Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Durst Murder Mystery. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired March 16, 2015 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks for joining us today, guys.

12:00:01

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: "LEGAL VIEW" with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Fifteen-year murder mystery breaks wide open. Great story, right? Oddball millionaire arrested after TV miniseries on his shady past turns into an amazing story. A man suspected or charged in three mysterious deaths appears to confess on an open mike he forgets he's wearing. And now you've got the story of the hour. All of those stories, all of them about Robert Durst, the 71-year-old heir to a New York real estate empire who was busted in New Orleans just ahead of what investigators believe was to be a long trip to Cuba under a fake name. Durst has been in the news since at least 1982 but you may know him from the HBO series that just wrapped up last night having potentially solving a murder that has baffled police for over a decade. Our coverage begins with my colleague Jean Casarez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT DURST (voice-over): What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An explosive comment by real estate heir Robert Durst caught on a live mike, ending HBO's six- part documentary series "The Jinx."

DURST: There it is. You're caught.

CASAREZ: What he means, unclear. But these are the words of a man who police say is a cold case murder suspect. Durst whispering to himself in a bathroom after his final interview for the special, which challenges the audience to decide whether the 71-year-old son of one of the most powerful real estate tycoons in New York City is responsible for the disappearance of his wife in 1982, the murder of a close friend in 2000, and a neighbor in 2001.

DURST: Well, I mean the writing looks similar.

CASAREZ: In the final episode, the filmmakers confront Durst after uncovering a letter written by the millionaire to long-time friend and crime novelist Susan Berman (ph). Berman was found shot dead inside her L.A. home over 14 years ago. The handwriting and misspelling of her address eerily similar to a letter written to police telling them where to find the body. Durst denying he wrote it.

DURST: What I see as a similarity is really the misspelling in the "Beverly." Other than that, the block letters are block letters.

CASAREZ: Police arresting the heir Saturday at a New Orleans hotel. Now held on a capital murder charge in Berman's death, citing additional evidence that has come to light in the past year. It is unclear what role the documentary played. The millionaire' attorney telling Fox News he was underwhelmed by the new developments revealed in the six-part series, including his ramblings in the bathroom.

DURST: He is right. (INAUDIBLE).

CHIP LEWIS, ATTORNEY FOR ROBERT DURST: L.A. County's got a case. We'll address those facts in the courtroom. But generally speaking I was underwhelmed.

CASAREZ: The millionaire has long maintained that he did not kill Berman or his wife, who has never been found.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: And Jean joins me live right now. She's fresh out of a court hearing on Robert Durst's extradition to Los Angeles. And just a quick disclaimer, Jean, I know that his attorneys may be speaking live at any moment, so we'll talk until they talk. But tell me about the - about the hearing.

CASAREZ: Well, first of all, Robert Durst has waived his fight for extradition, so he will be going to Los Angeles to face these charges. He was in his jailhouse oranges and all the other defendants that were in magistrate court were sitting in the courtroom pews. He was behind glass until he was called up before the judge.

Now before this hearing started, I could tell one of his attorneys was talking with him. He would lean back in his chair and then he began, when the attorney left, to close his eyes and he seemed to be asleep until everyone stood up and I think it just jarred him.

But when he appeared before the magistrate judge, he was asked so many questions. As you know, Ashleigh, to show that he freely and voluntarily was forfeiting this right to fight extradition and stay here in New Orleans. He responded to the judge with every question, yes, your honor, yes, your honor, and he had signed a waiver saying that he waived that right.

So right now Los Angeles authorities are being contacted. He remains here in New Orleans. He is very small, very short, very thin. And, by the way, his attorney addressed the court saying he needs his pain medication. He has medication but he needs his pain medication. He just had neurosurgery. We don't know how long ago that was. And either he needs his pain medication or he needs an evaluation from a doctor right here in New Orleans. Ashleigh.

