YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → CA v. Robert Durst Murder Trial Day 22 - Douglas Durst, Defendant's Brother Continues Part 3

CA v. Robert Durst Murder Trial Day 22 - Douglas Durst, Defendant's Brother Continues Part 3 — Transcript

by Law&Crime Network · 11,623 words · 2,134 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00robert durst he's here with mr mcgaren
0:02and mr chesnov
0:04and then mr lewin balian and colleagues
0:06are are present
0:11the defense wish to be uh heard now on
0:13this uh
0:14hearsay and
0:18relevance 352 issue
0:22uh well i think we made a record your
0:24honor we have our objections we maintain
0:26those objections and
0:27thanked it 352 applies we think that
0:31it's
0:32remote reminding the court that this
0:34happened
0:35years after the murder of susan berman
0:40and it's it's prejudicial
0:44you want to just try and not probe it
0:47and in speaking to mr daguerreon and mr
0:49chesnaughton what they have
0:50told me is is that other than the
0:53previous objections which the court has
0:55already
0:56overruled in its motion they are
0:58withdrawing their hearsay objection
1:00because they prefer the way that i am
1:02doing it
1:03versus calling in the witnesses to
1:05testify to the very
1:07um explosive uh
1:10information which they're aware of so to
1:12clarify then uh mr chesnaugh yes thank
1:15you
1:15mr lewin has agreed to limit his
1:17questioning to three specific questions
1:19which he shared with us
1:21in exchange for that we would withdraw
1:23the hearsay objection
1:25so so uh my analysis of it which is
1:29it's consistent with your agreement is
1:31that this uh
1:34just description of what the witness
1:37heard from others is too
1:40elaborate and specific uh simply to
1:44to uh to admit for the purpose of his
1:48credibility i think it would be
1:50enough for him to say i i was afraid i
1:53heard he showed up in my house
1:55but this testimony
1:58would be a problem
2:01i would allow the gardener and others to
2:04testify to what they
2:06saw
2:08and um and that would be
2:12i didn't admit that because the motive
2:16and intent to kill witnesses
2:17is a significant and a very very
2:20probative of the
2:21intended in this particular case so it
2:23makes sense uh to me
2:25that uh that the objection is as noted
2:29may stand my ruling is clear
2:32and the agreement is that there will be
2:34a hearsay objection to these questions
2:36that's withdrawn so
2:37uh with you understanding how i would
2:40have ruled it
2:41it makes sense for you to withdraw that
2:44objection
2:45and to proceed as as you've just
2:46described mr president
2:48although i think you're clear on the
2:49record can the court for the purposes of
2:51uh
2:51appellate review can the court
2:53incorporate with respect to its ruling
2:55today
2:56the prior ruling that the court made
2:59when we litigated this motion
3:01yeah the court went into more detail at
3:02that point i i went into more detail
3:04about the basis for admitting
3:06this uh this evidence of a of plans and
3:10and uh actions mr durst appears to have
3:13taken towards his brother
3:15i think that was admissible for the
3:17reasons i described it at that time
3:20all right so uh our juror should be
3:24here in a couple minutes they're
3:25probably not not all here yet
3:37don't tell me we're gonna hear more from
3:44stuart
3:49in the courtroom we're back in session
3:52douglaster since you've seen the witness
3:53stand i'll remind you you're under oath
3:55we have
3:56mr robert durst president with his
3:58lawyers mr chad snob and mr de garan
4:01mr bailey and mr lewin mr miata mr
4:04henderson and mr milius all are present
4:06representing the people
4:09and we've resolved our legal issue
4:13and we you may continue with your
4:15examination mr wood
4:16thank you all right mr dirks we only
4:18have about three quarters of my
4:20examination left
4:24i just lobbed that up there all right
4:26we're
4:34i want you to listen very carefully
4:36pursuant to a
4:37to prior agreement i'm going to lead you
4:40through
4:41these questions which are going to
4:42require a yes or no answer do you
4:44understand that
4:45yes i do um
4:48after your brother jumped bale in
4:51galveston
4:52and was on the run from authorities did
4:54you become aware that he had shown up at
4:56your home in kentona
4:58yes i did and at that time
5:01is it true that based on the
5:04prior information you had become aware
5:07of from the
5:08jail calls that you had um it's like
5:11that
5:12at that time were you already aware
5:15did you already have fear of your
5:17brother regarding your safety and your
5:18family's safety
5:19yes i did and pursuant to that fear
5:22did you have private security that
5:26worked for you and would guard you and
5:28your family at all times
5:30yes i did so on that day
5:34did you become aware that mr durst had
5:37shown up
5:38uninvited at your home in katona yes i
5:40did
5:41and at that point in time on that date
5:44did you actually
5:45see him no i did not were you
5:48made aware by your security people that
5:50he had come
5:51to your house yes and when you found out
5:55he had come to your house what was your
5:56response
5:58i i was frightened and concerned for my
6:01family
6:03i'm going to go to another area i'm
6:05going to ask you do you know who
6:07andrew jorecki and mark smirling are yes
6:09i do
6:10and did they attempt to interview you
6:12while they were making uh
6:14their movie all good things and or while
6:16they were putting together
6:18what eventually became the jinx uh
6:22they had asked and uh andrew directly
6:25surreptitiously
6:26interviewed me at a charity event
6:29were you willing to cooperate to sign up
6:32for an interview
6:36at that time were you concerned that the
6:39filmmakers were working
6:41together with your brother bob i did
6:44have that concern yes
6:46how long and is it fair to say that your
6:49relationship with the filmmakers at that
6:51time
6:52became contentious enough that there
6:54were threats of litigation
6:56yes that is correct is it also true
7:00that the filmmakers were involved in
7:03filming
7:04your brother on in april of 2012
7:08when he came to the durst organization
7:11into the homes of several of your
7:13relatives in manhattan
7:15yes that is correct and did that event
7:17did that cause you
7:19fear and concern it caused me even
7:21greater concern for my family yes
7:24so i'm going to back up again and i'm
7:26going to go back to 2008.
7:28did you become aware in 2008 that the
7:31movie all good things was being filmed
7:34yes i did and do you know where that
7:37filming was taking place
7:38uh it took place in a number of
7:40locations stanbury connecticut
7:42and midtown manhattan among others
7:46so again i'm going to lead you through
7:48this area
7:49meaning yes or no questions do you
7:51understand that
7:52yes around that time again
7:55in 2008 did you become aware of another
7:59incident where mr durst your brother had
8:02shown up to your house
8:04yes at that time had he been invited
8:07no did you have a full-time security
8:10team
8:10at that time yes
8:14was he able and i'm talking about the
8:16first time in 2008
8:18to your understanding was he able to
8:20actually get on
8:21to your property yes did you have any
8:25contact or interaction with him at that
8:27time no i did not
8:28and pursuant to your security protocols
8:31were you and your family
8:33taken away to a safe area yeah the
8:35location
8:38yes i was taken was there a second
8:40incident
8:41around that same time a few days after
8:43the first incident
8:44where mr dirk showed up again yes
8:47and again did you yourself see uh
8:50your brother at that time no i did not
8:53were you advised by your security team
8:56in real time that this was going on yes
8:58it was
8:59can you explain what was your response
9:02when you found out that your brother had
9:05shown up and i want to be clear i'm not
9:07asking you
9:08to describe in any way what happened or
9:11what the facts were with him showing up
9:13i'm simply asking you
9:15what was your response to that happening
9:18my my response emotional response was i
9:22was very concerned
9:24not just for myself but for my family at
9:26the time did you have
9:28numerous family members who were on the
9:30premises yes
9:31did these involve your children yes
9:37as a result of that situation
9:41and the other situations that i've
9:43described do you to this day
9:45still have full-time security
9:49we have a security force that works for
9:52the
9:52company and they provide security for me
9:56and even in terms of your coming
9:59to court today did you come with
10:02security that you had hired yes i hired
10:04security today
10:05and why did you hire security what was
10:07the reason for that
10:09because i have fear of my brother has
10:12threatened to kill me and i
10:14fear that he may have the means to do so
10:17and in terms of the security that you've
10:19hired and the concerns that you have
10:22are they do they expressly relate back
10:25to the fear of your brother yes
10:29right i want to go to 2012.
