Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein, Kathy had actually asked Robert for a $250 ,000 divorce settlement. So it seems she had plans on leaving him and because she wanted to, and she was asking for this money, that's what prompted the abuse.
Speaker: Mm -hmm and in response in addition to the physical abuse Robert also controlled Kathy with money. He canceled Kathy's credit card He refused to pay her medical school tuition and he took her name off of joint bank accounts. So basically she has nothing right and So again, you can kind of understand the level of manipulation and control Yeah, because I mean like
Speaker: Okay, like in my marriage, I feel like Anthony and I bring equal, but I'm not really equal, but we both contribute to the money that we have. And I feel like in this relationship,
Speaker: she's relying solely on his money. She's not contributing financially really at all. Yeah. And he kind of used that fact that the shared money was almost exclusively from his family inheritance to control her. And so anytime she would do something that he didn't like, he would like punish her by basically giving her an allowance and then like cutting it off.
Speaker: Okay. So it's like always make him happy or else suffer the consequences. So you can kind of get how she would fall into that mentality of not wanting to. Especially not until she got out of medical school where she could provide for herself. Yeah. Some argue that Kathy should have seen this behavior pattern and gotten out of the relationship far earlier like what we were saying.
Speaker: Not only was there the physical abuse, but Robert had been having an affair. One article I read said he'd been with other women almost exclusively their entire relationship. But I know that he had been seeing one other woman for upwards of three years near the end of their marriage when they were both talking about divorce and that he was no longer living with Kathy.
Speaker: So why was he so possessive? Part of it I think had to do with the money because remember last week like he didn't even want to call the Durst organization if it wasn't collect because and and why he stole the band -aids and then she can sell his sandwich. I mean he had like what was it $42 ,000 in his car and yet he didn't want to spend his money on that and so I'm thinking it had more to do with the money than anything else.
Speaker: But he had shown the depth of his anger toward Kathy before. And the worst instance of an emotional response of anger in a moment that should have evoked love was when Kathy had announced that she was pregnant.
Speaker: but Robert was angry because he had always told Kathy that he was not interested in becoming a parent. And I don't know if that had to do with the demons from his childhood and seeing his mother and knowing what that loss felt like, or I have no idea, but he had always said, I don't want to be a dad.
Speaker: And he said, I do not want children. So it was like when Kathy made her announcement that she was pregnant, it was almost like in his mind, he almost felt like she'd become pregnant like on purpose in direct opposition to him.
Speaker: Okay, he had a role in that as well. I know. You can't do it alone. But what he did, Maggie, he forced her to have an abortion by saying that if she didn't, he would cut her off completely financially. And so she did. And that was a decision that she was never quite able to overcome.
Speaker: Yeah, that's really heartbreaking. According to an article in BuzzFeed News by Driscilla Morehouse that was published on March 5th, 2020, it included an interview with Deputy District Attorney John Lewin and here's what he said, quote, Lewin emphasized the unequal power dynamic between Kathy and her husband who was nine years older and heir to a real estate fortune. In terms of education, she had zilch.
Speaker: is what Durst told filmmaker Andrew Jarecki in an interview from the 2015 HBO documentary, The Jinx, that was played in court. He said, quote, I guess you would say I was marrying beneath me or she was marrying up.
Speaker: Durst said money didn't matter to him, but he hated spending time with his wife's average American family and despise and quote, ridiculed the things they did. Durst was unfaithful almost from the start of their marriage, Lewin pointed out, but later on when their relationship became rocky and Kathy cheated on him, Durst was furious. Quote, I was always very, very, very controlling. He told Jurecki in the interview,
Speaker: He gave her a small allowance and withheld money when she crossed him. Like when she told him she was pregnant and wanted to keep the baby. Quote, I told her from the beginning, I didn't want to have children. Durst said, keep the baby and you're going to get divorced from me. Period. End quote. He is kind of scary. Yeah. So like he admits to being controlling. He admits that he told her to abort the baby.
Speaker: Like, these are things. I mean, those are awful things. And he admitted to it. And the fact that he would say, oh, this average American family, I despise having to spend time with them does not, that's not a good look.
Speaker: Yeah, it sounds like the case that I did with the French family where he was like, I'm a superior breed and like, you know, like a superiority complex. And it seems like the abuse continued past the psychological and the emotional manipulation in the example with Kathy's pregnancy.
