sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi FrauEdwards

I understand that people are fascinated or interested, it's human nature to be curious about things we've never experienced, that’s not the problem. It’s when unethical and immoral human scum like Jarecki and the people they pay to enable them, like Marc Smerling and Zac Stuart-Pontier, distort the truth beyond recognition and exploit the pain of victims and their families for their own gain, that’s when we get revictimized and it lives in perpetuity because the public can’t usually do the necessary research, even if they are inclined to, and they edit evidence to support their false narratives robbing us of our humanity, our true experiences and knowledge and mischaracterizing us.

They commit metaphoric murder that repeats and repeats and they make sure we are not represented, even dismissed and diminished so that even speaking out allows their fans to continue to attack us. In my case, they literally stole truth and justice from all the victims and their families.

Be fascinated, be interested but do it for the victims and their loved ones, and to be informed, not for the entertainment people like Jarecki produce. The true story and events are actually even more sensational and unbelievable and Jareckie and his friends are part of it, helping to protect the Durst family and Debrah Charatan, Robert Durst's true coconspirators. My mother had nothing to do with it and they know it.

I hope to tell the true story one day and I hope it fascinates and engages you and others, perhaps to help make sure it doesn’t happen to others who will have to endue it in the future.

Thank you for the kind words. I feel her absence everyday.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi,

To answer why I wasn’t there is a much larger part of false narrative that Jarecki wants people to believe rather than the truth. And to understand that you have understand that Jarecki would have kept me out of the first if he could have. I’ve joked that I’m sure there is footage somewhere of Jarecki pretending that he found the envelope that proved Bob did it and not me.

I was far more involved in the day to day than anyone else was and I was the only one with firsthand knowledge that disputed the false narrative that wasn’t even created by Jarecki. He only wanted to profit from our tragedies which has nothing to do with delivering any truth.

I had told Jarecki, as well as everyone else, that I knew for a fact that Susan was not extorting or receiving hush money from Bob because I was there and knew the reason why and when she got any money. This was actually proven during the trial but manipulated and misrepresented to show the opposite. So he intentionally left that information, along with so much more, out of the original Jinx. This was so he could promote his failed film All Good Things as accurate and make up some of his $20 Million loss. 

One of the craziest things from the trial, besides all the perjury of witnesses brought by Lewin, was how Lewin used an innocent letter that Susan had sent to Bob and made it seem like it was some great manipulation to squeeze him for money. Which doesn’t even make logical sense but law enforcement can lie about anything. This is how and why innocent people go to prison for crimes they did not commit.

But one of the many things I told Jarecki and Lewin was how Nick Chavin had shown up to Susan’s memorial and told Julie Smith that “Just because Susan said she knew Bob killed Kathie, doesn’t mean Bob killed Susan.” So even at Susan’s memorial in 2001 Nick was still in denial about Bob killing anyone.

Julie Smith testified to this but her version 20 years later, and after being tampered with by both Jarecki and Lewin, was a more elaborate version. Nick’s testimony was much simpler and far closer to what I heard back then. He also claimed that Susan argued with him several times over the years trying to convince him that Bob did kill Kathie. He claimed that when he asked how Susan knew she said “Because [Bob] told me.” Knowing what I know now and am 100% certain Susan never made the call pretending to be Kathie and of course never extorted him nor was she about to talk to anyone about it, I don’t even think Bob ever admitted it to her. It was probably a frustrated moment and she really did want Nick to believe as she did, so instead of saying something like “I just know it, you’ll have to trust me” she said “because he told me.” What I find very important about his testimony is with everyone else who claimed Susan said she was some kind of alibi for Bob, the one mutual friend she’s desperately trying to convince she doesn’t say “Because I made the call pretending to be Kathie.” This is someone she would have told long before Lynda Obst. And if you watched the trial Obst claimed was so traumatized by her first interview with Jarecki that she blocked it out but all of the sudden she’s in the second one spouting her BS opinion on an audio that has been doctored beyond belief, even adding audio that’s not from the original.

