Robert Durst, a wealthy real estate heir, was suspected of at least 3 murders, including that of his wife and his best friend. Although many people believed he had committed these murders, there was no proof.Except for in one case, where Durst declared he killed a neighbor due to self-defense. He was not charged with the murder however he was charged with the dismemberment and disposal of the body in a nearby bay. This seems ridiculous given he claimed it was self-defense. Durst's confidence in his attorneys allowed him to get away with almost anything. He even told authorities he had simply been 'unlucky' and that death just followed him.
In fact, he was so sure of his abilities to hide his crimes he allowed HBO to do a documentary on the murders he allegedly committed. However, during the filming, he accidentally confessed to all the murders while his microphone was still on.Sufficient evidence was built against him and he was put on trial. Some were convinced the death penalty was a reasonable punishment for Durst although he was old and frail with cancer along with other health problems. I have not been able to find any updates on his most recent trial but as far as I know, there has not been a verdict.
Sources:
https://listverse.com/2018/03/02/10-infuriating-cases-of-affluenza/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Durst
https://www.courthousenews.com/robert-durst-loses-a-round-as-murder-trial-approaches/
Wow! I don't believe that "affluenza" is a reasonable defense because people that grow up with terrible childhoods, still get punished for the crimes they commit. So, people with amazing childhoods, should still get punished for the crimes they commit. I think that is ironic that he let HBO cover his crimes because he believed that he was innocent, but ended up admitting to what he did. I definitely think that he should be punished with the death penalty because in the end, he killed three people. No matter what excuse he comes up, that is still a crime.
ReplyDeleteDurst's case is extremely interesting when compared to OJ's case. OJ and Durst are similar in that they were both able to get away with crimes: Durst with his self defense case and OJ with the double homicide case. However, Durst was so confident that he had gotten away with two other murders that he allowed HBO to film a documentary about him and these alleged murders. Durst ultimately confessed to all the murders accidentally while filming and was put on trial. The key difference is that OJ confessed to the double homicide years after he was acquitted for the crimes. As a result, OJ could not be convicted due to the 5th amendment's protection against double jeopardy. Durst and OJ were both wealthy and this wealth allowed them to get away with things that ordinary people wouldn't. However, Durst's arrogance about getting away with the crimes ultimately lead to him being put on trial. Durst's white privilege and inherited wealth may have contributed to the differences between his and OJ's behavior and attitude towards their crimes.
ReplyDelete