10:33in 2012 are you aware of either
10:37you or your security people having
10:40contact
10:41with the fbi regarding
10:44your concerns about your brother douglas
10:47who your brother bob excuse me
10:49yes we had contact for the fbi
10:52and did those contacts involve
10:55you or your security people wanting to
10:58know
10:59if there was anything that could be done
11:02to protect you
11:03yes
11:08you have been up there testifying about
11:12your brother and various incidents i
11:14want to ask you
11:15um if i were to say are you a
11:18private or a public person
11:22uh i'm a private person that sometimes
11:24has to appear in public
11:26there are so for instance there's
11:28another
11:30somewhat famous new york real estate
11:32person
11:33who ended up going on to a career after
11:36new york real estate
11:38they have some buildings named after
11:39them etc um
11:41is that the kind of persona that you
11:43have
11:44no the exact opposite and can you
11:46explain what you mean
11:49i mean that for instance your example we
11:52don't put
11:53our names on buildings or on anything
11:55you'll never find a
11:57durst library or a juris building
12:01and we do when we
12:04try and stay out of the papers except
12:06when we're opening a building or have
12:08something to publicize
12:10and in terms of
12:14your family history and just in terms of
12:17the
12:18emotions that involved that are involved
12:21how would you describe overall
12:25in terms of embarrassing
12:28humiliating etc the issue of your
12:32brother
12:33with respect to other things you've had
12:36to
12:36encounter in your life well it's the
12:39most
12:41embarrassing thing about that
12:44that i've ever encountered
12:47and is it fair to say that this has been
12:49a feeling that you've had
12:52for more than 20 years yes
12:55it's kind of progressively worse is it
12:57also fair to say that
13:00every time there is a trial or an
13:02article
13:03or anything about it that seeing the
13:06durst name
13:07associated with these events is painful
13:10for you and your family
13:12yes it is very painful for us to have
13:14our names our name associated with
13:17these incidents and that all being being
13:20said
13:21despite the issues that you have uh with
13:24your brother
13:25is it still difficult for you to be up
13:27here
13:29testifying against him in a murder case
13:32yes it is
13:34despite everything that has happened
13:37how do you feel about your brother as
13:39you sit here today
13:41uh well i first i am
13:44frightened and i also though
13:48feel sorry for him for the situation
13:50that
13:51we're in i would have done anything to
13:53avoid it but
13:57i just you know i'm here because i've
13:59been subpoenaed
14:00because
14:04it's subpoenaed yes i have no further
14:07questions your honor
14:08great uh mr geron will you be
14:10cross-examining good i will help your
14:11honor
14:12you may proceed
14:25[Music]
14:28nicky
14:31[Music]
14:42okay
14:57yep thank you
15:01uh good afternoon mr durst i'm dick
15:03tagaran you know who i am i know who you
15:05are and uh we've kind of we've never met
15:08though have we we have not met now
15:10you know that i've met your sister wendy
15:12yes i know that
15:13and you know that i uh knew and was
15:16friends with michael kennedy a lawyer in
15:20new york that the durst family hired
15:23early on
15:25when bob was a fugitive from galveston
15:29correct the trust hired him the family
15:31did not okay
15:35and of course you're the primary trustee
15:37yes
15:39preeminent trust his primary opinion
15:41what's uh
15:43in this trust in bob's trust where i was
15:47at the time just a trustee yeah the
15:49trusts were all together
15:51at the time that uh bob had the
15:54trouble in galveston correct yes
16:01and is it fair to say that
16:05you and bob have not had much to do with
16:08each other
16:10since bob left the durst organization
16:15in what mid 90s 1994 yes
16:20right
16:24uh there's there's legend about that and
16:26there's fact about it uh
16:28i think you've said uh
16:31that you actually were the one
16:34to convince the trustees that
16:38you should be the trustee and that bob
16:40should not is that right
16:42successor trustee but that was much
16:44earlier
16:45okay and that had to do with his conduct
16:49at the
16:50at the office that's correct um
16:56particularly him if i can put it
16:59in street terms peeing in the
17:01wastebaskets
17:03among other things yes yeah
17:08kind of odd isn't it
17:14yes it's odd
17:23there's also several different stories
17:26about
17:28the death of your mother whether bob was
17:30a witness or not
17:33your your belief by the way you were
17:34five years old at the time
17:37yes and you did not see anything right
17:40no i think what you said about it is
17:43that
17:44you and your other siblings were brushed
17:47off to a relative
17:49nearby while the investigation was being
17:51done
17:52yes that's correct right but there's no
17:54question that bob
17:55was there when it happened
17:58is there yeah there is question in my
18:02mind yes no i don't mean
18:04out looking at the roof or anything that
18:06he was at the home
18:09we were all at the home that we had
18:10dinner that night and we all went to bed
18:13and then we were brought
18:14over to my aunt and uncle's house right
18:17and they tried to shelter you as much as
18:19possible from
18:20her tragic death correct
18:24yes and it was tragic she fell or
18:26slipped or
18:28some say jumped uh to her death from the
18:33roof of the family home that's correct
18:36on to a concrete or
18:38very hard driveway yes
18:47it's true isn't it that
18:51well you were only five years old so you
18:53might not know this but it is true
18:55isn't it that bob that's been a very
18:57significant
18:58trauma in bob's life
19:03i'm sorry could you yes i know you were
19:06only five years old at the time
19:09but it's true isn't it that
19:12the death of your mother the tragic
19:14death of your mother was a very
19:15significant
19:17trauma in bob's early life yes as it was
19:20for all of us
19:21of course
19:33after your mother's death it's true
19:36isn't it that you
19:38and your siblings were largely raised by
19:41um nannies and governances and
19:44maids that is correct your father spent
19:48a lot of time
19:50with the durst organization in new york
19:52city
19:55after your mother's death correct
19:59that is correct and of course uh
20:02he and his two brothers and the rest of
20:05the durst
20:05organization were very successful during
20:08that period of time in building the
20:10durst
20:11organization to what it is today right
20:13that is correct
20:21from your early life and i know
20:26that we have to kind of stop in the mid
20:2890s when you lost contact with bob for a
20:31while
20:31and that's true you lost contact with
20:33him for a long time didn't you
20:35yes from the early 90s of 93 94 whenever
20:39whenever the split came
20:43we lost i knew where he was i wasn't in
20:46contact with him
20:48did you know where he was all the time
20:50no
20:52did you know that he had several
20:54different homes in some
20:56parts of the country not at that time
20:59did you know who his friends were at
21:01that time i knew some of his friends at
21:03that time
21:04sure you knew doug oliver of course
21:07and didn't know doug oliver but did you
21:09know that he
21:10became estranged from doug oliver for a
21:12while at least not in contact with doug
21:15i knew that he became estranged with
21:17many of his previous friends
21:19yes right
21:30i want to shift gears just for a moment
21:34um in
21:38roughly early december
21:41excuse me early november of 2000
21:46perhaps october the 31st but
21:49certainly early november of 2000
21:55you and others learned that janine pirro
22:01was reopening an investigation into the
22:04disappearance of kathy right
22:07that's correct yes i believe
22:11on direct examination mr lewin brought
22:13out that there was a man that worked for
22:15you
22:16uh kind of a well-known guy that um
22:21he's a pr guy and kind of an
22:24investigator that uh i'm sorry i'm
22:28i'm lost his name
22:31marty matz yes
22:36and your belief is that through his
22:40connections with the media he learned
22:43that there was going to be
22:45some media stories about janine pirro
22:49reopening the investigation into kathy's
22:52disappearance yes that's correct
22:58now janine pirro at the time
23:02was the district attorney of westchester
23:05county
23:05wasn't she she was and even then
23:09she was quite a presence on the media
23:12wasn't she
23:13i believe so i don't you don't watch fox
23:17news no i do not
23:19good for you uh but
23:25the thought was that janine pirro was
23:27going to make this a big deal
23:29and uh use the durst name
23:33to do that right
23:38okay rephrase yeah among uh yourself and
23:41other
23:42members of the durst organization you
23:44were concerned that janine pirro was
23:46going to make a big splash
23:48and use the durst name as part of that
23:55terrible publicity right that is correct
23:57yes
24:02during that brief period of time i want
24:05to concentrate on that
