i think the trial was 6 weeks or so and we saw excerpts of the trial over 6 hours. how can we criticize that jury w/o hearing all the evidence ? i think its silly to presuppose we know more than they did , therefore absent the same knowledge we are in no position to critique said jury verdict
shareDurst calmly recounted how he cut up the body, put it in trash bags, decided he needed to make the head "disappear," (why the head if it was self defense?), expressed his concern that the body parts would be found -- that is enough evidence for most rational people that this was no "self defense" case. Please. The jury was confused by the classic defense tactic of a misdirect by focusing on Morris Black and implying that he had it coming. Frankly it was sickening. Black was dead and cut into pieces and then vilified by the defense.
One juror said "I felt he was talking from the heart" -- yeah right, or the "good Christian woman" on the jury who decided she couldn't "judge" Durst -- vomit.
"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"
so based on all the evidence you heard you feel that you are in a superior position to criticize the jury , i think all the evidence of the texas homicide was in one episode , so less than 45 minutes of TV permits you to judge those who say through 6 weeks of testimony ? ok
shareThat's putting the cart before the horse. The murder charge only applies to the moment of murder, not the aftermath. The prosecution couldn't disprove the defenses explanation of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury needed to keep that straight and they did.
shareJury were brain-dead, but the prosecution screwed up royally too IMO. At least from what was in the doco, which would have been very compressed, granted.
Two things stood out to me - that the jury bought the ridiculous story of disguises and hiding out as evidence of persecution by the NY(?) DA's office rather than evidence of strange, guilty behavior; and separating out the evidence of dismemberment, evidence tampering and fleeing as evidence of... well, nothing.
The defence team was great, clearly, but surely any competent prosecutor can argue that what a killer does with a body is all about attempting to hide guilt.
Sorry to disagree with you on that.
Imagine somehow killing your friend in a self-defense fighting event. What is the first thing that would come to your mind? Me? I'd call the police. I mean, yes, that'd look bad, but that would be the only way I think I could argue it was self-defense.
Now not calling the police, but instead buying tools, cutting him up and dumping body parts in trash bags in a river, and coming back to fetch and hid the head? Are you serious? Come on.
The jury was plain stupid and defense attorneys just brilliant.
Judging from the doc, the prosecution was really cocky.
Also why didn't they prosecute for desecration of body or on other grounds? It's just shocking that you can cut up a body and hide it and not be accountable.
Hiding a body from authorities stinks. Hiding a body from the family is heinous.
just watched it, i don't think you can critisize the jury, i don't know anything about the law in america, but the lawyer at one point says that it needs to be proven that it's not self defense, without reasonable doubt.
I think there was reasonable doubt. It's unlikely, very much so that it was self defense, but there is reasonable doubt imo.
And i think anyone would agree that no one knows what happend , or how the killing happend. sooo...
He is a sick *beep* no matter what, tho.
And i think anyone would agree that no one knows what happend , or how the killing happend. sooo...
He is a sick *beep* no matter what, tho.