Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Surprise Ending to Bizarre Murder Trial of Robert Durst

Aired November 12, 2003 - 07:36   ET

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

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


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to Texas and a surprise ending to the bizarre murder trial of real estate heir Robert Durst. The defendant admitting killing his neighbor, cutting him up, dumping the body into Galveston Bay. But the jury didn't see it all in black and white. In fact, they found just enough gray in the prosecution's case to find Durst not guilty.
Glenda Brents was an alternate juror. She disagrees with the decision and earlier this morning I asked her for her reaction to the verdict.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GLENDA BRENTS, ALTERNATE JUROR IN DURST TRIAL: I have been in shock. I still cannot believe that it was not guilty.

O'BRIEN: Some of the jurors who were interviewed after the verdict said that they actually discounted any of Durst's testimony because they found it so unbelievable, that they really focused on was it an intentional shooting or was it an accident.

How come that wasn't your focus?

BRENTS: This is the guy that can tell the story. He's the only man alive that can actually tell us what happened. And during his testimony, it was really clear to me that he was lying most of the time. If you're going to take the testimony of the man that was there and totally discount it and not believe it, to me that was the biggest part of the trial. That had to do with the most of what the evidence was showing. And if he's not telling the truth, then that points to guilty to me.

O'BRIEN: Other jurors said that the prosecution sort of forwarded different theories. Theory A, or, wait, maybe it was Theory B, or, wait, maybe it was Theory C, and they felt that that actually chipped away at the prosecution's case.

Would you agree with that?

BRENTS: I did not agree. The prosecution is limited as to what they can say or what they can ask a witness. Their only opportunity to have speculation or to give their point of view on what they feel happened is in the closing arguments. And that's when they presented different aspects of what they felt might have happened, that cull, you know, that went with the evidence that was provided.

O'BRIEN: What, in your mind, was the most damaging piece of evidence? Was it the dismemberment of the body?

BRENTS: No. To me, I looked at the whole, the whole story, the, what Durst did prior to the -- then the incident that occurred from there. I mean, you know, the story of he was in his apartment and he instantly thought he had the gun. He didn't even ask him did he have the gun. He started yelling at him where's the gun?

And then from there he, you know, after the shooting of Morris Black, then the dismemberment, I mean when you look at -- and then the cover-up of the evidence, then, you know, he says that he grabbed the gun. But then he told, later on his testimony, that he didn't wipe any evidence off of the gun. If he had actually grabbed the gun, there should have been some fingerprints on the gun.

O'BRIEN: You have said that you're utterly shocked. Can you sort of even believe that you sat through the same evidence as your fellow jurors, who have voted to acquit?

BRENTS: No. It just baffles my mind. I don't understand how they could have sat through the three days of testimony of Robert Durst and made any sense of what he said. And then to also listen to everything that he did afterwards, the covering up, the tampering with evidence, then, you know, jumping bail and then trying to live as Morris Black and then also the other five or six aliases that Durst used on a regular basis. It just, it makes absolutely no sense.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: That was Glenda Brents. She was an alternate juror on the Durst case.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired November 12, 2003 - 07:36   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to Texas and a surprise ending to the bizarre murder trial of real estate heir Robert Durst. The defendant admitting killing his neighbor, cutting him up, dumping the body into Galveston Bay. But the jury didn't see it all in black and white. In fact, they found just enough gray in the prosecution's case to find Durst not guilty.
Glenda Brents was an alternate juror. She disagrees with the decision and earlier this morning I asked her for her reaction to the verdict.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GLENDA BRENTS, ALTERNATE JUROR IN DURST TRIAL: I have been in shock. I still cannot believe that it was not guilty.

O'BRIEN: Some of the jurors who were interviewed after the verdict said that they actually discounted any of Durst's testimony because they found it so unbelievable, that they really focused on was it an intentional shooting or was it an accident.

How come that wasn't your focus?

BRENTS: This is the guy that can tell the story. He's the only man alive that can actually tell us what happened. And during his testimony, it was really clear to me that he was lying most of the time. If you're going to take the testimony of the man that was there and totally discount it and not believe it, to me that was the biggest part of the trial. That had to do with the most of what the evidence was showing. And if he's not telling the truth, then that points to guilty to me.

O'BRIEN: Other jurors said that the prosecution sort of forwarded different theories. Theory A, or, wait, maybe it was Theory B, or, wait, maybe it was Theory C, and they felt that that actually chipped away at the prosecution's case.

Would you agree with that?

BRENTS: I did not agree. The prosecution is limited as to what they can say or what they can ask a witness. Their only opportunity to have speculation or to give their point of view on what they feel happened is in the closing arguments. And that's when they presented different aspects of what they felt might have happened, that cull, you know, that went with the evidence that was provided.

O'BRIEN: What, in your mind, was the most damaging piece of evidence? Was it the dismemberment of the body?

BRENTS: No. To me, I looked at the whole, the whole story, the, what Durst did prior to the -- then the incident that occurred from there. I mean, you know, the story of he was in his apartment and he instantly thought he had the gun. He didn't even ask him did he have the gun. He started yelling at him where's the gun?

And then from there he, you know, after the shooting of Morris Black, then the dismemberment, I mean when you look at -- and then the cover-up of the evidence, then, you know, he says that he grabbed the gun. But then he told, later on his testimony, that he didn't wipe any evidence off of the gun. If he had actually grabbed the gun, there should have been some fingerprints on the gun.

O'BRIEN: You have said that you're utterly shocked. Can you sort of even believe that you sat through the same evidence as your fellow jurors, who have voted to acquit?

BRENTS: No. It just baffles my mind. I don't understand how they could have sat through the three days of testimony of Robert Durst and made any sense of what he said. And then to also listen to everything that he did afterwards, the covering up, the tampering with evidence, then, you know, jumping bail and then trying to live as Morris Black and then also the other five or six aliases that Durst used on a regular basis. It just, it makes absolutely no sense.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN: That was Glenda Brents. She was an alternate juror on the Durst case.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com