24:06and that would be early november
24:112000 right before the first news article
24:14came out and i believe it's been
24:17i believe we can agree that that was
24:19november the 11th
24:21of 2000 are you asking for a stipulation
24:25how about that my memory without
24:27checking
24:28is november 9th but you might be right
24:31let me while you're doing this
24:32i'll look it up and i'll tell you what i
24:33can stick with it maybe i remember
24:35november 11th because it's what we used
24:37to call armistice day
24:42one moment if you continue i'll let you
24:44know you might be right mr and i just
24:45need to make sure
24:46well 9th or 11th and we'll we'll get it
24:48straight okay
24:51we'll stipulate today ronnie 9th or 11th
24:54or 11th
24:57could you give me a moment off all right
24:59so anyway we'll
25:01as you understand that would be the
25:03second
25:04week in early
25:08november of 2000 mr henderson tells me
25:12it is the 11th so we will sit here
25:17no eyes in the back of my head someone
25:18told me november 11 stipulated okay
25:24so you're stipulating i was right so
25:26there's the first
25:27there's a first and the last time even a
25:28broken clock dick twice a day
25:33you didn't need to do it that way it's
25:34john
25:39so if you understand uh
25:42mr durst and i'm sorry that we're having
25:44this little repartee but we've been
25:46together for so long we have the
25:47stockholm syndrome
25:50[Music]
25:53that's the period of time i'm asking you
25:55about right now during that period of
25:57time
26:01you saw that bob when he learned about
26:04it when either you
26:06or wendy told him about it that he was
26:08very concerned wasn't he
26:10he was very concerned yes during that
26:13time
26:13several people around you and in this
26:17group brought up that old saw that a
26:21prosecutor can have a ham sandwich
26:23indicted if they want to
26:25that's correct and what that meant was
26:31whether there was any evidence or not
26:33this janine
26:34pirro could cause there to be
26:38charges filed that was a concern wasn't
26:41it
26:41yes it wasn't a matter
26:45of janine pirro trying to find kathy
26:50for which everybody would be grateful
26:52but a matter of
26:54janine pirro coming after bob
26:57right correct yes
27:00in fact did she even accuse you i don't
27:03mean
27:04formally but in a meeting with you
27:07that you had something to do with it
27:10that is correct
27:11and that's the farthest thing from the
27:12truth isn't it yes it is
27:15that meeting with her i believe you've
27:18described it
27:19as it was very short it was very brief
27:23yes
27:23and that was your choice wasn't it
27:27you know once i told her that i had
27:30nothing to have that
27:31i could give her to help her she
27:35ended the meeting i got
27:38the impression that perhaps it's wrong
27:41from the
27:42interviews that you did with mr lewin
27:44and other members of his crew
27:47um you had
27:51politely but firmly told janine pirro
27:54she was all wet
27:58i didn't use those words but yes is that
28:01an apt yes
28:02app description a description of it okay
28:06so there was concern
28:12among your group meaning the durst
28:15organization and bob including bob it
28:18was basically my
28:19my sister and myself right
28:23number one was you were concerned that
28:25the dr
28:26durst name was going to be drug through
28:29the mud right
28:30no number one i was concerned that my
28:32brother would be indicted
28:33and that the uh
28:37secondly that the durst name would be
28:38dragged through the mud i'm sorry i
28:40didn't mean to rank it
28:41like that i meant one thing that you
28:44were concerned about was the durst name
28:46being drugged through the mother yes
28:47yes and secondly and not secondly but
28:51another very strong concern was that
28:54bob would be indicted with no evidence
28:56yes
29:03in fact there were there was a lawyer
29:06that was retained at the time
29:11for for bob right
29:15uh
29:19yes yes okay i'm not asking you about
29:22any conversations that you have with a
29:23lawyer
29:24probably didn't but
29:27was that during the time that it was
29:30mentioned that a prosecutor
29:33could get a ham sandwich indicted yes
29:43okay now you had very little contact
29:48with bob from 94
29:51roughly on to late
29:562000 were you aware of exactly what
30:00happened
30:01with him after that period of time where
30:04he went
30:04what he did until later
30:08no
30:12did you learn later
30:15that he in fact had
30:20fled guess that's the only way to put it
30:23fled
30:24to galveston texas
30:29uh i learned that later but i did not
30:32know it then
30:33yes i understand and did you learn later
30:37it's part of the legend
30:40of the case that he
30:44disguised himself as a mute woman to
30:47rent a
30:47cheap apartment in galveston
30:51yes
30:56that's pretty odd isn't it yes it is
31:08now am i right that the next time you
31:13saw bob
31:15was for a wedding that took place in
31:18houston
31:19of a family member that is correct and
31:22when was that
31:23wedding that was shortly after uh
31:26september 11th in 2001.
31:30and of course september 11th of 2001 is
31:33a date that
31:34everyone um that was alive during the
31:38time
31:38remembers isn't it yes
31:41did the durst organization or the durst
31:46trust
31:46lose property in the
31:50attacks of september 11. no
31:56nonetheless all of new york city was
32:00impacted by that weren't they that is
32:02correct
32:04and yet life goes on and you and other
32:06members of the family
32:08came to a wedding in houston texas
32:12um in late september
32:16yes what family member was it that was
32:19getting married uh my sister's son
32:26and bob came to that wedding didn't he
32:29yes he did the
32:34there was a hotel that was kind of the
32:35center of
32:37uh activities for several days
32:40yes and that was the four seasons in ho
32:42in houston
32:44uh i i don't recall the hotel okay
32:46probably
32:48uh but bob showed up there yes
32:51is bob durst
32:54yes his bob durst yes and um you recall
32:57that
32:58one of the nights there was a western
33:00theme party
33:03i don't recall that sorry no
33:14uh i'm not faulting you for your memory
33:17maybe
33:18western things are more important to
33:19some people than they are to others but
33:21there was
33:21a kind of an informal party before the
33:25wedding the next day right
33:28yes and bob showed up at that yes do you
33:32remember that he had a western shirt on
33:34i don't recall that now had you ever
33:37seen
33:38your brother bob in a western shirt as
33:40far as you can recall
33:42you say i did i believe you but i have
33:44never seen him no it's my recollection i
33:46haven't seen him in a western shirt
33:48let's do the court reporter a favor and
33:50wait until i'm finished with my question
33:51sorry
33:52sorry yeah that's all right
33:58you've you've testified before you've
33:59given deposition testimony before
34:02so you know that we're not supposed to
34:03talk at the same time because it makes
34:05it hard
34:06on the court reporter right yes okay
34:09so back to the wedding
34:13um was there a informal party the first
34:17night of the wedding that everybody went
34:19to on a bus yes and bob was on that bus
34:23yes he was and you were i was
34:26and then the wedding of your niece or
34:30nephew i'm sorry nephew was
34:33the next night that's correct and bob
34:35came to that
34:36yes was he appropriately a tired that is
34:39did he have a tux on
34:42i i don't recall he did not i wish i
34:44would have so
34:45i believe he must have okay
34:49did you ask bob
34:52where he was living or what he was doing
34:54then or did you have any conversation
34:56i had no conversation okay
35:14so
35:16when did you learn that susan berman had
35:18been murdered in los angeles
35:21in the christmas season of
35:242000 shortly after
35:28i read it in the papers is how i learned
35:30about it okay
35:31you read it in the new york papers yes
35:34you had known her
35:36briefly or slightly slightly yes you
35:38knew her
35:39to come to bob's aid
35:42when kathy disappeared by dealing
35:46with the media for bob right
35:49yes the durst organization had its own
35:54media or pr people working on it right
35:57yes and uh and bob uh had
36:00susan berman dealing with the
36:03press that's correct
36:19did you have any further contact with
36:22bob
36:24after you learned of susan berman's
36:26death her murder
36:29and when you
36:33later learned
36:38um
36:41that bob was a
36:44fugitive
36:47do you understand the question it was
36:49kind of awkward and
36:51from the time that you learned of susan
36:52berman's death until you learned
36:55that a year later almost uh
36:58bob was a fugitive no i had no contact
37:03so you didn't know where he was
37:05[Music]
37:07that's correct didn't know who he was
37:09associating with
37:11that's correct
37:16you don't know all right i presume he
37:18did not
37:19reach out to you during that interim no
37:22he did not and you did not reach out to
37:24him
37:24no he did not do you know if he had
37:27contact with wendy your sister
37:29no i i he i
