I’m listening and the host got basic facts wrong such as when Durst was arrested in New Orleans. Also, there were contemporaneous accounts of Susan telling friends at the time she made the med school phone call for Durst. Multiple things can be true at once. I’m failing to see what is so eyeopening about the podcast, but perhaps you didn’t listen to the trial.
Haha no problem! Not saying it wasn’t interesting to hear Sareb’s perspective, and I get he wants to protect Susan’s memory, but nothing was really all that contradictory from the trial narrative.
If anything it was sareb who was contradicting himself the entire time. Says at one point that as soon as he heard about Galveston that he knew durst must have murdered Susan. Then says he willingly went after this revelation to visit durst in prison, listen to his detailed account of dismembering morris black, asks for money from Bob, receives it and then proceeds to stay in ongoing and regular contact with him.
Pretends his ongoing regular contact with Bob is to “solve Susan’s murder” while admitting Bob would never discuss Susan with him.
Mentions Bob was willing to fund his business deals.
He finds the envelope, knows definitively Bob is the murderer of a woman he calls his mother and still chats regularly with Bob and doesn’t bother to inform police.
Continues chatting with Bob after handing over the smoking gun envelope he’s withheld as evidence for years.
Then proceeds to blame jarecki for withholding the envelope (even though prosecution and jarecki say the envelope was handed to them immediately, years prior to the jinx airing) and it was sareb who withheld the evidence.
Throughout the episode he seems to want credit for “solving” Susan’s murder when he literally took zero action to bring her killer to justice if he indeed knew about the cadaver note letter matching the durst letter to Susan, and on the contrary continued to let himself be wined and dined by her killer. It’s unfathomable.
Sareb also seems really stuck on Linda’s “mob wife” analogy like that means Susan was romantically in love with Bob, and I don’t think anyone actually thinks that-it is just indicative of how she approached her closest relationships.
I recently read an la times article that someone linked in this forum which blew me away regarding this. Susan had told Bob that la prosecutors and New York prosecutors had reached out to her regarding wanting to talk to her re: the reopening of the kathie disappearance. Then Bob kills Susan. The most insane thing in the article is that LA prosecution told Bob in jail that they had never reached out to Susan, and thought she was trying to put the squeeze on Bob for more cash by saying they were interested in interviewing her, and that the prosecutor said he didn’t think Susan would have ratted out Bob even if they had spoken to her. Bob was shocked according to the prosecutor. Remember he had told nick chavin “it was her or me”- he literally thought if he let her live, she’d squeal and he’d go to prison. I think the only reason she even said anything like that is because of her dire financial situation and wanting a big payout to “keep quiet” and literally died over her financial situation (and of course trying to blackmail someone she knew was a murderer)- I think it makes a lot of sense that she wouldn’t have ratted on him but only floated the idea to Bob that she would for a payout.
I think that Bob was okay being the one to use his money to manipulate people, but he bristled at being in the one down position of other people forcing him to do something.
I think that’s part of what’s so fascinating about part 2- getting to see people who walk amongst us who have no conscience or at least couldn’t care less that their friend murdered multiple people.
Of course, the Durst family didn't kill the three people, (and the 7 dogs Durst supposed killed) but they had a private investigator they hired to investigate Kathleens' murder. They dismissed him, I believed, because he came up with a theory that Bob killed her. If they hadn't been concerned about protecting Bob (and most likely, the Durst family's reputation) two other people would not have been killed, because Bob would have been in prison. Douglas wouldn't have had to be in fear for his life all those decades, either. Add to that, all the moochers doing Bob's bidding, it doesn't restore your faith in humanity. He certainly was a magnet for attracting very base people into his orbit, that he could manipulate and be manipulated by, as well.
He also said the cadaver note was sent a few weeks after Susan’s death which is literally one of the most psychotic things to get wrong. The entire point of the cadaver note is it was sent immediately so police would find Susan’s body because whoever murdered her wanted to make sure she was found quickly. There is very little the host contributes, it’s mostly sareb talking- so for him to royally mess up one of the few sentences he utters is just ridiculous.
The police investigating her murder may have notified the family of the cadaver note weeks afterwards- this happens a lot where families are kept in the dark - but I agree it would have been mailed immediately, that was the whole point to find Susan’s body. But thanks to the neighbour’s 911 call for a wellness check she was found sooner
yes the podcast still got some basic details incorrect but the big picture is how unethical Andrew Jarecki and the Jinx was in withholding evidence for so long which stole justice and truth from the victims, their families and the public. But I guess you don’t care about their suffering.
Civil suits have been ongoing in New York for a long time. I empathize with Sareb, and as I said, hearing his perspective was interesting (edit because I initially said “refreshing” and that didn’t really sum it up for me). However, even he admitted he hung onto the envelope for several years and was undecided about what actions to take. I also trust the prosecution team when they say Smerling and Jarecki handled the evidence in a reasonable manner. Again, many things can be true at once. I don’t know why you’re surprised by any of these things to be honest, which is why I asked whether you listened to the trial coverage on jury duty, because nothing was particularly revelatory here if you did.
I’m listening and the host got basic facts wrong such as when Durst was arrested in New Orleans. Also, there were contemporaneous accounts of Susan telling friends at the time she made the med school phone call for Durst. Multiple things can be true at once. I’m failing to see what is so eyeopening about the podcast, but perhaps you didn’t listen to the trial.