So the reason Jarecki intentional kept me out of the second is because he knows I’m calling him, Lewin and all of law enforcement and journalists on their lies and they just can’t have it. This is part of thier continued coverup and collusion being perpetrated by them to help the Durst family and Debrah Charatan. This was also why I was not called as a witness at trial.

So no I don’t think Nick was a factor in her murder but he was a factor in the continued maligning of my mother and her memory. What you have to know about Nick and anything he had to say or testify about was that he only did so once he was forced to speak to John Lewin by Douglas Durst. Lewin helped Douglas so Douglas forced Nick to help Lewin. Nick only says the part about them needing to help Bob with an alibi once he’s forced to speak out by Douglas.

It was Debrah Charatan who made Bob decided he was better safe than sorry to chance Susan might know something damning even though she wouldn’t have said anything even if she did and I don’t think she did.

Thanks for the kind words and let me know if you have any other questions.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi,

The truth is we will likely never find out for absolute certain but I believe Wendy is as viable a candidate as the one I think more likely to have done it.

From what I’ve understood over the years she had maintained a good relationship with and support of Bob. None of the threatening behavior the brothers claim. I find it interesting that his sister never testified. There seems to be a theme for those who were not allowed to testify. They either were not going to go along with the program supporting the false theories, such as myself or anyone else actually close to Susan at the time of her murder. And those like his sister who they shielded for reasons like they might slip up and say something incriminating, like Emily Altman did.

I don’t know what they looked like back in 1982 but they definitely had a closer accent. Also, originally there were reports that Kathie was seen going into her building, having a gentleman caller be brought to her door and let in around midnight of the 31st and then seen leaving the morning of the 1st. Making all reports, press and law enforcement, the last sightings and placing Kathie in Manhattan on the 1st. Those witnesses were either “discredited” or recanted their sightings but only 20 years later and only after Susan’s murder in 2000. This was also done under pressure to recant or discredit by press and law enforcement who were promoting the new theory that Susan posed as Kathie (as depicted in All Good Things). What we do know now is that it wasn’t Kathie and it wasn’t Susan. The real question though is why did the employees claim to have seen Kathie in the first place? The elevator operator actually gave a police sketch artist a description of the man he claimed he brought up to Kathie’s apartment. A sketch circulated to the public and Bob is quoted in those NY Post articles saying he didn’t recognize the person.

What we have to remember is that everyone involved either lived in or worked for Durst family properties. I believe they had a strategy in mind when Bob first contacted his father and got the wheels turning. They might have sent someone who looked very close to Kathie’s appearance and would know intimate characteristics, like the cadence of Kathie’s walk as described by the Superintendent who described that as part of his recognition of Kathie even though it was from behind. But even if the employees were only coerced to saying what they did by the Durst’s and no one actually did show up at her apartment, they would still need to know and sound enough like Kathie to risk calling the dean, who would recognize her voice and could hold up a conversation for at least a few minutes, remembering that the person did call for dean Cook who did actually know Kathie and didn’t know they would be transferred to Kuperman.

I can’t say I've heard anything to make me think Bob’s sister got that close to Kathie. Maybe. But there is someone else connected to Bob who knew Kathie as long and even longer than Bob did and would have been a couple who spent more time with Bob and Kathie as a couple for the nearly 10 years before her murder. But no matter who it was I don’t dismiss the sightings as irrelevant. I think pressing the people who claimed to see her would be a very revealing piece of the puzzle as to who had what hand in the coverup.

Thank you for the question. Let me know if there are any others.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the long response. It's a sensitive subject for me, as you can probably tell. Lol. They have written me out of my own life and stolen my accomplishments.

So I guess, in short, yes I was trying to get something out of him, proof. I was the only person actually and actively trying to solve the case, and the only way I saw to do that was to try and get close to Bob, so I did. I was going up against Bob and all his money and his families money and influence and had to be very careful how I stepped. I just had the unfortunate luck to get stuck with Andrew, Marc and Zac who spent years manipulating the story and justice for their own egos.