37:33it's my belief that there was no contact
37:35with any of the family
37:36after that okay
37:44in that period sorry that's what i mean
37:46in that period yes we're on the same
37:47page
37:49and so once you did hear
37:54that he was a fugitive from galveston
37:57texas
37:59did you hear the lurid
38:02stories about what had happened in
38:03galveston yes they did
38:06by that i mean generally speaking that
38:09um there was a body found that had been
38:13dismembered
38:14it was found in the galveston bay and
38:18that bob was the suspect and that he was
38:21on the land
38:22yes
38:26did you
38:31did you hear that he was a fugitive
38:33before
38:35you heard that he would had been charged
38:37or did you learn it only after he had
38:38become a fugitive
38:41only uh no i had heard he was as i
38:46recall i had heard that
38:47robert durst had been charged and i
38:50could not believe
38:51it was my brother we actually found
38:54another robert durst
38:56living in galveston
39:00but became then it became aware that it
39:02was my brother
39:11during the period of time between
39:14when he became a fugitive which
39:18uh i'll suggest to you was in
39:21october of 2001
39:24until his arrest in
39:29november
39:32in pennsylvania did you have any contact
39:36with him
39:37i had no physical contact with him no
39:39all right
39:40but you did or either you or the trust
39:44or some
39:45people in the family uh hired michael
39:48kennedy
39:50um while he was well nobody knows
39:53knew where he was right the is trustee
39:56hired
39:58had to trust hire michael kennedy yes
40:01so the jury can understand michael
40:02kennedy was a very well-known
40:04very successful criminal lawyer in new
40:07york city
40:08at the time wasn't he yes he's no longer
40:11with us
40:11that's correct and
40:13[Music]
40:14i believe he went on television a couple
40:17of times
40:18uh asking or saying that the family
40:22wanted bob to surrender
40:25yes
40:29and of course then you learned of the
40:32bizarre circumstances under which he was
40:35arrested in pennsylvania right
40:37yes i mean it was all over the news yes
40:41and of course i think there's no
40:45dispute that he was arrested in a
40:48large grocery store having shoplifted a
40:53chicken salad sandwich a wall street
40:55journal and a
40:56band-aid
40:59yeah i'm trying i'm having a hard time
41:01knowing when you're finished the
41:02question or whether
41:03i'm sorry well the mask causes that but
41:06i
41:07uh i'll try to i'll try to let you know
41:10when i'm ready
41:11for you to answer okay thank you so did
41:13i describe it correctly as you
41:15understood it
41:16yes again pretty odd wasn't it
41:21again pretty odd yes
41:46you um
41:51you know that uh bob did not
41:54hire michael kennedy and did not take
41:56him on as
41:57the lawyer in galveston yes i'm aware of
42:01that
42:03and during the
42:06run-up to the trial the trial which took
42:09place in
42:092003 in the late summer and
42:13fall of 2003 did you
42:16hire other lawyers or the durst trust
42:20or other lawyers to monitor the trial
42:23yes that was uh dan cogdale
42:26right i'm sorry which dan cogdale yes
42:30a prominent and successful uh criminal
42:34defense lawyer in houston
42:36yes but he was not hired in order to
42:38assist
42:40the defense of your brother he was hired
42:42to monitor the trial for the durst
42:44organization that's correct
42:49and once again understanding that
42:53you and
42:56the trustees and durst organization
43:00uh don't like unfavorable publicity
43:04that's true isn't it that is true in
43:06fact as
43:10mr
43:12lewin pointed out without spelling out
43:17t-r-u-m-p
43:19your philosophy is quite a bit different
43:24from his
43:27yes it is
43:30and i presume that one of the reasons
43:32that you hired the lawyer was to
43:34monitor and see whether um
43:40whether and how the news coming out of
43:43galveston would
43:46uh hurt if it did the trump
43:49excuse
43:53i apologize the durst organization
44:06yes
44:10the jury found bob not guilty
44:14he had a very good attorney thank you
44:16very much
44:18yes they found him not guilty it
44:19actually was a team effort and
44:22my dear friend and the late
44:25mike ramsey was a member of that team
44:27and chip lewis
44:29who's here with us today was a member of
44:31that team
44:33and thank you for the compliment
44:37after the trial
44:40and after bob uh pled guilty to
44:46destroying evidence basically and bond
44:49jumping
44:50he served a period of time
44:53in jail after that right that's correct
44:57you were aware of that yes and
45:00and then eventually he was released
45:03right yes
45:14i'm going to change subjects for a
45:17moment
45:25mr lewin asked you
45:30that in the transactions you
45:33interactions you had with kathy did you
45:35ever observe her
45:37to be acting consistently with a cocaine
45:40addict do you remember him asking you
45:41that i do your answer was no i never saw
45:44that yes
45:46how does a cocaine addict act
45:50they're constantly snorting cocaine and
45:53constantly looking for it that's a
45:56that's a pretty succinct description
45:59how does a cocaine abuser maybe not an
46:02addict
46:03how does a cocaine abuser act
46:07they're constantly sneaking off to the
46:10bathroom
46:12and coming back stoned
46:16they stay up late at night yes they talk
46:19a lot
46:22is that right yes
46:26they may make long phone calls late at
46:29night to friends
46:31yes we might make long phone calls to
46:34friends
46:36trying to find some more cocaine right
46:40that's possible yes and if they
46:43stay up late and use cocaine
46:47on a particular night they're not very
46:49good the next day are they
46:54i can't answer that question well i
46:58i don't know if a hangover is the right
47:00word to use from
47:01someone uh the next morning after a
47:05coke fueled party is that
47:10foundation uh just
47:13his knowledge about a cocaine abuser as
47:16opposed to a cocaine addict
47:18right i sustained an objection that it
47:20lacks foundation
47:21okay um well
47:25as an employer as a person that runs a
47:28large organization you know that
47:32cocaine usage is not very consistent
47:35with
47:36being a good employee is it no it's not
47:39nor is it very good
47:44to be a student is it
47:49i i can't answer that question it's not
47:52well just basically from your knowledge
47:55you wouldn't want one of your employees
47:57coming with a cocaine hangover i can
47:59speak for employees i cannot speak for
48:01students i'm sorry i'm sorry i can speak
48:05about employees it's hard for me to
48:06speak about students
48:08well that's just a small jump but you
48:10have to
48:11concentrate if you're a student right
48:13that is correct
48:14and especially if you're a medical
48:16student
48:19makes sense doesn't it makes sense yes
48:21okay
48:26bob was proud of kathy being in medical
48:29school wasn't he
48:32i had no knowledge of that okay
48:38um you did mention that
48:42your grandfather was one of the founders
48:44of
48:45einstein medical school right yes that
48:48is correct
48:49and uh on the founder's board is there a
48:55group of people including members of the
48:58durst family that are
48:59in the founders board there was a plaque
49:02in our office
49:03that commemorated the founding of the
49:05school and
49:06honored joseph durst and you don't know
49:10whether or how
49:13cathy durst might have used her name
49:17to get enrolled in einstein do you i
49:20have no knowledge of how
49:21you don't have any knowledge either way
49:23do you correct
49:27but any right were you aware that she
49:29during the last
49:31um six months of her career as a medical
49:34student was having troubles
49:36that assumes that's not in evidence no
49:39it's in evidence but
49:40the records are in evidence it's
49:43there are different inferences one could
49:44draw might not be the best inference but
49:46it's
49:47just an inference you can you can ask
49:50were you aware of that
49:51no it was not were you aware that she
49:53was required to repeat
49:55some of her classes and some of her
49:59rotations no i was not were you
50:02aware that she had missed
50:06excessively attendance
50:09no i was not aware of that were you
50:12aware that
50:13um the dean of students
50:17had reached out to her to for to offer
50:20her
50:21his assistance before she
50:24disappeared no
50:28it would not be it would not be
50:29surprising to you would it
50:31that the
50:36daughter-in-law or
50:39of a member of the family that
50:43helped establish the medical school
50:47would be able to call upon the dean of
50:50students as opposed to a
50:51professor
51:04all right
51:11well as far as kathy's
51:17personal habits were concerned had you
51:20seen when was the last time you
51:22saw her or were in her presence before
51:25she disappeared
51:26christmas christmas the
51:30christmas before she disappeared so that
51:32would be
51:33the christmas of 1981. yes
51:36okay and before that
51:42i don't recall before that she had
51:46she and bob had actually lived
51:49with you and your wife uh in the cantona
51:52home
51:53that's correct for how long