Speaker: into continuing that physical abuse as well. The normally sharp dress Kathy actually showed up on that last night that she was ever seen on January 31st at her friend Gilberta's house in Newtown, Connecticut and she was wearing red sweatpants and a lot of people now think that maybe she was wearing those instead of like her normal kind of fashionable
Speaker: more form -fitting outfits because maybe that would have been too painful. Oh, like on the bruises? And so they're wondering, you know, that was out of character, so... What was she hiding? Exactly. And when she was at her friend's house, she received a call from Robert and left immediately to go home. So again, it's that control. Those few little details. What happened next is based solely on Robert Durst's own reports.
Speaker: because no one else has seen Kathy Durst since she left her friend's house. The only person who saw her after that moment was Robert Durst. And can we trust him? No. Robert says that he and Kathy had been arguing the entire evening. So he at least admits that. But he said that once she got to his home and remember they're not living together anymore.
Speaker: Okay. Okay. So she gets to where he's staying and he says that he puts her on a train headed into New York city where her apartment was, right in Manhattan. And that after he put her safely on a train, that he went over to his neighbor's house for a drink and that Kathy had called him that evening to let him know that she had made it safely into the city. But shouldn't we have like, when was this?
Speaker: in the 80s. Oh, so we wouldn't have had like, cell phone pings to make sure that she got where she was supposed to or records of phone calls. Yeah, like the video camera surveillance that you would have now.
Speaker: But Kathy was supposed to meet her friend Gilberta, the one whose house that she had been to at the Lionsgate Pub in Manhattan. That was in one of the articles that I read. And, you know, since she was supposed to meet her friend there, she grew concerned. Because she never showed. Right. And in the days that followed, she started calling police repeatedly about Kathy because she was like,
Speaker: She was supposed to meet me. I'm worried about her. And in one of the documentaries that I watched, in an interview, the friend Gilberta said that Kathy had looked at her and said, if anything ever happens to me, look at Bobby. Oh my God. So it was almost like she told her friend, hey. Something might happen. Right, exactly. And then she disappears.
Speaker: The friend is like constantly calling police. So like check this, check on it, check on it, check on it. But Robert Durst on the other hand, her husband, I guess you can, how many, still legally her husband, even though they're not living together. Okay, he's like, he likes relationships like that apparently. I know, because we talked about his marriage last time. But Robert on the other hand didn't report her missing for several days.
Speaker: And he claimed that, you know, she probably just needed some time away. Okay, because his personality is definitely one that would let his, like, let the wife have a few days away. Do something that she wanted to do? I know. But I mean, okay, to play devil's advocate, that could be true that she wanted to get away from the abuse and she just ran.
Speaker: true maybe she just left and didn't say anything yeah and maybe she was afraid just like you said if he he would have never let her do what she wanted to do so like maybe she was afraid he would find her and then the abuse would continue so maybe she really fled like changed who she was just to get completely away i mean that would make sense did she have financial means to do that though not from what i read okay
Speaker: But there are a couple of things that don't look great for Robert Durst, in addition to the things he first said. So first, Durst did originally post a reward of $100 ,000 for Kathy's return, but he quickly lowered the amount to $15 ,000 and this from a millionaire. Yeah, this from a man who literally had almost $50 ,000 just in the seat of his car. Right.
Speaker: And first offered $100 ,000 and then lowered it to $15 ,000. She's not worth it. Let's lower it a little bit. Just a little. And then three weeks after her disappearance, the Riverside Drive apartment superintendent found Kathy's belongings in the trash compactor outside of Robert Durst's apartment. Okay, so he's just like, well, this is it. I'm just gonna throw all of her crap away. Yep, done. Now,
Speaker: Like you said, Maggie, that is not a normal reaction to throw things away and especially not after only three weeks. Not if you care in the slightest about somebody. But I mean, then again, it's not like Durst showed in any other way that he did care. That's true. So maybe he was glad that she, if she did decide to leave on her own. He was like, okay, good student. She's not gonna come and ask me for the $250 ,000 for the divorce settlement. She's just gone. That's true, didn't think of it.
Speaker: But the question is, was this a reaction? Getting rid of all these things, lowering the reward money. Was that the reaction of a murderer or the actions of someone who just had a different perception of reality, right? Like different perception of socially acceptable behavior than you and I have. Good point.
Speaker: So could Robert be right that Kathy had just left because her medical school director is the one who called Robert to check on Kathy. He said, well, Kathy called me on February 1st, which would have been the day after Robert put her on the train to go into the city to say that she wouldn't be coming in that day because she was feeling sick.
Speaker: But when she didn't come in the next day, or the next day, or the next day, and she missed a whole week of classes in medical school, that's when the supervisor had contacted Robert directly to follow up. And, you know, because Robert said he thought Kathy was okay, she just went back to medical school, she just needed a few days away.