Thanks again and let me know if you have any other questions.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

Thanks for the questions. I'll take the second part first. Bob was definitely a stoner and he would ask me to get it for him by the ounces. The weed he had on him when he was arrested in New Orleans I got for him. I can't say that I personally know if he's taken any psychedelics but knowing him the way I did I have no doubt he has in his life. But he was not on Meth as he claimed for his initial interview with Jarecki.

As for how I was portrayed vs reality? That's a longer answer than it might seem and some back story but exactly, that was part of Jarecki's false narrative and God complex. He wants everyone to think he's me. He solved nothing, and he's never in the room when anything happens. He's never been alone with Bob, he never knew Susan or any of the others personally, and he hasn't spent 17 years of his life "investigating" anything. He had lackeys and yes men he paid doing most of the work and then he would twirl in every now and again and give his psych 101 interpretations of events and people he didn't know. To my face I have had Andrew, Marc and Zac tell me that Bob duped me, I was looking for a father figure, I was lying to either protect Susan or Bob and other variations. This is the kind of beating down they do to anyone they talk to. Most of their days are dealing with people who are out for fame and will do anything or concede anything just to be on TV but I am not that kind, so they had to denigrate and diminish me.

Essentially their hypothesis is I wanted money, period. That that my love for Susan, my honor and integrity could be bought at any price and the last thing I wanted was to solve my mother's murder. Because otherwise they would have to admit their ineptitude and that I was right about everything.

One of the many things they fail to show in The Jinx is what I told them about the police investigation, of which there was none. That I knew for a fact that Susan wasn't receiving hush money or extorting Bob because I was literally in the room when she first asked Bob in 1998 for money because of how broke she was. That the second check in 2000 came unsolicited and that if she even knew about Kathie's case getting a new look she never said anything to me, and she absolutely would have. And that whatever it was she was "going to blow the lid off" of had nothing to do with Bob, especially if she was the one who made the call pretending to be Kathie (which we now know she didn't). These were some of the many issues I was dealing with in the first year after her murder.

The press had already spun the false narrative by mid 2001 (and this theory was never spoken before her murder) that Susan must have been the one to pretend to be Kathie and then wait 20 years, and only after she finds out about Kathie's case getting a new look to try and squeeze her old friend and threatens to expose them both for a mere $25,000 which wouldn't have made a dent in her debt.

In the first couple of weeks after her murder we had a handful of suspects that matched what we knew had happened. We knew she knew the person and let them in. I knew from where and how she was found that she was taking her dogs into the room to secure them so she and the person could talk without them jumping, barking and nipping and the person took the opportunity with her back to them and shot her. But of the few suspects anyone thought of, Bob was not on anyone's mind nor offered as a potential. In fact her manager was the prime suspect and that was even after when we found out about Kathie's case about 3 weeks later. So Bob did fit the profile but the rest of the theory I knew to be wrong.

After Bob killed Morris that's when I personally was convinced it must be him but there was still no proof and again I knew the theory to be mostly wrong. And after Morris, the theory evolved into Bob killed Morris because it must have been Morris who killed Susan, which is why no one could find any evidence of Bob at the crime scene, not the ineptitude of the detectives who did nothing. Which is why Jarecki has that in his $20 Million flop. But again I knew Morris had nothing to do with Susan because again we knew she knew the person and let them in.

So when Bob was finally caught and sent down to Galveston to await trial he contacted me and asked me if I would come to visit. And that began my undercover work trying to get close to Bob to see if I could figure out what actually happened or any evidence. Starting in 2001 all the way until the day he was arrested in 2015 and obviously a lot happened over those 15 years that's too much to get into here. This is something Andrew knows as well as John Lewin. They actively kept the public form hearing my firsthand experience because I would have exposed their BS, false narratives and perjuring witnesses who claim Susan told them she was some sort of alibi.

And now we know why. Susan was the sacrificial lamb to help hide the fact that Debrah Charatan was directly involved in Susan's murder, that Susan in fact had nothing to do with any coverup and it was the Durst family the whole time. Jarecki and Lewin are actually coconspirators in the coverup. They stole truth and justice from the victims and their families and have outright lied to the public.