51:56uh i'm not sure it was two or three
51:59years and what period of time was it
52:02it was uh uh
52:06in the east 1970s i believe
52:101771 okay early 70s early 70s yes
52:14so 10 or 15 years before she disappeared
52:17that's correct
52:20you were concerned then weren't you
52:22about their drug usage
52:25uh yes
52:28in fact you have said to the prosecution
52:33that you were concerned that
52:35uh she and bob but she particularly was
52:38using a lot of quaaludes
52:42right both were using a lot of qualities
52:46and quaaludes um that
52:49that was actually a prescription drug
52:51that was
52:52uh being abused uh in the 70s and 80s
52:56wasn't it
52:58yes
53:02and that was one of the concerns that
53:03you had about
53:05why it was not good for you and bob
53:08and your wives and your families to be
53:11living in the same house
53:14yes
53:18and after that bob and kathy
53:22bought the south salem house that's
53:26correct
53:27in the same general area of the country
53:30but removed by what 10 miles
53:33approximately
53:38katona south salem westchester county
53:42those are all what some people might
53:45call
53:45bedroom communities for people that
53:50work in new york city it is now
53:54less so then all right
53:58but very nice area yes
54:01and so
54:08there never was a confrontation between
54:11you and bob or your wives uh that caused
54:16uh you to decide that there was it was
54:18not
54:19a good thing for the the two families to
54:22live together
54:24it just happened that you were not
54:28pleased with bob and kathy using
54:30quaaludes around your family
54:34neither of us neither
54:37my wife nor kathy or bob were happy with
54:40the situation
54:41and uh we reached agreement that if i
54:45moved out for a year
54:47uh he would he would find another
54:49location
54:50and he did that and he did and you moved
54:53back in
54:54yes
55:00were you aware generally of the fact
55:04that bob
55:04also had an apartment in the city in new
55:08york city
55:09generally i was aware of that okay were
55:12you ever
55:13at any of the apartments that he had
55:15there no
55:18there was an apartment on east 82nd
55:20street were you familiar with that one
55:22i've heard heard of it i'm not familiar
55:24with as soon as that's done
55:2886. i'll stipulate it with these 86
55:30how's that
55:32[Music]
55:36geography that is one of his preferred
55:37categories
55:41and were you aware well i guess i didn't
55:44get it
55:44with all our repartee here we didn't get
55:46an answer to
55:47were you aware of the east 86th street
55:50apartment
55:51yes all right were you aware that later
55:54and at part of the same time
55:58he and kathy had a penthouse on
56:02riverside drive yes okay
56:10was the east 86th building
56:13a durst building no so it was an
56:16apartment that
56:18was independent of the durst
56:20organization it was one that
56:22he and kathy had that is correct
56:26at a later time bob
56:32and kathy if you know
56:35and you may not bob and kathy spent most
56:38of their time
56:39at the riverside drive apartment or at
56:42the south salem home
56:44will you wear that evidence it would
56:47depend on hearsay
56:49no personal knowledge okay
56:52you lose all three of those but uh let's
56:54see
56:55[Music]
56:56where you
57:01uh i was generally aware that they were
57:04staying at 96th street
57:06for the penthouse and uh south salem
57:09okay that and and you're calling it 96th
57:13street
57:13i meant i you guys are confusing me with
57:16all the numbers but it was the
57:18penthouse on the west side that uh
57:20penthouse on the west side on riverside
57:22drive yes
57:23all right and so uh
57:26if bob had a favorable lease
57:30on east 86th street it would make sense
57:34to
57:34sublease that if they were not living
57:36there
57:38speculation last foundation outside the
57:40scope of cross
57:44directly i don't want to have to call
57:47him back as our witness your honor but i
57:49think it's something that he knows
57:51generally it's the other issue is it's
57:53asking about a fact and then asking
57:55the witness to give an opinion on a fact
57:57that's not proven
58:00which is why it lacks foundation and
58:03assumes facts not in evidence
58:21let me just withdraw it and ask it a
58:22different way
58:24okay we could start over then okay would
58:27it make
58:27you this is
58:32asking moses about the flood but um
58:35you know new york
58:40real estate like the back of your hand
58:42don't you yes i do
58:44if someone had a favorable lease on a
58:47apartment on the east side
58:50and they weren't living there anymore
58:51but they still had the lease it would
58:52make sense to sublease it
58:54rather than break the lease and then
58:58have
58:59the price go way up
59:02i don't know about the price going way
59:04up and it would of course be determined
59:06by the terms of the lease
59:07but if they were permitted to do so it
59:10would make sense yes
59:16okay
59:20[Music]
59:28i want to turn now to the time when
59:31kathy
59:32disappeared and that
59:36first week when you learned about it
59:39and then the time it
59:42passed in the next few weeks so first
59:45my question to you is you understand the
59:48time period i'm talking about that would
59:49be
59:51february of 1982.
59:55yes you heard about it first
1:00:00from bob himself didn't you excuse me
1:00:02yes i did
1:00:03and uh you and seymour may have been on
1:00:06the same phone call
1:00:08no not uh well
1:00:11okay i misunderstood the way you said it
1:00:13to mr
1:00:14lewin seymour learned at about the same
1:00:17time
1:00:18i i would be guessing i i learned of it
1:00:20and
1:00:21seymour knew of it but i don't know when
1:00:23he learned of it
1:00:24okay but you learned of it from bob
1:00:26that's correct and when he called you
1:00:28and told you that
1:00:29he seemed distraught didn't he he did
1:00:38now you said on the monday which would
1:00:41have been february the 1st
1:00:44you didn't know whether bob was in the
1:00:47office didn't think he was
1:00:48but you also told mr lewin that you were
1:00:52only 60 sure about that right correct
1:00:56on tuesday
1:01:00you've testified to the jury that on
1:01:02tuesday
1:01:04you had some car trouble and you called
1:01:06in
1:01:07collect correct yes i want to
1:01:10put up on the screen um
1:01:13that particular
1:01:18piece of evidence uh we put it up on
1:01:36okay thank you i don't know how to
1:01:39if we can circle down on it and get
1:01:42close
1:01:47all right i think we can all see that um
1:01:53the first line is a collect call
1:01:57from katona
1:02:01um about 10 30 in the morning
1:02:06is that the call that you made
1:02:11i don't know who made the call well from
1:02:14katona
1:02:17uh do you recognize that number that's
1:02:20my house number yes
1:02:22okay uh you had a session with mr
1:02:26lewin and others yesterday didn't you
1:02:30i did yes did you tell him then that
1:02:32that was the monday
1:02:35that you had the car troll specifically
1:02:37two flat tires
1:02:39and you had to have it fixed and you
1:02:41called
1:02:42collect to say you'd be late
1:02:45you know that misstates the evidence
1:02:47he's getting monday and tuesday mixed up
1:02:49mr daguerreon so it's misstating the
1:02:51evidence that's been presented
1:02:52the evidence regarding this letter
1:02:56no it assumes fact's not an evidence in
1:02:57the way it's asked
1:03:00the question is to uh a conversation
1:03:03that he had with you not his testimony
1:03:07as i understand it so that's been no
1:03:09evidence about this
1:03:10at all so it's not mistaking testimony
1:03:13the witnesses testified regarding
1:03:15when the incident happened with the
1:03:17entire shop and he has
1:03:19previously indicated and testified the
1:03:21record show that it was tuesday so the
1:03:23problem is
1:03:23mr agaron's question in the way that
1:03:25it's asked
1:03:27assumed in the question that a call it
1:03:29didn't ask
1:03:30whether a collect call was made it made
1:03:32an assumption in the question itself
1:03:34that that's the problem
1:03:35he's talking about a different
1:03:36conversation mr william overall
1:03:44i'm now i'm fairly confused yeah well
1:03:47what i'm doing your honor i'm trying to
1:03:49find the report that mr lewin
1:03:51uh sent us
1:04:11so let me ask it this way did you tell
1:04:14mr
1:04:15lewin yesterday that february the 1st
1:04:191982 is when you had two flat tires
1:04:23and had to take your car to may this
1:04:25tire
1:04:26to get his get your tires re repaired
1:04:29and that you then call the office
1:04:30collect
1:04:31to let them know that you were going to
1:04:33be late
1:04:35if i did i was mistaken
1:04:42um do you think it might refresh your
1:04:44recollection if i showed you mr
1:04:46lewin's report we'll see i'm not mr
1:04:49newman's reporter
1:04:50hold on character wait a minute
1:04:56it's detective thornton and detective
1:04:58romero's
1:04:59report about a conversation with mr
1:05:01lewin yesterday they both ought to
1:05:03remember that
1:05:04okay y'all got really excited about
1:05:06these things
1:05:08all right let's uh
1:05:15may i approach the witness uh no you