Speaker: He said that it wasn't until the day after that call from the medical school director that he was concerned enough to file a missing persons report for his wife. So I feel like he either is like
Speaker: has the world's best luck or the world's worst luck? Because I think he always has an excuse as to why something happened and it makes you think like, oh, okay, I get that. Yeah, just when you're like, oh my gosh, she's so guilty, and then you're like, well? Yeah, maybe not. I know.
Speaker: Upon investigation of Kathy's case, the police, though, actually found some contradictions in Robert Durst's story that made him seem more of a pathological liar than a doting husband.
Speaker: So first, he had told police that right after he had put Kathy on the train, he had a drink with his neighbor. Remember that detail. But when the police questioned the neighbor, the neighbor said, I've never had drinks with Robert Durst. Well, I wonder if he literally meant like my literal neighbor or if he just meant like someone who lives near him. Well,
Speaker: I think he meant his literal neighbor because, later, Robert admitted that he had just embellished that detail on the fly when the police weren't interviewing him. It's like, it's creative nonfiction. I can add to it when I need to. Right. I mean, it's like, that's what he thought. And in the documentary, The Jinx, Durst revealed, wait till you hear this quote,
Speaker: quote, that's what I told police. I was just hoping that would just make everything go away, end quote.
Speaker: Okay. So he's like, maybe if I just tell this lie that makes it look like I have an alibi. No, just leave me alone. Right. And they won't follow up. But the problem is, in my mind, as well as that of many others, once somebody tells a lie about something inconsequential, then it makes it all the more difficult to believe the claims that that person's make, you know, or
Speaker: Like, can we trust that person? Right. Like, it makes it that much harder to believe them when they're trying to make claims that they say are true about things that do matter. Right. If you're gonna lie about inconsequential things...
Speaker: But I'm supposed to trust you when you're talking about things that matter? Yeah, like how am I supposed to trust you when you lie about insignificant things? Exactly. So to illustrate, while Durst did finally admit that he lied about drinks with the neighbor, he still swears that he put Kathy safely on that train.
Speaker: But like you said, how do we believe that? Right, like I'm not inclined to. So could that be a lie as well? And I mean, the comment about doing something in hopes that it would all just quote, go away, that to me seems eerily reminiscent of his reaction concerning why he cut up Morse Black's body, right? To dispose of the evidence of the crime because he, you know,
Speaker: because he just wanted it all to go away and he didn't want to be questioned. So it makes me wonder what else he might do to make things go away. And in line with that theory, the Jinx documentary argues in many ways that Robert Durst is guilty and it gives as evidence a note that Kathy's family found in the trash, because they went over and went through the trash to try to find evidence.
Speaker: And they believe that it is a to -do list that gives hints as to what might have happened to Kathy. So that note, which was written in Robert Durst's handwriting, said the following, quote, toe dump, bridge, dig, boat, shovel, car, truck, rent.
Speaker: So it's almost like a laundry list of things to do. And I have to admit, that's a weird list. Okay, I do this when we're going on vacation. I'll be like, layout clothes, layout toiletries, pick out jewelry, pack bag, pack car. So to me, it kind of does sound like a list of things he needed to do. He needs,
Speaker: to dig something. Right. He needs to rent a vehicle. Right, there's something about a bridge. Yeah, dumping something, shoveling something. Right.
Speaker: Well, her family thinks that it's too convenient that Kathy's disappearance happened right after she's asked for a divorce settlement, right? It's too convenient that Robert is admittedly abusive, but, oh, I didn't do this because that night, the night she disappeared... I decided I wouldn't be a turd.
Speaker: Right, I was taking care of her and made sure that she made it home safely. And that just doesn't match up. And it actually reminded me as I was doing the research of the George Smith case that you did, Maggie, on the cruise ship. Oh, yeah. Right where he meets these friends who are super rude on every other occasion. But then when George got too drunk, they tucked him into bed and took care of him. We just took his watch off and tucked him in, read him a story. Yeah.
Speaker: I mean, it doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened in either case, but it's just hard to believe, right? He could have made sure that she made it safely. They could have made sure that he was in his bed. It just doesn't fit. Right. When your actions say otherwise, we can't believe you.
Speaker: Right and so many people argue that Durst just kind of admits just enough to remain somewhat credible and honest but then like just shy of the truth. Well that's kind of like what we were talking about like
Speaker: you think he's guilty and then he'll say something and you're like, maybe not, but it's like just enough to think, maybe not, not enough to make you go, oh yeah, no way. Yeah. And those who support Durst, they argue that, you know, he wouldn't have been forthcoming about anger, abuse, arguments, if he weren't trying to help the police with the investigation, right? And that
Speaker: Maybe he just lied about the drink just to keep the police focused away from him as a suspect as they should be. Those who support nurse, that's what they say. But like I said, that's hard for me because once you lie to me, it's hard for me to believe anything else. What do you say? Yeah, I agree.