12:05:00

BANFIELD: So, it is such a remarkable series of stories culminating in what's happening now. I don't know if this is the cart before the horse, Jean, but he has a terrible history with jumping bail. Do we have any idea whether he's going to get any offering as he heads to another state?

CASAREZ: Well, that was established well before this hearing. The prosecutor asked for and they received a no bail hold on him. So that is not even an option at this point as he remains in the jail here in New Orleans.

BANFIELD: And then what about family members? He's got this terrible history with his brother particularly. And I'm just curious if anybody is there other than his attorneys to support him.

CASAREZ: It didn't look like it. He kept gazing at the gallery as he was behind glass just looking and staring. And when he actually stood in the courtroom, he turned to the gallery and he had a smile on his face. You could say a smirk but it was a smile before he turned to the judge and began answering the questions. Family didn't see any, but he had many attorneys, Dick DeGuerin, from Houston, the very famous defense lawyer that mounted his defense in Galveston where he was acquitted of first degree murder charges. He led the defense today in that courtroom.

BANFIELD: Any idea, Jean, about the logistics, when they're actually going to load him up and ship him out to Los Angeles to face these murder accusations?

CASAREZ: No. Right before the hearing was adjourned, the prosecutor addressed the court in regard to what appeared to be some other minor infractions or warrants that potentially could be out. And so the defense said, well, he may be staying here longer than we think he is. We want to clarify that. But it appears as though that procedurally speaking they want to have everything in order before he's taken to Los Angeles.

BANFIELD: You know, one of the amazing parts of this story, Jean, from the moment he became known to law enforcement over a decade ago, well over a decade ago, in fact a couple of decades ago, he has - he has shocked them with the amount of money that he's been able to use in his defense. HBO reported that it was roughly $1.8 million that he spent on his defense in that 2003 acquittal on that horrible murder charge of his neighbor. Do we see the same thing playing out, a phalanx of lawyers that are lining up beside him in this proceeding as well?

CASAREZ: Well, today there were four attorneys that appeared to be with him.

BANFIELD: Wow. CASAREZ: And I believe two of them were from Houston. So they flew in

from Houston for this proceeding. And he was represented, let me tell you. Everyone else basically in that court was getting a public defender. He had four attorneys standing by his side.

BANFIELD: And then what about his wife? I'm not sure what marital status is of Mr. Durst now but he sure had one the last time he went into a murder trial. Has he got anybody who's now going to be communicating with him in those jailhouse phone calls which became so pivotal in the documentary about him?

CASAREZ: I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. Of course, they do monitor all jailhouse phone calls. No expectation of privacy. But a law enforcement source that was briefed on the investigation did tell CNN that Robert Durst arrived here on Tuesday, he drove here from Houston, checked into a downtown hotel very close to this courthouse under an assumed name, paid cash. And when he was arrested late Saturday night, had a fake driver's license on him, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Well, Jean, you and I both know that that is not the first time he has used an assumed name and has had a fake driver's license and has been strangely on the run, it seems. Unbelievable story.

Jean, if you could stand by and alert us when his attorneys plan to take to those live microphones. We don't want to miss a moment of what they have to say. Thank you. Jean Casarez live for us in new Orleans.

I think it's very important at this juncture to play for you a larger, more contextual chunk of that pivotal finale of the HBO documentary so that you can hear Durst's, I'm just going to say it, very damning comments in full context. I can't promise that they are coherent. It's tricky to make it out. But I can promise you the context. So at this point, in the documentary, he's undergone many hours of on camera interviews. Those interviewers were over. And Robert Durst was off camera but still had his microphone on. Listen to what he said to himself in the bathroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT DURST (voice-over): I am going to go use the restroom, which is right here. Or maybe this is the bathroom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that's the -

DURST: You're right. This is the bathroom. There it is. You're caught. You're right, of course, but you can't imagine. (INAUDIBLE). I don't know what's in the house. Oh, I want this. What a disaster. He was right. I was wrong. And the (INAUDIBLE). I'm having difficulty with the questions. What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course.