1:05:18want to refresh his recollection about
1:05:20something that he recalls and denies
1:05:22so no you may not well
1:05:30mr durst did you
1:05:33meet with mr lewin
1:05:37two attorneys for you and
1:05:41detectives thornton and romero yesterday
1:05:44at the beverly wilshire at 9 500
1:05:48wilshire boulevard yes they do
1:05:52okay at that time did you
1:05:55say that you remembered february 1st
1:05:59as being the time that you call collect
1:06:03about your two flat tires yes i did
1:06:07okay are you saying now that was
1:06:09incorrect yes i'm saying that was
1:06:11incorrect
1:06:12all right what have you seen since
1:06:14yesterday at
1:06:16um one o'clock in the afternoon
1:06:20that has convinced you you were
1:06:22incorrect about yesterday
1:06:25the uh this screen which shows the date
1:06:27of the call
1:06:29yes the date of the call or the date of
1:06:31a call from katona
1:06:33is on february the 1st the first line
1:06:37yeah but that's from my house that's
1:06:39your house yes
1:06:40who else would have called from your
1:06:41house my wife so she would call and a
1:06:44collect
1:06:45call would be accepted yes
1:06:48by the way were there different uh
1:06:53telephone operators at the durst
1:06:55organization from time to time
1:06:56yes uh so the lady miss jones that uh
1:07:00we've had a stipulation about was not
1:07:02the only person shh
1:07:05what's her name
1:07:09somebody we had a stipulation about
1:07:12somebody
1:07:14okay just rephrase your question so
1:07:16anyway there were several
1:07:18several uh secretaries or telephone
1:07:20operators who were
1:07:22authorized to accept collect calls there
1:07:24were several receptionists that were
1:07:25also
1:07:26reception thank you okay
1:07:30and um were you shown this record
1:07:32yesterday
1:07:34i don't recall but i don't think so but
1:07:42you do recall that yesterday you said
1:07:44the date that you had the car trouble
1:07:45was february
1:07:46do you recall that yesterday i
1:07:47mistakenly said february 1st when i
1:07:50should have said february 2nd
1:07:54okay and so the other
1:07:57call that you've identified was the line
1:08:00four which was on february the second
1:08:05from mount kisco yes
1:08:11and that number that made the call 241
1:08:148 8 whatever
1:08:18what what phone number is that i've been
1:08:21told it's the phone number for mavis
1:08:23tire
1:08:25who told you that mr lewin okay you told
1:08:27you that yesterday
1:08:29he told me that yesterday and in the
1:08:32past
1:08:33and even though he told you that that
1:08:34was a call from mavis tire company when
1:08:36you told him it was on february the 1st
1:08:39i i'm maybe i'm missing something i
1:08:41guess you are
1:08:43yeah will you ask a question
1:08:46amen what am i missing i'm missing
1:08:49you're missing that i made a mistake
1:08:50yesterday
1:08:51and said february 1st instead of
1:08:53february 2nd
1:08:54okay there's a
1:08:58call right above that number two call
1:09:02from san francisco was your brother
1:09:05tommy living in san francisco at the
1:09:07time
1:09:12uh
1:09:15[Music]
1:09:16you see the num the call i'm referring
1:09:19to number two
1:09:20i'm sorry number three
1:09:25from san francisco california
1:09:28a collect call
1:09:31this was in 1980 he was i don't
1:09:35don't know whether he was living there
1:09:36or not
1:09:39would you like a stipulation
1:09:42i'm not sure what the stipulation is
1:09:44going to be
1:09:45i'm asking a question you don't know
1:09:47whether your brother tommy was
1:09:49living there then i yes i do not know
1:09:52i don't care tom was living there living
1:09:54then
1:09:59it's true isn't it that collect calls
1:10:01were quite more common back
1:10:03in the early 80s late 70s than they are
1:10:06today
1:10:08yes that's true all right
1:10:11by the way how many times have you
1:10:13talked to mr lewin
1:10:15over the years
1:10:18relevance and vague as to subject matter
1:10:22well i'm sure you weren't talking to him
1:10:23about the dodgers but
1:10:25uh how many times have you talked to mr
1:10:27lewin
1:10:28i believe about this case sorry about
1:10:31this case
1:10:32i believe four times all right
1:10:35and yesterday was one of the four times
1:10:42yes
1:10:45was it generally true that an operator
1:10:50a telephone operator receptionist
1:10:53got a collect call at the durst
1:10:55organization
1:10:57if they recognize the name they would
1:10:58accept it
1:11:00generally true yes okay
1:11:08and as we see um
1:11:12in lines
1:11:15uh well 11 and
1:11:2012. there are two more calls from
1:11:24katona collect calls
1:11:28one on this they're both on the third i
1:11:31believe
1:11:33from the number you've identified as
1:11:35your home number
1:11:38yes you know if that was you or your
1:11:40wife or somebody else
1:11:41don't know who it was okay
1:11:46the third would have been wednesday
1:11:49you were in the office on wednesday yes
1:11:52would that have been a call to you if
1:11:54you know
1:11:55i don't know all right well i'm sorry
1:11:57what was the question yeah would that
1:11:59have been
1:11:59would those have been calls to you
1:12:01they're on the third
1:12:03it's possible i don't know
1:12:17okay i'd ask you when bob called and
1:12:21told you
1:12:22that kathy she didn't he didn't know
1:12:25where kathy was
1:12:27is that what he said he said kathy has
1:12:30not been home for
1:12:32several days and he was distraught
1:12:36yes and
1:12:44then actually seymour
1:12:49and bob started doing things
1:12:52from that time on to try to find kathy
1:12:54didn't they
1:12:56that question is compound all right
1:12:58seymour
1:12:59started doing things to try to find
1:13:01kathy didn't he
1:13:04i have no knowledge of that
1:13:25did you tell mr lewin and
1:13:28[Music]
1:13:31interview on april the 15th
1:13:342015 that seymour made every effort
1:13:38to try to find kathy
1:13:44i don't recall
1:14:29sorry i made got the date wrong on the
1:14:3113th
1:14:32april the 13th
1:14:41did you tell mr lewin and his crew that
1:14:45uh seymour made every sustainable
1:14:47objective
1:14:49court's already admonished yeah i i have
1:14:51it's it's uh
1:14:52it's disparaging don't disparage i don't
1:14:54mean anything disparaging by it judge
1:14:56okay well then don't say it i don't have
1:14:59a crew anyway
1:15:03it's impolite
1:15:08did you tell mr lewin and several of his
1:15:13cohorts that uh seymour
1:15:16made every effort he could
1:15:20i don't recall saying that may i see if
1:15:23he
1:15:24refreshes record ask him if you think it
1:15:26would refresh his record would it
1:15:27refresh your recollection if i
1:15:29showed you a part of the transcript
1:15:34uh i can save you the trouble if that's
1:15:37what it says then i said it
1:15:40[Music]
1:15:50well
1:15:56and the quote is
1:16:00but seymour made every effort he could
1:16:04that's an answer to a question about
1:16:06hiring a task force hiring investigators
1:16:09doing everything to find bob's wife
1:16:14does that refresh your recollection
1:16:18uh i've already said that if i said it
1:16:21and
1:16:22if uh yes it does
1:16:25and you were aware that that bob had
1:16:27hired a guy
1:16:29that was specialized in missing people
1:16:32yes private detective right yes
1:16:35i couldn't hear you yes thank you
1:16:59[Applause]
1:17:01your discussions with bob at the time
1:17:05mr lewin's asked you about that but i
1:17:07want to ask you
1:17:15i believe your answer to mr lewin was
1:17:17did bob
1:17:18mentioned to you at the time that he
1:17:20believed her disappearance was related
1:17:22to cocaine
1:17:24a little earlier today you remember that
1:17:26that i do remember yes
1:17:28and you your answer was um
1:17:35i recall he said something about a drug
1:17:38dealer
1:17:39a drug dealer had been to the apartment
1:17:42right
1:17:43that's what i said yes yes tell us a
1:17:45little bit more about that
1:17:46what how did that come up
1:17:50when bob was telling me that she had
1:17:53disappeared he said it might have to do
1:17:55with
1:17:55drugs and a drug dealer that had been to
1:17:57the apartment
1:18:04you
1:18:08you knew that the new york city
1:18:12and westchester were investigating
1:18:15kathy's disappearance didn't you
1:18:20or did you question regarding
1:18:22westchester
1:18:24well i'll do it one at a time were you
1:18:27aware
1:18:28that new york city was doing an
1:18:29investigation yes i was aware new york
1:18:31city was invested and were you aware
1:18:33that uh westchester was doing an
1:18:36investigation
1:18:37that question assumes a fact not in
1:18:39evidence it states a fact and then asks
1:18:41if he's aware of it no i said
1:18:42were you aware the problem is were you
1:18:46aware
1:18:46indicates that in fact speaking
1:18:48objections
1:18:50okay so um
1:18:53let's uh let's discuss it during a break
1:18:57so ladies and gentlemen i'm going to
1:18:59excuse you until 3
1:19:0030. do not converse among yourselves or
1:19:04with anyone else on any subject
1:19:06connected with this case do not form or
1:19:08express any opinion
1:19:09on the case we'll see you at 3 30.