Speaker: The problem with declaring Robert Durst guilt, however, is the lack of evidence. Admittedly, the police originally did not look into all of the couple's properties at the time of her disappearance because they owned many.
Speaker: but there was also no solid evidence to tie Kathy's disappearance to her husband. And as you know, Maggie, as you know, Sleuthhounds, our justice system isn't built on hunches and opinions, right? I mean, it's based on facts and evidence, and those are things that we don't have enough of to prove Durst's involvement, at least don't have enough of based upon the information that's available to the public that I could find.
Speaker: So it's kind of like the Morris Black case. We want to say that he's guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence at that time to say... Right. I mean, without Morris Black's head, we don't know if it was self -defense or not. And so there's not enough to convict. And so I guess that's kind of where...
Speaker: We're stuck. So was he horrible to force his wife to have an abortion? 100%. Was he horrible to abuse her physically, emotionally, and psychologically? Yes. Yes. Do we know that years later he did murder someone, his own neighbor, Morris Black? Yes. But evidence, crime scene, or murder weapon? None.
Speaker: And so the problem is that we don't even have proof that Kathy isn't still alive. That's true. Cause she could just ran away. Right. And so that's why it's hard to convict him for a crime. Cause we have no body. Yeah. We have no evidence. Now Maggie, I did decide to research because I was curious how often domestic violence turns to murder. Oh.
Speaker: Right? Because I was, you know, we hear about it a lot and I wasn't sure about statistics or anything like that. And I found a really interesting article that was published by the BBC on August 28th, 2019, that noted a study by British criminology expert Dr. Jane Moncton Smith. And she outlined eight steps that are shared by nearly every murder that she studied.
Speaker: So when she was looking at the connection between domestic violence and murder, it was like 137 cases, I think. And she found these steps in like all but two. Wow. So very common. So here's what the steps were. And I'll just kind of try to connect to the Robert Durst case. So number one,
Speaker: A history of stalking or abuse by the perpetrator partner. Now, admittedly, I don't know if Robert Durst fits this criteria because most of the research that I did on Durst, it jumped from childhood trauma to the first marriage. So I don't know what happened. In the in -between. Right. I don't know if he had stalked or abused before.
Speaker: And I'll also mention the couple of cases that the criminology expert found that didn't fit this pattern. That was the only step, that she also wasn't sure about two of them. So all the rest of them followed this pattern. Number two, the romance developed quickly into a more serious relationship. Moved in two days. Yep, after two dates.
Speaker: they're moving in together. So check on that one. Number three, the perpetrator uses coercive control in the relationship. And obviously it seems apparent that Durst had the financial control in the relationship and he would use that power. Yeah. So another check on that check. Number four,
Speaker: A trigger would threaten that control, like the relationship ending. Oh, so like her saying, I need a divorce settlement? Exactly. So their relationship was ending. And remember, like she's kind of bucking the control too when he says, I don't want to have children. She says, I want to keep the baby. Right. And he wanted her to have an abortion. So again, there's like something threatening the control.
Speaker: Number five, an increase in frequency of the control tactics. So check again because we talked about him recently canceling her credit cards, refusing to pay her medical school tuition, removing her name from the joint accounts, like all these things building up. And there's it seems an increase in frequency of the physical abuse. Yes.
Speaker: Number six, the perpetrator has a change in thinking like deciding to move on. And while this is conjecture, that act to me of throwing her belongings away so quickly would seem to indicate that Durst kind of fits that element as well. Like ready to move on.
Speaker: It's the final two steps where Maggie Police would need more information to link Durst to whatever happened to Kathy in order to prove the continuation of this trend. But the final two steps were number seven, planning. So I wonder if that's kind of the list.
Speaker: So the purchasing of a weapon or trying to get the victim alone, which he would have had her alone before he got her on the train. Right, because she basically ran to his house from her friends. Yeah, and the final step is homicide.
Speaker: Another problematic detail for the argument, though, that Durst murdered Kathy, other than the fact that we don't actually know if Kathy has passed away, is that phone call to the medical school supervisor, right? Because if Kathy made that phone call, then that would mean that Robert Durst did put her on the train and that whatever had happened to her happened after that night.