12:11:20

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: "Killed them all, of course." Really key words. The judge who presided over Robert Durst's acquittal in that killing of his neighbor in Texas in 2001 was a guest on "New Day" this morning. Durst admitted that he shot and then dismembered that neighbor, Morris Black, seen here in the middle of the top row of this timeline. But Durst claimed that it was self-defense. Even though he chopped the body up and threw it into Galveston Bay. The jurors bought his story and they acquitted him of murder. The judge says even then Durst had a thing about talking into microphones.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN CRISS, JUDGE FROM 2003 DURST MURDER TRIAL: In our trial, he had been recorded on the phone talking to his wife and friends making a lot of admissions and the state never used that. But he was aware that he had been recorded saying things that could implicate him in the murder that we were trying. Earlier in those interviews, in a previous interview for that very program, there was a break where he was caught practicing his testimony. And so he realized - he knew that he was - he had a mike on. This is a third time he's made that mistake. That's amazing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: It is amazing. And she is right. Check out this very telling exert from part four of the HBO special "The Jinx." They had taken a break in shooting when all of a sudden Mr. Durst begins mouthing to himself the answers that he had just given on tape and was planning to give next on tape, except he wasn't just mouthing to himself. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURST: I did not knowing (INAUDIBLE) intentionally (INAUDIBLE) did made mistakes.

So I told -

BOB'S LAWYER: They could just hear every word you said.

DURST: What?

BOB'S LAWYER: When you were talking to yourself. Your mike is hot, so we can't really talk.

DURST: Oh, oh, oh, I was reviewing -

BOB'S LAWYER: Your mike picks everything up.

DURST: I hear what you're saying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: "I hear what you're saying." That's the story of the day, Mr. Durst, we are hearing what you're saying. He clearly muttered the words "killed them all" into the microphone not realizing that microphone was still on while he was in the bathroom, but this lawyer insists that is not a confession. And a jury may never hear it. That's going to be a big fight. The legal view on the restroom recording coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

12:17:16

BANFIELD: Still with the Robert Durst saga. A 33-year epic that features three mysterious deaths, one of which has now earned Durst a murder charge. Another one he beat the rap on it. I want to bring back my colleague Jean Casarez, who is outside the courthouse in New Orleans. I'm also joined by my lawyers, CNN legal analyst and former New York prosecutor Paul Callan, defense attorney and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

First to you, Paul Callan. There is something called a reasonable expectation of privacy. We all enjoy it in bathrooms and change rooms, et cetera. Does that count when you wear a microphone voluntarily and just forget to turn it off?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nope, it doesn't -- there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in criminal law. That's a concept that has to do with civil law suing for money damages. In criminal law, the police can't wire somebody up. They have to give you Miranda warnings if they're going to take a statement from you. However, if a civilian is tape recording you, as was the case here with HBO, that's admissible in court if it's relevant to the crime committed. So I don't think expectation of privacy is going to keep this out of court.

BANFIELD: A 71-year-old man muttering to himself in the bathroom. I can't tell you how many times I have said, oh, I could have just killed him for that. I don't mean it.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Right. Well, before we get to we don't mean it, let's get to the issue of whether it's actually going to be - see the light of day in a courtroom. I think they're -

BANFIELD: Oh, you think differently?

JACKSON: I think differently.

BANFIELD: Really?

JACKSON: I think there are a number of reasons. First of all, you have to look at chain of custody issue. Where did the tape come from, is it authentic and where the tape's been. Assuming you get over the chain of custody issues, I do think the issue will be, was there reasonable expectation of privacy. If you look at the context of which this was given, it's in a bathroom. Certainly when you're in a bathroom, when you're wearing a microphone, the issue is, listen, I didn't anticipate that that would occur. The second issue -

CALLAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're wearing a - you're wearing a microphone in a public bathroom and you have an expectation of privacy?