1:19:12do not discuss your testimony with any
1:19:14witness
1:19:21to me it's a matter of semantics here
1:19:23because uh
1:19:24it because so westchester
1:19:28i guess there wasn't much uh struck uh
1:19:30so
1:19:31detective strzok is
1:19:35the issue investigating the problem is
1:19:36the witnesses have all testified
1:19:38that new york state never did a quote
1:19:41investigation in the case
1:19:43so if i may finish so the problem is is
1:19:45that
1:19:46in asking the question are you aware
1:19:48that new york state police were doing an
1:19:50investigation
1:19:51the question itself suggests an event
1:19:54in in fact assumes a fact not an
1:19:56evidence that such investigation was
1:19:57taking place so
1:19:59so you're so you're you're saying it's
1:20:01not a fact because you define
1:20:03investigation differently from the way
1:20:04the defense defines investigation the
1:20:07jury might think something had taken
1:20:08place that they didn't hear about
1:20:10no i'm defining it the way that the
1:20:11witnesses who have testified to in other
1:20:13words
1:20:14the witnesses who were asked who worked
1:20:16for
1:20:17the westchester new york state police
1:20:19and the west chester
1:20:20attorney's office by testimony and
1:20:22stipulation have all said
1:20:23that they did not conduct an
1:20:25investigation that was their testimony
1:20:27that was testified
1:20:28by by detective harney okay so i i do
1:20:32recall
1:20:32they went through the house they talked
1:20:34to witnesses
1:20:37i mean well i mean i think that that's
1:20:39that's a uh
1:20:40you're right i mean i recall that and i
1:20:42don't know why that wouldn't be a
1:20:43reasonable basis for
1:20:52because he doesn't want there to have
1:20:54been an investigation
1:20:55he's saying we can't ask a question even
1:20:58though there was
1:20:59police activity surrounding her
1:21:01disappearance by people from westchester
1:21:03that were not part of the new york
1:21:05investigation
1:21:06and and and you're fighting out this
1:21:08proxy battle through this witness who's
1:21:10not involved in that well that's okay
1:21:11your honor but there's a lot of things
1:21:12that go on here that
1:21:14are proxy battles that really don't
1:21:16belong where they are
1:21:17but in this instance he's just asking a
1:21:20simple question
1:21:21at the time were you aware there was a
1:21:23new york yes were you aware there was a
1:21:25westchester
1:21:26yes or no and then what's so what's the
1:21:28what's this leading to what's the point
1:21:30of this whether there was an
1:21:31investigation
1:21:32because we on the other hand are saying
1:21:34there was an investigation
1:21:36and he wasn't charged so so here's the
1:21:39problem two things
1:21:40hey if i can finish no don't and that
1:21:43means
1:21:44if he wasn't charged there wasn't even
1:21:45probable cause
1:21:47let alone some kind of proof that bob
1:21:49had anything to do with her
1:21:50disappearance okay so you lost me with
1:21:52all that stuff
1:21:53because that's uh that's all well you're
1:21:55asking me to explain
1:21:56well you're going you're going you're
1:21:58pursuing a path that's not relevant
1:22:00yes so the problem is it's very simple
1:22:02if they want to ask
1:22:03the witness if the court finds it
1:22:05relevant what this witness thinks
1:22:07was he aware that new york state police
1:22:10went by the house or did a certain
1:22:12activity which they did
1:22:13which can be supported by the evidence
1:22:15that would be a fair question for the
1:22:17witness
1:22:17if it was relevant if it was not 352 and
1:22:20if the court found that this witness
1:22:21would have the foundation
1:22:22to address it by mr chesnaugh's own
1:22:24admission what he just said to china
1:22:26here's what we want to do we want to ask
1:22:27this witness who has nothing to do with
1:22:28it
1:22:28and we want him to basically make the
1:22:30point to pontificate
1:22:32that in fact that we can get up and say
1:22:34there was an investigation
1:22:35the witnesses who've been called have
1:22:37said they did not conduct investigation
1:22:39so don't ask the witness about an
1:22:41investigation
1:22:42that no one has said took place when
1:22:44it's the wrong witness with the wrong
1:22:45question assuming the wrong facts okay
1:22:47the only problem that they have your
1:22:48honor is this
1:22:49mr lewin has tried to suggest that he
1:22:52wasn't engaged with his brother at
1:22:53particular times
1:22:55and the fact that he knew that his
1:22:56brother and the police were all
1:22:58actively trying to figure out what
1:23:00happened to catherine
1:23:02is different than his theory that
1:23:03somehow mr durst was completely
1:23:06disassociated and disengaged from this i
1:23:08mean all right
1:23:10your honor we've had we have a we have a
1:23:12murder in westchester we have a not
1:23:14guilty murder in texas
1:23:16we have susan berman and now today we
1:23:18have him being afraid of getting killed
1:23:21but we can't ask the witness his memory
1:23:24of events at the time
1:23:25no well i mean you did spend some time
1:23:27on his expertise on
1:23:29on cocaine and its consequences so don't
1:23:31don't get too
1:23:32uh don't get too self-righteous there
1:23:36anyway listen uh i think that that
1:23:38question itself
1:23:40is i i don't accept that that particular
1:23:44objection i think that if you call an
1:23:46investigation you can and then
1:23:48cross-examination on this on this
1:23:50marginally relevant point is fine
1:23:52where it's leading to is nowhere because
1:23:55it's
1:23:56uh what your crawford theory of
1:23:59relevancy is
1:24:00is i don't buy it so it's
1:24:03not then 352 then your honor then in the
1:24:07end that's where we come
1:24:11yeah i i don't that particular question
1:24:13isn't isn't particularly
1:24:14prejudicial to the people's case so i i
1:24:17wouldn't say
1:24:18that either but uh i think you're done
1:24:21when you ask
1:24:22were you aware
1:24:25where i mean i don't even know what is
1:24:28the
1:24:30so the
1:24:33i don't think the objection is
1:24:38i don't i don't think that you know the
1:24:41objection would be in the end
1:24:42either either it's tangentially either
1:24:45it's irrelevant or tangentially relevant
1:24:47but under 352 it's not that it's
1:24:49credited issue it is a waste of time and
1:24:51it now will force me
1:24:53it will now force me on redirect to
1:24:55bring up the idea that you don't have
1:24:57any idea
1:24:57about a quote investigation by
1:25:00westchester
1:25:00you were not a part of that you don't
1:25:02know what they did or did not do
1:25:04you're not relying on any personal
1:25:06knowledge that's why
1:25:07this area would certainly be 352
1:25:10but he told mr lewin
1:25:15is on page 10 of the
1:25:18april 13th interview
1:25:22transcript quote i knew that the
1:25:25new york city and westchester were
1:25:28thoroughly
1:25:28investigating it and i had some belief
1:25:31that law enforcement
1:25:33would if he had done it the
1:25:36problem is that that's he said that
1:25:39that's where i'm going with that that's
1:25:40not
1:25:41there's a basis for me to ask that and
1:25:43it's
1:25:45uh important to our case he has no
1:25:47personal knowledge he has no foundation
1:25:48for it
1:25:49whether he said it or not he could say a
1:25:51lot of things he get up and say
1:25:52bob durst killed 20 people if if he
1:25:54doesn't have foundation and personal
1:25:55knowledge
1:25:57i just your words are just floating
1:25:59floating by
1:26:00you're you're you're you are can't
1:26:02you're
1:26:04you're overdoing it i mean this is a
1:26:07this is a um
1:26:10the the offer of proof is is that
1:26:12insufficient and you
1:26:14you uh so it's it's irrelevant i'll
1:26:18sustain a relevance objection
1:26:20but um
1:26:25yes mr chestnut you want you want you
1:26:27you want to present
1:26:28evidence that there is a thorough
1:26:29investigation there's silence
1:26:32that there was a thorough investigation
1:26:34and mr durst wasn't
1:26:35charged and that means that he therefore
1:26:39must not have
1:26:40killed kathy durst that he must not have
1:26:42been uh susan berman must not have been
1:26:44a witness is that your
1:26:45honor we're not appealing to you we're
1:26:46appealing to them and this is
1:26:48cross-examination
1:26:49and besides which your honor you know
1:26:51what just happened you overruled him
1:26:54and then when he did what you said then
1:26:56you accepted it
1:26:57no i accepted it before he did all this
1:26:59extra well he didn't say it most
1:27:00respectfully your honor
1:27:02i don't understand how he can talk about
1:27:04wasting time
1:27:06i mean in the context of that argument