Speaker: But there are those who think that someone else made that phone call. A fiercely loyal female friend who had known Robert Durst since his days in graduate school at UCLA, Susan Berman.
Speaker: So the question is, could Berman have made the call pretending to be Kathy in order to play into their story? Is this a secret that she could have been keeping for decades, right? And then the question is, did Durst feel like all these years of guilt building up for keeping a secret would have proven too much for Berman to withstand the reopening of Kathy's case? Because it just so happened
Speaker: that Susan Berman called Robert Durst like the day before a crime happened that I'm getting ready to talk about, saying that she was contacted by police to come in for questioning again because they were reopening Kathy's case and all of that happened right before Susan Berman was found murdered in her home in Benedict Canyon.
Speaker: So I know we talked about in one episode like coincidences, but this is just too many things to be a coincidence. Absolutely. So you can see why like these cases are so linked that they have to be talked about together. Like not just because they both involve Robert Durst, but because the motivation for one. Yeah, connects to the other. Exactly. So like Susan Berman has to be kept quiet for knowing too much about Kathy's disappearance.
Speaker: So for years, like we talked about just a second ago, after Kathy Durst's disappearance, Susan Berman was Robert Durst's public spokesperson. She defended him at every turn. And she gladly took on that role of defending her friend. Because I mentioned to you that both Susan and Robert had
Speaker: unique upbringing. Different? Yes. Well, the reason why Susan knew so much about fierce loyalty was because of her unique upbringing because her father was a well -known gangster, David Berman. Okay. Yeah. So she knows. Yes, she's in the know. Yeah.
Speaker: As reported by Driscilla Morehouse in Buzzfeed News, friends said of Susan that, quote, loyalty was very important to Susan. Her close friend Miriam Barnes testified at a pretrial hearing. She learned loyalty from her father, and he meant everything to her, end quote. Yeah, because if you're not loyal in that type of situation,
Speaker: You're gone. I mean, what I know from movie. Literally, yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's it. So you better learn loyalty quickly. But whatever secrets she had kept, Maggie, she took with her to the grave quite literally when she was shot execution style in her home on December 24th
Speaker: 2000. And what is odd about the case is how the police knew to investigate. So there were three clues. Two of them were more normal and one was odd. Of course it was. So of course everything was Robert Durst. There's always like this. So first is that Susan's family had been expecting her to come over for dinner and when she didn't show up because you know this is Christmas Eve. Yeah. They grew concerned. So they called.
Speaker: Second was that Berman's neighbors noticed her three fox terriers running around outside and they were normally inside dogs. So like that site kind of prompted the neighbors to call police. They knew something was wrong. But the odd clue was that the police received an anonymous note that read 1527 Benedict Canyon Beverly Hills,
Speaker: Who would know that there is a cadaver in this home? Well, the killer, of course. And for years Robert Durst had been questioned if he wrote what is now called the cadaver note.
Speaker: For years, Durst has vehemently denied writing the letter. And he actually stated in some interviews that not only was he not in the area at the time, but that whoever wrote it wasn't very smart and it was way too risky for the person who wrote the note to even write it in the first place.
Speaker: But just because he isn't there doesn't mean he couldn't have paid someone to kill her. That's true. And, like, he was asked what he meant by, like, why would it be too risky for somebody to write that note, you know? And he said, here was his response, well, it was written in all uppercase letters, so obviously that's an attempt to disguise the handwriting, which I would have never
Speaker: Like that would never even cross my mind. Like, oh, they're trying to disguise their handwriting or whatever it was. But he also said it was a bad idea to write the note in the first place because these are his words, quote, only the killer could have written that note. Okay, so this is what he says. So he's like, you know, why would somebody be silly enough to like write this note to the police?
Speaker: Well, other people who saw Durst said he was in the area at the time, and then he actually flew back to New York from California the night before Susan Berman's body was discovered. And I mean, we would have record of that. Yes.
Speaker: And those aware of his later crime against Morris Black, right? They wonder if this is just another example of Durst running away after he has committed some evil action so he can avoid the consequences. Because that's exactly what he did after Morris Black. He just runs. There's just too much in this man's life.
Speaker: I know. I just can't. Yeah. And like I said, I mean, it just so happens that days earlier, Berman told Durst that police had contacted her concerning the reopening of Kathy's case and they were wanting to question her again. So now what I'm going to ask next, Maggie, it's going to seem off topic, but I promise it will make sense in just a second. Okay.
