joining me, the new york times reporter charles bagli and former public defender and author of indefensible: one lawyer s journey into the inferno of american justice, david feige. charles, you ve been reporting for the new york times on this case and the dursts for 15 years. this moment in jinx, which i want to say is incredibly well done series. you re in it. you feature fairly prominently in it. basically the way the cops know that susan berman is dead inside her apartment is they get this note, right, this anonymous note. or they know they find the body before that but this is a big clue. someone sends them a anonymous note. last night we see a letter that came from robert durst in which beverly is misspelled the same way, and it looks exactly like the handwriting. did you know that reveal was coming? no, you know, it was so shocking because it looked like
bail, because bail is what determines whether you get to fight your position while you have freedom or sit incarcerated until it winds its way through the system. it doesn t make that big a difference in homicide cases because there s never going to be a three-year offer, but in the vast majority of cases, and homicides are only a small fraction of what happens in the criminal justice system tiny. you sit in jail because you can t afford to pay your way to freedom and often confronted with a deal that goes like this, plead guilty, go out, maintain your innocence and stay in, and that i would say is perhaps the biggest place that money, literally cash money, affects the outcomes in criminal cases. there s also a fascinating way that resources and money play a role in the durst case. we find out the durst family hired a lawyer when his wife went missing lawyering up before anyone s named you as a suspect or puts cuffs on you, charles, right? absolutely. it s also clear here k
exonerations stem from false confessions because people aren t lawyered up, and from the very moment with bob durst that family made up, he was lawyered from the jump. charles. absolutely. i do want to say one thing. in the trial there is no question bob had three of the best lawyers perhaps in the country, defense lawyers. i mean, they were great. but i think also that they the prosecution stumbled because here you ve got this horrific event, somebody cutting up a human being, you know, very carefully with a bone saw, double wrapping it in plastic bags and tossing it. but the prosecution thought they had all the evidence in the world. they had a newspaper that was in one of the plastic bags that tied it back to the house. they had bob s optometrist appointment and tied it back and so they didn t think they had to explain motive, why this happened or anything. in the absence of an explanation of a good narrative from
i m glad you brought it up. frankly, one of the biggest places money has an impact is bail, because bail is what determines whether you get to fight your case from a position of freedom or if you sit incarcerated until it winds its way through the system. it doesn t make that big a difference in homicide cases because there s never going to be a three-year offer, but in the vast majority of cases, and homicides are only a small fraction tiny. of what happens in the criminal justice system. you sit in jail because you can t afford to pay your way to freedom and often confronted with a deal that goes like this, plead guilty, go out, maintain your innocence and go to trial, stay in. and that i would say is perhaps the biggest place that money, literally cash money, affects the outcomes in criminal cases. there s also a fascinating way that resources and money play a role in the durst case. in that we find out that the durst family hired a lawyer for their son, robert when his
right, and that s a key i mean, we see time and time again and often in cases where there s an exoneration that a lot of exonerations stem from false confessions because people aren t lawyered up, and from the very moment with bob durst that family made sure he was lawyered up from the jump. charles? absolutely. i do want to say one thing. in the trial there is no question bob had three of the best lawyers perhaps in the country, defense lawyers. i mean, they were great. but i think also that they the prosecution stumbled because here you ve got this horrific event, somebody cutting up a human being, you know, very carefully with a bow saw, double wrapping in plastic bags and tossing it. but the prosecution thought they had all the evidence in the world. they had a newspaper that was in one of the plastic bags that tied it back to the house. they had bob s optometrist appointment and tied it back and so they didn t think they had to explain motive, why this happened or anything