JACKSON: The second issue - no, no, a private - a private -- time-out, private bathroom that is in this studio, number one. Number two, the issue is whether there was state action. What do I mean by that? There's going to be the argument advanced by attorneys that the media in this instance was working as an agent of the state. How coincidental that his arrest coincides with the last episode of an HBO documentary on his life.

BANFIELD: That he'd been working - they'd been working with these documentary producers for some time.

JACKSON: Far from admissible in a court of law at this point, I believe.

BANFIELD: Interesting. All right, so let's move on from say that piece of evidence because one of the things that Chip Lewis, Mr. Durst's attorney, has said about all of this is that it's underwhelming, that this evidence is underwhelming. This is not the only evidence, this recording. There is a letter that Ms. Berman, the victim in this case, that her son has discovered. And it happens to be the exact look alike of the printing on a letter that was mysteriously sent to the police to alert them to the location of Ms. Berman's body.

JACKSON: Right.

12:20:07

BANFIELD: Isn't that really even more troubling than this recording? Look at these - look at these letters.

CALLAN: Well, you know, anybody who watches the HBO documentary, whenever you see these defense lawyers talking, they all look nervous and like they don't believe what he's saying.

BANFIELD: He even spells "Beverly" the wrong way twice. You can look at this, "Beverly" spelled the wrong way in both of those -- this is the letter that he admits he sent to Susan when they were friendly. The other letter that you're going to see up there is the anonymous letter to the Beverly Hills Police.

JACKSON: I am underwhelmed. It says -

BANFIELD: I am not underwhelmed by this, guys.

CALLAN: Well, just - just so people understand what this - what these letters are about. The first letter is called the cadaver letter. This letter shows up at the police department in Los Angeles saying, you better go, there's a cadaver, those are the words in the letter, at this location. And that has that block hand writing with Beverly Hills misspelled. The HBO --

BANFIELD: What's - what's such a big deal about the word "cadaver."

CALLAN: Well - well, cadaver is a big deal because his first wife was a medical student and she used the use the word cadaver all the time. I think most ordinary people call a dead body a dead body, not a cadaver.

BANFIELD: I think you're reaching. JACKSON: If you're relying -

CALLAN: So - but I thought -

BANFIELD: I think you're reaching, council, and I think people use bodies, cadavers. He's an educated man.

CALLAN: But it's the -- it's the handwriting that really gets it. He - when he's interviewed by the HBO reporter, says that - he himself says, Durst says, it looks like my handwriting.

JACKSON: If the prosecution is relying upon this letter to insure conviction, I think they have significant problems and here's why. The first - first of all, when this was evaluated, there was a letter initially that was evaluated and it was determined that it was inconclusive. That's number one. Number two, if you compare the two together on the HBO documentary, they say, it's very significant and it rolls into one person. You're goings to get an expert the other said has that says they're vastly different. If you're relying upon this, you have a problem.

BANFIELD: Battles (ph) -

JACKSON: If you're relying upon a confession that he says in a bathroom, you have a problem.

CALLAN: How about this. The guy -

BANFIELD: Battle of the (INAUDIBLE). But let me get to you -

CALLAN: The guy - how about this, the guy who wrote it said it's my handwriting.

BANFIELD: It looks like - it looks like, but he also said it looks like block handwriting. I'm going to give the guy his due here.

But, Jean Casarez, you're the only person in this conversation who actually was face to face with Mr. Durst today in that courtroom. Did they talk a lick about any evidence at all or was this just - just matter of fact, you know, boilerplate material to get him out of the state you're in and get him to the state where they want to get at him with some really hard goods?

CASAREZ: This was all constitutional. It was constitutional. It was procedural. It was to make sure that freely and voluntarily he wanted to waive extradition and go back to Los Angeles. But watching him in person, he's a very small man, extremely thin man, kept gazing at the gallery. He's behind glass. All of the other defendants in magistrate court are in court. He's behind glass just gazing. And when he stepped out to face the judge, he first looked at the gallery for a while and smiled a big smile. But it was all procedural to make way for facing those charges in Los Angeles.