Speaker: is there a word that you just like every time you have to spell it out you misspell it or like in your mind you're like it just blanks every time you have to spell a word the word definitely every single time every time I misspell it every single time yeah for me the word is restaurant
Speaker: Oh, yeah, that one's good, too. Like, I can spell recherche. I can spell surreptitious. I can spell, like, all these other words. But every single time I try to write the word restaurant, I can't remember if the AU comes after, like, before the second R or after the second R. And so in my head, I'm like, wait.
Speaker: Which is it? Definitely the I and the E and I just put them the L and I just where do they all go? Well, I bring this up because on the cadaver note Beverly is misspelled. So instead of it being spelled B -E -V -E -R -L -Y it's spelled B -E -V -E -R -L -E -Y Okay, that would be easy to link to him
Speaker: and that is what the producers of The Jinx tried to do. So what's interesting about that misspelling is that when Robert Dursin invited Andrew Jarecki and others to film this documentary about his life, he provided the film crew with like boxes of paper and personal documents.
Speaker: And one scene in the jinx, Jurecki actually confronts Durst with a comparison of the cadaver note and a document from his personal papers. And guess what word was misspelled the exact same way? Beverly? Beverly. So just like you said, and it doesn't take a handwriting expert to see the similarities. So I'm going to show you
Speaker: One of those, Maggie is making like jaw -dropped face. One of these pictures is the cadaver note and the other is a paper from Robert Durst's personal papers. Because, okay, like the elves are not like normal elves. They're like almost kind of fancy elves. They dip and have like a little curve and the Y's are exactly, I mean, he wrote that. 100 % he wrote it. It's identical. Yeah.
Speaker: So Durst had, like when he was confronted with it, really no explanation at the time as to why they would look similar. He just kept saying, well, I didn't write the note. I would never hurt my good friend. Only the killer could have written the note on and on and on. The most curious thing about Robert Durst facing trial in the coming months for his involvement in the death of Susan Berman is that his defense lawyers made a shocking announcement in their opening statements on March 3rd, 2020. Well,
Speaker: Shocking in a way, at least, but not shocking at all based on what we just talked about because Robert Hearst now admits that he was the one who wrote the cadaver note. Okay, but how would he know that? How would he have known she was dead? Well, I'll tell you why. But again,
Speaker: it's that lying about little things yes it's the same as lying about having drinks with a neighbor and hoping it would all go away and for years he has said i didn't write the note i don't know why it looks so similar only the killer could have written that note and then he admits that he wrote it i wrote it but i i just like he says yep i wrote the note but
Speaker: It's, I only wrote it because I went to visit her and I went into her house and the back door was open and she was already dead. Like I stumbled upon her body. So why didn't you call the police? Well, because of Kathy's disappearance and like all these things that were already like
Speaker: What makes you look even more sketchy? I know. I know, but that's what he said. He said, like, again, he doesn't like the public spotlight and all this other stuff. So he said the reason he wrote the cadaver note, though, was because he didn't want her dogs. This is so disturbing. Oh, to eat her? Yeah, to desecrate the body. And so that's why he alerted the police. But he says, but I don't know who actually killed her.
Speaker: So again, this doesn't look good, but there are other potential suspects.
Speaker: Susan was a writer. She wrote about her life growing up in a mob family. She was currently working on a project that friends thought might reveal some private things about the mob. That's true. And certain other mob families. And that project that she was working on was about to come to fruition. And she actually told her friends that she was on the verge of something big. And so, and then she's found dead and she was shot a single time in the back of the head, which is like traditional mob head.
Speaker: and there's no sign of forced entry. So whomever her killer was, it was someone for whom Susan Berman had willingly opened the door. But again, just like with Kathy, the problem is there isn't a whole lot of evidence to link Durst to the crime scene. In fact, I've seen no mention of even finding Durst's fingerprints in her home. So here's where, I guess,
Speaker: That's something that gives me pause. On the one hand, we know because of the Morris Black case, right? Where he killed his neighbor, cut up the body. In his kitchen. Yes. That Durst is not the best at covering his tracks. Because remember they could find like the traces of the blood in the common area. They traced it into Dorothy Signers, AKA Robert Durst's apartment, right? He was even caught using Morris Black's driver's license. Right.
Speaker: But then with Susan Berman, there's no evidence. Like there's no fingerprints at all in the house. And this Susan's death was pre -Morris Black's death? Yes. Okay, because I was gonna say maybe he learned, but no, okay. So the fact that there's no evidence is kind of problematic to me also.
Speaker: Because again, part of me is like, well, he's not that good at covering his tracks. Right.