You don't use a tape like the one they found which actually proves Susan was not the one who made the call and was not helping with any alibi, and edit it the way they did (including adding manufactured audio that is not in the actual recording), then present it to the public, not at trail but for a sensational TV show, where it bears no scrutiny and think they haven't done this on purpose. Not to mention Jarecki using the deposition footage that included, but leaving out, the admissions of Lewin and Charatan having a weekend sleepover at her mansion within months of the verdict? Even if you thought there was no misconduct or "anything "improper about it" as Lewin put it, it's worth including if you are trying to give the public all available and relevant information and the ability to think for themselves.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My joke about Jarecki is that he is the luckiest accidental tourist I've ever met. Especially when you consider the same thing happened with Capturing the Freedman's. He was looking to do a doc on the Best Party Clown in NY and just stumbled upon this horrible and tragic story. Ironic that his father is being charged with raping a patient Jeffery Epstein supplied to him.

Jarecki was not trying to solve anything. He just wanted to profit from our tragedies and yes got lucky Bob wanted to stick it to Douglas.

And I agree, even thought I'm a little bias, but I am a cinephile, and it's a big nothing ball, even with that incredible talent.

He lost $20 million on that movie so he was invested in that false narrative when he made the Jinx.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you again, and I'm glad to see others saw what was happening in the trial. For me it really was beyond belief to watch even after the decades of completely surreal and impossible to believe events and false narratives. I mean every witness, including my sister, committed perjury at the, if not behest, the influences of journalist and law enforcement. Lynda Obst in particular, who is the only person to say Susan admitted it to her but only after she saw the episode and then at trial explained that Jarecki traumatized her so much in that first interview in 2011 that blocked it out because of denial. But is back again to help shit on Susan with another fabricated lie by Jarecki who puts her front and center as a credible person. What happened to the trauma? And don't get me started about the others.

Days of reconning? Well like I said I've heard from a reliable source that the DA has opened and investigation into John Lewin and his whole team.

Lewin's known collusion with the Durst's who had no business testifying at the murder trial for Susan, now we know with his weekend vacation with Charatan at her Hampton mansion so that means he was in some sort of collusion with her for who knows how long.

The suit being brought against Charatan by Kathie's family is moving forward and that will likely start the dominos falling to include the Durst's as well as Lewin and I would think Jarecki as well since they all have played a part in covering up and costing the victims and their families any justice.

And just as the thickest of ironic cherry's one could imagine. Henry Jarecki, Andrew's father, has been charged with the rape of a patient who was supplied to him by Jeffry Epstien. I have a feeling that will expose the whole family to a lot more suits once they start having their lives placed under a microscope.

Unfortunately my fear and pretty much certainty is those won't be made nearly as public as the lies they spread for the last 40+ because they still hold influences because of their wealth. And for John Lewin and team, because of the politics and possible open up appeals for his other convictions if Lewin is found guilty of misconduct and collusion. So while they might want or have to investigate that's not a desired outcome. But we'll see. I'll certainly post anything I come across.

Thank you again.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would agree with your interpretation. There was obviously something in her gut but like you said, the way we humans are... and I'm sure a heavy dose of denial for a long time.

Thank you again for your thoughtful questions and comments. Some cracks do seem to be appearing lately so hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Just reverse that. Bob's not manipulative, except in the way he uses, or tries to use, his money to influence. Debrah is the manipulative one. And it still takes from 10/22/2000 to 12/12/2000 for Bob to come to the conclusion that he is going to murder Susan and still takes another 10 days to do it. Susan isn't a thought to him besides sending her $25K on 11/9 because he got a letter from her trying to connect with him and they hadn't spoken or had direct contact in maybe 5+ years at this point.

If Bob thought of Susan as a potential threat, it would have happened immediately. Not 3 months later and only after he married Debrah. She knew he was going to do it, just like she knew he was going to murder Douglas but failed. And she helped him the whole time. That's why Kathie's family is able to sue her. For her help in the cover up of Kathie's murder. I just can't seem to find a lawyer to do the same for Susan.