1:27:09the man gave a statement it's the same
1:27:12thing that happens all the time with his
1:27:14witnesses
1:27:15they meet with mr lewin they say one
1:27:17thing they come to court they say
1:27:19something else and we've established
1:27:20that
1:27:21so if mr taguera wants to show this jury
1:27:24that he doesn't say the same things
1:27:26answering
1:27:28our questions that he does mr lewins and
1:27:30that he said other things
1:27:32just yesterday or i'm sorry in 215
1:27:36closer in time we should be able to test
1:27:38his memory with that as well
1:27:40even even on an irrelevant uh subject
1:27:43well but
1:27:43but everybody said oh what mr lewin has
1:27:47said
1:27:48several times is that if if you
1:27:52your wife was missing you'd be all over
1:27:54it and you'd be doing this and that and
1:27:56so forth
1:27:57and this witness was there at the time
1:27:59he knows
1:28:00that he was satisfied with what was
1:28:02being done
1:28:04he doesn't know anything that's being
1:28:06done as a problem well wait a minute he
1:28:08said he knew
1:28:08what was being done i knew that the new
1:28:11york city and westchester were
1:28:13thoroughly
1:28:13investigating it do you think that you
1:28:15said no no satan people quiet mr
1:28:17chestnut
1:28:18hold on i'm having a dialogue here with
1:28:19your your colleague mr degaran
1:28:22so um when you all interrupt my train of
1:28:25thought it's hard for me to concentrate
1:28:27it when you're all
1:28:28talking at me so um
1:28:33just a second
1:28:36the the jury is is okay so the jury has
1:28:40has uh heard what investigation
1:28:44has taken place and so you want to ask
1:28:48this witness
1:28:51his satisfaction with the
1:28:54investigation that had taken place is
1:28:56that your theory of relevance mr guerin
1:28:59you want this witness to give his
1:29:01opinion about how he
1:29:03felt about the nature of the
1:29:05investigation from that the jurors
1:29:07should be
1:29:08should feel better about the
1:29:09investigation and and feel
1:29:11more confidence in mr durst's attitude
1:29:13at that time because his brother
1:29:16made a had an opinion when the jury
1:29:18themselves have heard
1:29:20what was done is that your argument no
1:29:24what's your argument my argument is that
1:29:26this witness was there
1:29:28he was observing what was going on he's
1:29:31been questioned about whether bob was
1:29:34acting appropriately and
1:29:37and how he was reacting to he was asked
1:29:40a question about
1:29:41about his uh his tone was he concerned
1:29:44was he distraught
1:29:45so that uh so that's true that that has
1:29:48been
1:29:49presented to this witness
1:29:54and the witness in response to mr
1:29:58lewin's questions in the interview said
1:30:01that he felt that
1:30:02the investigation was appropriate and
1:30:05said
1:30:05they were thoroughly investigating it
1:30:07that's important
1:30:10he was there oh all right
1:30:13um maybe
1:30:17so mr lewin if uh
1:30:21let's say that his brother's paying
1:30:24attention to
1:30:25uh has reason to pay attention to the
1:30:28investigation that's
1:30:29happening primarily by new york city
1:30:34and he has heard
1:30:40he's commented about well let's see
1:30:44the problem is there's no evidence that
1:30:45he had any knowledge of what
1:30:47new york state police were doing but but
1:30:49your honor at this point in time
1:30:51honestly it's not even the court's
1:30:54made its ruling the court can can at
1:30:57this point in time
1:30:58it's really not even worth the
1:31:02protracted discussion about it i i will
1:31:05say this i want to make sure that
1:31:06council does not intend to try to get
1:31:08into anything relating to the
1:31:10inadmissible issues regarding
1:31:12elevator operators etc i want to make
1:31:14sure that's not coming next and of
1:31:15course now mr chesnov has uh has raised
1:31:18a question that
1:31:19all witnesses are tainted or are
1:31:22consistently tainted by conversations
1:31:24with the prosecution
1:31:25well here's that's that's what he's
1:31:26suggesting is that he that the people
1:31:29should be allowed to prove
1:31:31that mr douglas durst uh had
1:31:34one point of view and then had a
1:31:35conversation with you
1:31:37and with law enforcement and then he
1:31:39testified to something
1:31:41different and that that i am precluding
1:31:44the jury
1:31:45from hearing about the taint that the
1:31:47prosecution is having upon its witnesses
1:31:50that's that's their theory now i'm not
1:31:52quite sure how this question
1:31:53you want an answer addresses this
1:31:56concern
1:31:56but uh yes but let me address that so
1:31:59yeah in actuality
1:32:00what they've done is the witness has
1:32:02admitted that yes i said that
1:32:04the problem is not about what the
1:32:05witness is saying now versus them the
1:32:07witness is saying
1:32:08that if i said that in 2015 i said that
1:32:11the problem is
1:32:12is with the witness original statement
1:32:14regarding what the new york state
1:32:16investigators are doing he doesn't have
1:32:18the knowledge to have said it so the
1:32:20problem is
1:32:21is just because a witness says during an
1:32:23interview
1:32:24and they talk about something that they
1:32:26have no personal knowledge of does not
1:32:28mean that they get to come into court
1:32:29and repeat that information okay so stop
1:32:32right there because i can't take too
1:32:33many more
1:32:34words this is the principle that
1:32:37discovery does not equal admissibility
1:32:40so he has masked this statement not in a
1:32:42court of law but in a
1:32:44in a room all right he's made the
1:32:46statement he's ventured an opinion
1:32:48that doesn't make it admissible what
1:32:50makes it admissible is first of all a
1:32:52foundation that he actually
1:32:54knows something about this right and
1:32:56many of these statements will but here
1:32:59he's made a prior statement shouldn't
1:33:01the defense before cross examining on
1:33:03this point
1:33:04have to make the foundational point are
1:33:06you aware
1:33:07of what was done by the by the
1:33:10uh by the westchester county
1:33:14or the state police so let's say we do
1:33:16that okay and he says i don't remember
1:33:19and you say to him well when you were
1:33:21previously interviewed by mr lewin
1:33:23you made the statement that it was
1:33:25thorough what did you base that on
1:33:28well i mean you're responsible for your
1:33:31words your honor
1:33:32i don't know objective they want to ask
1:33:34him very simply if you want to ask him
1:33:36why did you say that the investigation
1:33:38was thorough what did you know
1:33:41i have no problem with that you might
1:33:42want to ask him in advance that's a
1:33:44legitimate question
1:33:45as an offer of proof it's my
1:33:46understanding that he is going to say
1:33:48i don't know anything about the
1:33:49investigation that's the impression that
1:33:51i had
1:33:52based on no first-hand knowledge etc
1:33:54which is why we go back to
1:33:56the question lacks foundation all right
1:33:59so i had sustained the foundation that
1:34:01lacks foundation
1:34:02i still don't know that this is going to
1:34:05lead to anything
1:34:06relevant or that it is i i guess the
1:34:09the the point that satisfies relevance
1:34:12is
1:34:12the
1:34:16is this uh i idea that uh
1:34:19that he's commenting upon
1:34:23mr durst demeanor and his lack
1:34:26of concern or lack of concern which
1:34:29tends to suggest that he's guilty or
1:34:32knows that she's deceased if he's not
1:34:34really concerned about finding her so
1:34:36you want to
1:34:37contradict that you want to contradict
1:34:39that by by
1:34:41talking to his brother who
1:34:44was present at the time and observed
1:34:46these things
1:34:48so if you so if if i say this is
1:34:51relevant and allow you to question on
1:34:53this point i can i can only let you do
1:34:55that if you
1:34:56first lay a foundation that he actually
1:34:58does know something or that
1:35:00at some previous time he indicated that
1:35:02he knew something enough to
1:35:04make a statement about it right so
1:35:07so that's what i will do i'll sustain
1:35:09the objection and let you ask
1:35:11a different question in order to lay a
1:35:13foundation and pursue it if
1:35:15you uh if that's satisfied all right
1:35:18thank your honor
1:35:19you're welcome all right our
1:35:22people here that they give up
1:35:25okay okay so jurors
1:35:32get

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of CA v. Robert Durst Murder Trial Day 22 - Douglas Durst, Defendant's Brother Continues Part 3 by Law&Crime Network, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,623 words across 2,134 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.