Speaker: So, and that happens after. So it doesn't make sense if he's like super good at covering that he's been there and then he like forgets how to do it. But the fact that there's no evidence also worries me because if Durst admits that he did stop by Susan's home to see her,
Speaker: Right? That he saw her corpse since he admits now, you know, that he alerted the police. Like, wouldn't his prince have been in her home? That's true. So like, cuz I mean he would at least had to open a door. Something? Yeah. And I would think he would have like checked to see if she was okay or like touched her body and we know from the alphabet killer that they can get prints from somebody's body. Right.
Speaker: like what I can't explain is why there wouldn't be any prints at all unless they have been cleaned away but I don't know not by the real killer because Durst says that Berman was already dead by the time he got there and we know it's not likely that he would have cleaned it up that well if later he can't so there's like lots of things about it that are conflicting that I I can't explain so that's the conundrum
Speaker: Well, it's kind of like what we said. It's like you think he's guilty and then something happens and you're like, okay, maybe not. Yeah. Yeah. Like we want to think he's guilty and then at the same time you're confronted with a lack of evidence where it should be present, right? Additionally, the documentary that most seems to argue Durst's guilt, The Jinx, also kind of complicates the actual litigation that's about to happen against Durst.
Speaker: and here's how. There's three things. Number one, the act of storytelling. So obviously Jarecki and his crew want to tell a coherent story and to make it entertaining in that documentary that they did about Durst's life. Well that's kind of like what I was saying, like a creative non -fiction. Yeah. It's based on true events but you can add things to like
Speaker: increased drama or you know make the story move in a way you want it to. And that's exactly what they did. So they like alter the storylines in some places to show connections. They obviously leave out details. You can't tell every detail. They use reenactments which seem to imply that things happen that we don't know for sure if it happened. They use innuendo. They use stylized shots. They even alter the audio
Speaker: in some cases. And so again, like we just said, I can't blame them. I mean, that is their job to entertain. And any story, any is always an act of deception in a way because it's told from one perspective. And so like, you're always making the choice of what do you want to include? What do you want to leave out?
Speaker: This is such an English moment. It really is. Because we always talk about like with our kids, can you trust the narrator that is telling this story because you're only getting things from their perspective. Exactly. And so that's problem number one.
Speaker: The second problem is that recording. I mentioned it in last week's episode, the one where it kind of implicates Durst in the murders where he says something like, well, this is how they, it was actually a longer conversation. I read it verbatim in last week's episode, but they altered it in the documentary to just Robert Durst saying, what the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.
Speaker: Right, because it's still technically a quote from him. He just left out pieces. Right, and like, yeah, altered what happened and things said afterwards and things said in between. And so that conversation that he had with himself was also made when Durst went to the bathroom.
Speaker: And so there's this argument legally, is there some sort of expectation of privacy while in a restroom? So like, of course he gave permission to be recorded for the documentary, but is there an expectation that what he said in a private moment in a bathroom is something that would not be recorded? Like, did he know that he was being recorded? Right, or did they think, what he knew he was being recorded in the interview was there
Speaker: Like was there a microphone on him? Yes. So then like was there an expectation or a belief that it was turned off? So the answers to those questions will determine whether that recording itself will be permissible evidence in court.
Speaker: They also said that they didn't discover that recorded conversation that Durst had with himself until long after they had recorded it. So now, if they want to use it as evidence, they have to show what they call a chain of custody to verify that whoever owned this audio in all of the meantime did nothing to alter it in some way.
Speaker: So there's all these complications. Yeah, there's so much red tape. And the final one with the documentary is the role that Jarecki and his crew played when they took evidence to police. So according to the article, experts explain whether Robert Durr's confession could be admissible in court by David Mack. And this is a long quote.
Speaker: Quote, one of the major legal issues confronting the admissibility of the recording deals with criminal procedure. Aaron Murphy, a law professor from New York University, told BuzzFeed News the main criminal procedure issue is whether Durst's lawyers could argue the filmmakers were acting as adjuncts or agents of law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment's restrictions in search and seizure, Murphy said.
Speaker: If the Fourth Amendment restricts police in what they can do to collect evidence, then we wouldn't want them to be able to easily circumvent those restrictions just by enlisting private citizens to do the search, she said. Still, she said, the law assumes that evidence found by private citizens and brought to the police is fair game. So if I find a discarded gun on my porch or my friend confesses a crime to me, I can report that to the police and it's usable evidence.
Speaker: at issue here will be the extent of collusion, if any.