BANFIELD: All right, I want to bring you guys back in on something that Jean reported a little bit earlier. Jean, you said about the medication. They talked about the medication in court. And that makes me wonder if medication is going to take center stage in whatever kind of litigation we may see in California. These are the ramblings of a man on medication, maybe sarcastic, maybe just ramblings.

JACKSON: Presuming if you're referring to the actual audio, when he said, oh, I did it. What have I done? Presuming that even becomes admissible, but the police have a larger problem, and that's putting him at the scene of the crime. Yes, Ashleigh, he said it (ph), he was in California. But putting him in Beverly Hills has never been determined. So I would hope that the prosecution has something other than a letter, which can be argued -

BANFIELD: OK.

JACKSON: And a confession, supposedly, to bring justice in this case.

BANFIELD: In this TV show today, this guy looks terrible because we have brought in all of these prior bad acts. We have brought in all of these pattern-like behaviors. He was up on a murder charge down in Galveston, Texas. He beat the rap but he admitted to cutting this man up into 10 pieces and tossing him into neatly baggage pieces into Galveston Bay. That's ugly, ugly stuff.

Then there's the ugliness that his friends say with his former wife who mysteriously disappeared in '82. She said she was abused. He didn't call the police for three days. He was tossing out her personal effects while she was still missing. Is a court going to hear any of that stuff, Paul?

CALLAN: It will be very hard to get that into evidence because you have to show that the pattern is the same in a series of murders in order to admit evidence of prior murders. And we have to explain that the Berman killing, she's shot in the back of the head execution style, whereas the person in Galveston, Texas, was ultimately cut up into small pieces. It was a self-defense claim. And his first wife never turned up. So this is -- it's hard to prove a pattern here.

BANFIELD: Never had a body.

JACKSON: And even if you show a pattern, if it's overly prejudicial, still it could be thrown out. So I'm not confident that this is coming in and seeing the light of day at all.

BANFIELD: All right, I'm putting you guys at equal right there. Thank you both. This is just such a fascinating -

12:25:00

JACKSON: Equal with Callan? Wow.

BANFIELD: It is (INAUDIBLE).

JACKSON: That's a (INAUDIBLE).

BANFIELD: And this guy's a millionaire.

CALLAN: You follow up on this, OK? I want to see it (INAUDIBLE) if Durst goes down on this one, all right? We'll see.

BANFIELD: It ain't over. It ain't over.

Joey, Paul, Jean, thank you all. Appreciate all of that.

I just want to make a mention, though, as well, that I'm sure that you heard in the prior shows to this one that Mr. Durst's attorney Chip Lewis was scheduled to be on the program. He was the one who said he was underwhelmed by this confession, wants to see if there is more to the new evidence once he gets to discovery in California in that case. He was scheduled to be live at this moment actually on CNN but he has had to reschedule. He has said he will join us live right here on LEGAL VIEW tomorrow. And guess what? I have all of these questions ready for him. I cannot wait.

Our other big story on LEGAL VIEW today, jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial taking a field trip and it is a bizarre field trip. They go along with the alleged bomber, Tsarnaev himself on the trip, and they get to ride on a forklift, a forklift, all in an effort to see inside that boat. Can you imagine what it was that they saw from that perspective?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

12:29:41

BANFIELD: A stunning turn in the Boston Marathon bombing trial. There was a field trip this morning at an undisclosed location in south Boston. And the field trip was for the jury. They ended up in a warehouse like facility lifted by a forklift two by two with an FBI agent escorting them. All of this so that they could get a peek inside that boat that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding in during the now infamous manhunt and shootout in Watertown. Reporters noted there were more than 100 bullets riddling that boat. The evidence