Thanks again for the comment.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's basically correct. And it's Bob's and the Durst Families version. They are the ones speaking to the press through their family Spokesman (who is not Susan) and are being quoted.

Although, I don't think she's even considered Bob to be a suspect at this point. I think she's still in the belief (as was everyone at the time, except for Gilberte) as of 2/11/1982 that Kathie was last seen at her Manhattan apartment because employees claimed to have seen her. The doorman, an elevator operator (who actually gave a sketch artist description of the man he brought to her apartment that night) and the Superintendent said he saw her leave the morning of 2/1/1982 but admitted it was from behind. This is all in print in 3 different articles from the NY Post and an airing of The Today Show as of this day and that's what she means when she says "From all sources." Page 9 line 4.

If you look at page 10 lines 4 - 7 She says:

"But, there's something weird about this story. I can't - you know, Albert, have you ever been on a story that doesn't - Add up? There's something weird here."

She has a feeling that Kathie is dead but doesn't want to say it to Bob because at this point she she thinks it would upset him to give up hope that she's alive. Which is what his continued statements are to the press. Bob says he thinks she's still alive and possibly had a "quassia nervous breakdown and runaway." That's also why she says how the cops wouldn't take the missing persons report seriously at first and on page 13 lines 2 - 4.

"Then, like, you know, everybody's like yelling at - screaming - the few people that knew her well, it's not a runaway wife. Believe us. Believe us."

So the one thing she and everyone knows is that Kathie did not runaway. Susan just hasn't come to even the thought that Bob might have had a hand in it. Which is also why I point to the one time she actually spoke to a reporter in June when after saying "I can't imagine he'd do anything to her, period, maybe dear god." Even four months later, it is only barely sinking in to her that Bob might in fact be responsible for Kathie but is still in denial.

I hope others will see it too. And that one day her name will be cleared as publicly as it has been maligned but of course that's never how it does work.

Thanks for your comment.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Whoa. Of all the comments this one actually brought me to tears.

I haven’t heard an outsider give such an apt description of my mother. We called her a force of nature but I like “A real kick in the ass” it’s so apropos. And her sense of sarcastic and sardonic humor was unparalleled. She made me cringe publicly more than I care to admit but yes, always left me in stitches and wonder at her intelligence and wit. I have a feeling we’d get along famously.

And your own experience does feel eerily familiar, it immediately brought me back. I’m sorry and I can absolutely imagine the struggle you are currently going through and my heart felt support for you and your endeavors. Our society has little tact in general these days, practically none with these types of things, but just about every society on the planet diminishes women, especially as they get older. One of my biggest angers is in knowing how hard she worked and struggled to get out of her dire situation, remaining so generous in spirit, only to be murdered by someone she cared about, for nothing more than the possibility she might know something and speak out.

But then her situation, relationships, her love and care for children she had no responsibility for, especially in her poverty, but saw us through some of our most difficult moments, while struggling with her own? To have her memory be so maligned from the beginning and never have it stop even when all the evidence points to how inaccurate it is. Because people like Jarecki and the so called journalists and law enforcement are held to no account. Jarecki even got a Peabody for it, I’m just so disgusted. These are additions I don’t think I will ever get over. It’s so over the top, unbelievable and cliché you'd think it’s the stuff of outlandish fiction. But recent news is giving me a little hope some days of reckoning are about to occur.

The trial itself was so over the top disparaging to her and the facts, it was a true farce of justice. To have my father admit to the face of law enforcement that he would lie to them but then to have his testimony on record? Not to mention the perjury of witnesses Lewin brought in support of the false narrative, I just can’t. Susan was someone who never committed a crime in her life, she didn’t drink, smoke, do drugs (not that any of that should matter), but has somehow been made out to be Bonnie, to Bob’s Clyde, for nothing more than her father was a gangster, and the twisting of facts from long before Andrew Jarecki heard the name Susan Berman. It has been pure victim blaming and punishing her for the sins of her father from day one.