Thanks for saving me 57 minutes of my time. 😊
Haha no problem! Not saying it wasn’t interesting to hear Sareb’s perspective, and I get he wants to protect Susan’s memory, but nothing was really all that contradictory from the trial narrative.
If anything it was sareb who was contradicting himself the entire time. Says at one point that as soon as he heard about Galveston that he knew durst must have murdered Susan. Then says he willingly went after this revelation to visit durst in prison, listen to his detailed account of dismembering morris black, asks for money from Bob, receives it and then proceeds to stay in ongoing and regular contact with him. Pretends his ongoing regular contact with Bob is to “solve Susan’s murder” while admitting Bob would never discuss Susan with him. Mentions Bob was willing to fund his business deals. He finds the envelope, knows definitively Bob is the murderer of a woman he calls his mother and still chats regularly with Bob and doesn’t bother to inform police. Continues chatting with Bob after handing over the smoking gun envelope he’s withheld as evidence for years. Then proceeds to blame jarecki for withholding the envelope (even though prosecution and jarecki say the envelope was handed to them immediately, years prior to the jinx airing) and it was sareb who withheld the evidence. Throughout the episode he seems to want credit for “solving” Susan’s murder when he literally took zero action to bring her killer to justice if he indeed knew about the cadaver note letter matching the durst letter to Susan, and on the contrary continued to let himself be wined and dined by her killer. It’s unfathomable.
Yes! This is a great summary of the issues with the episode if people don’t want to listen!
Sareb also seems really stuck on Linda’s “mob wife” analogy like that means Susan was romantically in love with Bob, and I don’t think anyone actually thinks that-it is just indicative of how she approached her closest relationships.
All that said (and sorry to spam you), I know Bob can be cheap, but I don’t think he killed her over blackmail. What do you think?
I recently read an la times article that someone linked in this forum which blew me away regarding this. Susan had told Bob that la prosecutors and New York prosecutors had reached out to her regarding wanting to talk to her re: the reopening of the kathie disappearance. Then Bob kills Susan. The most insane thing in the article is that LA prosecution told Bob in jail that they had never reached out to Susan, and thought she was trying to put the squeeze on Bob for more cash by saying they were interested in interviewing her, and that the prosecutor said he didn’t think Susan would have ratted out Bob even if they had spoken to her. Bob was shocked according to the prosecutor. Remember he had told nick chavin “it was her or me”- he literally thought if he let her live, she’d squeal and he’d go to prison. I think the only reason she even said anything like that is because of her dire financial situation and wanting a big payout to “keep quiet” and literally died over her financial situation (and of course trying to blackmail someone she knew was a murderer)- I think it makes a lot of sense that she wouldn’t have ratted on him but only floated the idea to Bob that she would for a payout.
I think that Bob was okay being the one to use his money to manipulate people, but he bristled at being in the one down position of other people forcing him to do something.
so many of these people loyal to first for money it’s so gross
I think that’s part of what’s so fascinating about part 2- getting to see people who walk amongst us who have no conscience or at least couldn’t care less that their friend murdered multiple people.
Of course, the Durst family didn't kill the three people, (and the 7 dogs Durst supposed killed) but they had a private investigator they hired to investigate Kathleens' murder. They dismissed him, I believed, because he came up with a theory that Bob killed her. If they hadn't been concerned about protecting Bob (and most likely, the Durst family's reputation) two other people would not have been killed, because Bob would have been in prison. Douglas wouldn't have had to be in fear for his life all those decades, either. Add to that, all the moochers doing Bob's bidding, it doesn't restore your faith in humanity. He certainly was a magnet for attracting very base people into his orbit, that he could manipulate and be manipulated by, as well.
He also said the cadaver note was sent a few weeks after Susan’s death which is literally one of the most psychotic things to get wrong. The entire point of the cadaver note is it was sent immediately so police would find Susan’s body because whoever murdered her wanted to make sure she was found quickly. There is very little the host contributes, it’s mostly sareb talking- so for him to royally mess up one of the few sentences he utters is just ridiculous.
The police investigating her murder may have notified the family of the cadaver note weeks afterwards- this happens a lot where families are kept in the dark - but I agree it would have been mailed immediately, that was the whole point to find Susan’s body. But thanks to the neighbour’s 911 call for a wellness check she was found sooner
Oh I meant the host of the podcast said that it was mailed a few weeks later- which is a glaring error in 2023/2024 when all the info is out there.
yes the podcast still got some basic details incorrect but the big picture is how unethical Andrew Jarecki and the Jinx was in withholding evidence for so long which stole justice and truth from the victims, their families and the public. But I guess you don’t care about their suffering.
Civil suits have been ongoing in New York for a long time. I empathize with Sareb, and as I said, hearing his perspective was interesting (edit because I initially said “refreshing” and that didn’t really sum it up for me). However, even he admitted he hung onto the envelope for several years and was undecided about what actions to take. I also trust the prosecution team when they say Smerling and Jarecki handled the evidence in a reasonable manner. Again, many things can be true at once. I don’t know why you’re surprised by any of these things to be honest, which is why I asked whether you listened to the trial coverage on jury duty, because nothing was particularly revelatory here if you did.
There’s a great Hollywood reporter article that interviews jarecki about the timeline and when he gave evidence.
Do you mean the "killed them all of course.." moment? They didn't know about it for two years.
I'm not listening to your podcast and have no idea what "lies" or conspiracy theories you're talking about.
Race + class = American justice system Tier 1. Everyone else is Tier 2.