Speaker: between the law enforcement agents and Jarecki and his documentary team before the interview. In a statement on Monday, Jarecki said he turned over the evidence his team assembled, including the bathroom recording, to authorities months ago, end quote. So basically, if the film crew took evidence, including that personal document to compare handwriting with the cadaver letter to the police before the final interview that they had with Robert Durst,
Speaker: And the law enforcement officers that they gave it to guided that last interview in any way. Then the filmmakers were acting as law enforcement agents, which violates Fourth Amendment rights, and it means none of that evidence will be admissible in court. Wow. Right. But if they didn't give the evidence to police until after the interview, then the evidence can be used.
Speaker: I'm hoping. Yeah. Because that's a lot. Yeah. So there's like, again, all of these complications. So Robert Durst, even if he was guilty, could end up getting off scot -free again because... Just a lack of evidence. ...usable evidence. There's one final detail of death that I wanted to share before I ask your opinion, Maggie.
Speaker: I mentioned last week that there's speculation that Durst is responsible for other deaths, like Chris and Mata Ferry, whose case that we covered a few weeks back. There is argument that he's potentially the Long Island Strangler, and there's several more cold cases that have been linked to Robert Durst potentially. But additionally,
Speaker: There are actually several other deaths purported to be linked to Durst. Deaths that, while he admits to physical abuse of his first wife, while he admitted to the murder of Morris Black, he actually takes offense to these accusations that he had killed several of his dogs. So he basically admitted that he cares more about dogs than people.
Speaker: And according to Douglas, Robert's brother, in the 1980s, Robert owned seven separate Alaskan Malamutes. He named them all Igor, who had died under mysterious circumstances. So Douglas, Robert's brother, believes that Robert was practicing. He told New York Times that, quote, in retrospect, I now believe he was practicing killing and disposing of his wife with those dogs, end quote.
Speaker: And Robert was recorded in a conversation as saying he wanted to Igor Douglas using the name of the dog in place of the verb kill. Oh my goodness. So again, Durst maintains his innocence and you know, like,
Speaker: Obviously there's a contrast in what Douglas says happened in their childhood all the way up through Robert's life than what Robert says happened. Robert says, you know, I never had seven Alaskan Malamutes, my brother's lying. I only had three, one that died after being hit by a car, one that died after eating an apple core, and then quote, the Igor that lasted forever, end quote.
Speaker: So this kind of reminds me of like in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe when, I don't know why this makes a thing of that, when Lucy goes into like Narnia for the first time and Edmond, or when Edmond goes and they are like,
Speaker: The professor's like, well, which one's the more truthful one, Edmund? And they're like, well, no, it's usually Lucy. And he's like, well, why are you believing Edmund? So it's kind of like in that case, which is more truthful, Douglas or Robert? And which one are you going to believe? Right. And there are friends of Durst who claim that he admitted to them that he killed Susan Berman.
Speaker: and their friends of Susan Berman, who claimed that she had indicated to them that she was protecting Robert from the consequences of a crime that he committed against Kathy all those years ago. So it's like they're like a big web. All of these friends are supposed to testify when the trial continues. So the question remains, will it be enough?
Speaker: Last week I compared Robert Durst to Kurtz in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Kurtz's sense of his own self -importance led him closer and closer to the darkness that already existed within him. Evil and corruption eventually took his voice, just as it seemed to do symbolically for Durst as well when he morphed himself into the mute Dorothy Signer.
Speaker: The two versions of Kurtz, the original, and the shade were at war with one another to the very end, arguing with one another in a verbal conversation, reminiscent also of Durst's recorded bathroom conversation.
Speaker: Could Durst be pulled in two different directions, the truth on the one hand and his altered perception of reality on the other? Everywhere Durst runs, tragedy and death seem to follow. But is he a murderer? Or is this an unfortunate curse that follows him?
Speaker: The courts will soon decide on Durst's fate and on the proper response to that question. If the tale of Kurtz guides us, his heart belonged to the darkness. When we watch the news, especially in 2020, there seems to be so much darkness.
Speaker: but there is still light in Conrad's novella and in our world. It's a flicker. So you have to look closely to see it. And it's always at risk of going out. So we have to actively work to keep hope and love alive, but we can and we will. My only hope is that as Marlow please, is that the flicker, the hope in the midst of darkness,
Speaker: lasts as long as this old earth keeps rolling.
Speaker: Again, please like and join our Facebook page, Coffee and Cases podcast to continue the conversation and see images related to this episode. As always, follow us on Twitter, at casescoffee, on Instagram, at coffee cases podcast, or you can always email us suggestions to coffeeandcasespodcastatgmail .com. Please tell your friends about our podcast so more people can be reached to possibly help bring some closure to these families. Don't forget to rate our show and leave us a comment as well. We hope to hear from you soon.
Speaker: Stay together. Stay safe. We'll see you next week.