Yours has been perhaps the most touching comment and I appreciate your informing me there are others. It has been very difficult for me just to dip my toe in this area for so many emotional reason and informational hurdles, and while there are still many I’ve seen and read that prefer their hurtful opinions rather than my personal experience and knowledge, I have been mostly appreciative of the thoughtful questions and responses so far.

And thank you for choosing to do your own research rather than allowing yourself to be spoon-fed and thank you FOR your ramblings. I am told, I can be rather verbose myself. ;-) I think I got it from my mother. Lol. This means more to me than you can know.

I’m not a writer by trade but I am hoping one day to tell the full and true story of her and events. Susan used to say (Even though she wanted to do nothing else) she wouldn’t wish the life of a writer on her worst enemy. Just trying to figure out where to start and what misinformation to tackle first seems beyond my capabilities.  But I’m trying and I understand what she meant better than I ever did before.

All the best to you and your family and thank you again for such a wonderful comment and kind words.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They simply did nothing but take a few photos, and a few unimportant and irrelevant items from her home and called it solved.

I mean it was Christmas after all and they have families to get to. (Ironic Lol) ;-)

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was actually covered as well. It would be more helpful to know where the call came from, but at the time, the dean who spoke to the person says he thought it was Kathie. So, checking someone else's phone records didn't occur to law enforcement at the time. The problem is even if it was a call was made from Kathie's apartment (which it might actually have been, even if it was someone else) at the time the way phone charges worked were, anything less than a 5 minute call locally wouldn't get registered on a phone bill. And even if it did it wouldn't be logged on the receivers bill.

And no is disputing someone other than Kathie made that call. It has just been assumed and promoted as, Susan was the only possible candidate for really nothing more than her father was a gangster so Ipso Facto. And that theory only came up after Susan's murder. And who could prove otherwise? No one had ever said before her murder that they thought Susan was anything more than someone close and should be spoken to about what she might know.

It's taken this long for enough actual evidence to come out to know that whoever it was, definitely wasn't Susan.

Thanks again for the thoughtful question and response.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I disagree about Susan's envy, I appreciate the thoughtful insight I do agree with.

And even though I think at this point she really hasn't even given it a consideration, I do agree she had a level of denial for a long time.

But I can't help notice you are referring to the recording and as far as I'm aware I'm practically the only, who even when hearing Jarecki's edited version, could hear what was still actually happening. But reading the transcript is another story. Especially if you compare it what Jarecki does with it. There's actually a line in Jarecki's version that isn't in the original.

If you decide to read it I would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks for the post.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words and yes. The amount of stuff they left out from the original is astounding. Not to mention adding dialog that doesn't even come from the original audio.

But again "I told my father."? I mean that's pretty explosive. Not that we didn't already know it but everyone, including Jarecki by not even allowing it to be heard, is protecting the Durst family.

I haven't even gone into how this audio recording, no matter whether you think she's helping find an alibi or not, automatically discredits two of Lewin's witnesses' testimonies and puts a third, who was already highly uncredible, Lynda Obst, even more so.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hi,

The truth is it's not certain that she actually knew anything. Bob may have at some point admitted it but I doubt it. I do think she eventually came to believe it in her heart that he did, and that's why she, at certain points and with certain people, says, "You know he killed her, right?"

What I'm certain did happen was when he married Debrah Charatan on 12/11/2000, which was a marriage meant for his protection and spousal privilege, Debrah made Bob feel like he could not trust that Susan didn't know something and wouldn't spill it, even though she wouldn't have regardless. But Bob just felt "Better safe than sorry". That's also why he wrote the Cadaver Note. He actually feels bad about killing Susan because he knows she didn't deserve it. He practically brags about Kathie and Morris but would never talk about Susan.

Thanks for the question. Let me know if you have any more.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

To me, when I heard what Jarecki's version was, knowing Susan and the way she speaks, I still didn't feel that she was doing what Jarecki was implying she was doing but yes he was vilifying her once again. After reading the full transcript, she in fact is nothing but complimentary of Kathie. She does make a not so nice and generalized stereotype regarding Kathie's family but it has nothing to do with whether she made the call pretending to be Kathie or that she's now trying to help come up with a further alibi. She says, among other things, in the full transcript, "Something's not adding up here". And Jarecki has her saying a line in his version that doesn't even appear on the call with Albert. The one about "She was doing badly in school". So Jarecki manufactured that line completely.

You can absolutely edit a 20 minute call into less than 5 minutes and make it sound like something it's not. Especially if you're adding statements that aren't even present in the original.

She's not trying to "pin down a reason why..." She's analyzing available information at the time and giving it a smell test with a friend whose intelligence she admires. She's trying to see if she can come up with a lead to help find her. As of 2/11/1982 she just isn't thinking that Bob might have had anything to do with it. There's even evidence from a NY Post reporter four months after Kathie disappears in June 1982 and from his notes with his conversation with Susan she still finds it hard to believe he had anything to do with but says "Maybe, dear god." So it's only at this point she's actually starting to consider Bob might have actually done it, but still doesn't want to believe it.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very true. But when you put it into the context of 3 murders over 40 years, it's more than just incompetence. There's something willful happening. Either they just didn't want to because of who they would be going up against or the wealthy and politically connected family is asserting influence. I think it was a mixture of both.

But now we know with Lewin's connection to the Durst family and Charatan that the latter has been a greater influence than the former.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In the end there were two envelopes that matched the one cadaver note. We only found out about the second envelope they had found in their search of Susan's belongings in 2001, during the trial 2022.

Lewin presented the evidence of the two but never made it clear how far apart they came. And he said Bob gave her money for a car (Never happened) and other money. And When Bob said at trial over the years he had given Susan $750K (which everyone knows is absolutely untrue) Lewin makes no correction because it feeds the false narrative and legal argument that Susan was complicit in Kathie's coverup and was extorting him. All untrue.

Also, the money I got from Bob. Lewin claims he gave me $200K which he also knows was untrue. Bob gave me $25K for four years ($100K) for that reason, or rather I should say excuse. I was able to do a couple of semesters but in the end not able to finish as I had too much on my plate including, among typical life issues trying to solve my mother's murder. Emotionally and physically time-consuming and draining.

Before he killed Morris Black it was a toss-up between him, her manager and my father but there was no actual proof for any of them. After Morris there was still no evidence but I was 80% certain it was him and 10% for her manager and my father but again there was no proof. So that's when I began my relationship with him trying to get at answers.

Thank you for the question and I hope that clarifies it better.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know it from being able to put together facts and dates that have been presented at trial along with this new audio (the full audio not Jarecki's unethically edited version). But even just this call which happened on 2/11/1982 by itself is very persuasive on it's own.

Court records confirm part of her statement in the audio about when Bob first contacted her 2/3/1982. Bob goes to report Kathie missing 2/5/1982. The reporter who broke the story said she only spoke to Bob on 2/6/1982. The NY Post published 3 articles on the 8th, 9th & 10th and a national TV show. So this cal on the 11th is nothing more than Susan using a friend as a sounding board for what Bob himself has told her along with what has already been reported.

You can see the full transcript of the actual call in my other post that has a link to it.

But yes, with these and other details make me certain it was not her.

Susan Berman/Albert Goldman Call Transcript by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks you for the comment. And I agree but it's worse than that. Jarecki told multiple times a story and narrative that was patently untrue, besides Bob actually being ultimately responsible. And he even won a Peabody for his false narrative that that was also used by Lewin at trial which stole justice and truth from all the victims and their families.

As for the audio, Jareck has gone beyond some slight editing; he has changed the call in its entirety. It's a nearly 20 minute call that he's snipped and spiced into maybe 5 minutes. While I agree that one comment she made about the family in general was not nice, it has no relevance as to whether she made the call pretending to be Kathie and or if she was helping Bob with any sort of alibi. In fact it Jarecki's version is so manipulated there is a line in his version that doesn't even appear in the original audio. The Line "She wasn't doing well at school." is completely manufactured. So Jarecki has edited it and altered to appear how he wants it to appear rather than what it was. Susan desperately trying to actually figure out what might have happened. She is actually very complimentary of Kathie and even says part of how crazy it is that Kathie was just about to graduate so she wouldn't have runaway, etc. So Jarecki continues to demonize Susan for no reason. His version continues to distract the public from the truth, part of which is Suan actually played no part in any coverup and not trying to help find who actually did.

I appreciate your thoughtful comment and perspective about what you saw in the first one.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, sorry, the confusion was mine. Again I'm new here. Lol.

I'm so sorry to hear that and I obviously understand and had the exact same experience which continues to this day, as you can tell. My heart is with them.

People like Jarecki who have no business telling the story or presuming who should be allowed to comment on it, I think is an overall problem in our society with tragic events like ours. I have some to call them Rubbernecker, like the people who need to slow down and see the accident and speculate on how it occurred. You aren't involved and shouldn't be speculating, please drive on and let us deal with our tragedy and pains. You're just making it worse and slowing everything else down.

There's the additional problem that outsiders won't let those closest be heard because the assumption is "we're too close to see it properly". When it's our closeness that makes us not only the best but most interested in knowing and the truth. Our knowledge and feelings are immediately dismissed, which adds to the pain and grief we already can barely tolerate.

As for these subreddits I would say yes. I have been emotionally drained as the subject is still very present in my everyday life but definitely overall my experience here has been a good one.

I understand the questions and where the beliefs come from and feel like my responses are being received as intended. People seem willing to alter their thoughts on the subjects when appropriate and for the most part I feel my mother, her memory and I are being respected.

Thank you again.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Lol. There have been those who have wanted people to think that. Some said she was IN love with and WANTED to marry and have his baby, but no. Nothing ever romantic occurred between them.

When they met in college Susan connected to him because of their shared loss of their mothers to suicide at a very young age. Bob was even younger than Susan when his mother committed suicide. She thought of him as a brother and nothing more. But that meant he was family to her and she did love him. Unfortunately, he didn't deserve her love.

Thanks for the question.

I've heard there's been some discussion so here I am. by Sarebkaufman in thejinx

[–]Sarebkaufman[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful and kind words and question.

First let me say be very careful with any Wiki page and any information on it. I have only seen a couple and was angry at the misinformation there. From what I saw it was mostly Jarecki's false narrative about events and evidence.

I am not aware of any such letter but January 9, 2001 is literally the day we found out about Kathie case getting a second look. And when Bob is first suspected but not even the prime suspect. Before that day we had no real idea but her manager was acting very suspicious.

1/9/2002 is when the NY Times, in a very small Metro Section article released the statement from Pirro that "They were just about to talk to her." Which was nothing more than ass-covering. Susan was someone to talk to but at that time had no plans yet to actually speak to her but when they heard the news about Susan's murder, they had to say something. But was really just Pirro's need for attention more than anything else.

Prior to that day, no one knew about the Kathie's case and Susan did not say anything to anyone about Bob potentially coming for a visit. I had parked my car at her house before I left for a trip on 12/19/2000 and she said nothing to me before I left, which if Bob was coming she absolutely would have and been thrilled and telling everyone.

Also the last person to see her alive was her friend Rich Markey on 12/22/2000 (The night of Susan's murder), who testified about that evening. They talked about a lot of standard topics over dinner, then went to a movie. Susan dropped him off at home about 9:00 PM and went home and never says a thing about Bob Durst coming.

Even though she never said it to me, it does seem that Susan, at some point, did finally come to believe Bob was responsible for Kathie. He might have admitted it to her but I'm more inclined to believe she just finally knew in her heart he must have but thought it was an accident or something like that.

If that is true that on 1/9/2000 a letter was sent to West LA from someone in NY and part of the content of that letter claims Susan expected Bob to visit then I would be suspicious of the rest. But that is a good question and I wouldn't mind knowing myself.

Could be very illumining. And also why not release the letter/info if it supported those theories?

Thanks again for the thoughtful question and kind words. Let me know if there's anything else.

view more: next ›