tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 17, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
that it will start tomorrow night with all of the jockeying, coalition. tune into hardball tomorrow and we'll have the race in israel. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. the stocking finale to "the jinx." >> he is very frank about the things he is frank about. and the arrest of robert durst. >> as the jinx fillmakers cancel all interviews, the judge who presided other his last murder trial joins us. then, criticisms of conservatives on ferguson from conservatives. plus a new ad on the eve of the israeli election. a new theroy of bracketology.
>> don't you want to celebrate ireland's big contributions. good evening from new york. moments ago, the los angeles county district tour announced that robert durst, heir to one of new york's biggest families is charged with three murders. he is currently being held in louisiana without bail awaiting extradition to los angeles. prosecutors say they have not decided whether or not to pursue that option. he was arrested the day before a stunning finale of "the jinx."
we were supposed to speak with the filmmakers tonight, but they canted in case they were called as witnesses in the case. according to authorities, durst was in possession of a .38 revolver and was checked into a hotel under a fake name. susan berman was found dead in her home on christmas eve, a single gunshot wound to the head. durst was a suspect in her killing. now they say they have new evidence linking her to her murder. prosecutors have been working with the l.a.p.d. on the cold case murder. his extradition, his prosecutors work on other charges, but they say they're eager to start another trial in california.
>> let me just say that we came here to waive jurisdiction, go back to california and get it on. bob durst did not kill susan berman. we're ready to go to california and have a trial. >> this extraordinary turn of events looks to be categorized in the documentary "the jinx." >> he is very frank about the things she very frank about. things that he says that maybe turn out not to be true, but he is disarmingly honest about a lot of things that you or i would never consider to be things that we would give away if we could imagine being in his situation. >> last night, that series that was years in the making, came to a stunning conclusion as a micro
he admitted to shooting him, dismemberering his body and dumping the pieces into the bay. his legal team argued it was in self defense. the jury agreed and he was acquitted. the reason he was in galveston in the first place. in connection with that case, investigators sought to speak to durst's close friend susan berman. before they could speak with her, she was found dead in her home, shot in the head. an anonymous letter, believed to have been mailed the day she was killed was sent to the beverly hills police linking a cadaver to her death. filmmakers came into possession of another handwritten letter
acceptability from robert durst to susan berman before her death. they noticed the writing looked very similar to the letter alerts police to her body. the filmmakers questioned durst about the two letters. >> the writing looking similar and the spelling is the same so i can see the conclusion. but whether the writing, whether you can conclude they are from the same person -- >> and i think, this is a comparison of the two, right? which is did you write the cadaver note. >> can you tell me which one you didn't write?
>> no. >> in the documentary, it appears it was that line of questioning that led durst to mumble to himself that he killed them all the special circumstances were murder of witness, lying in wait, and gun use allegations for the death of susan berman. our go-to for legal guidance, david, is joining us. first of all, as an experienced criminal lawyer, what was going through your head when you saw that tape of him in the bathroom having this conversation with himself that sounds massively incriminating. >> it was shocking, i have to tell you. my reaction when he was confronted with the letters is not oh my god, he is clearly guilty. he is so calm and so deliberate.
i came out of that thinking wait, this is the revelation, this big confrontation, and i didn't know the bathroom mumblings were coming and the very beginning just nailed it for me. your caught. >> what do we make of this legally. we all heard this. i think it is easy given the context of this guy. if you look at it and you're sitting in a jury box talking about reasonable doubt. you have suspicions. is that going to make it into court? is that an add -- admissible piece of evidence? will it come in? yes. should it come in? probably yes. and what i would say is the difference between the probably and the definitely is the politics of this prosecution. >> what do you mean by that. what is the difference between will it come in and should it come in.
why is it not 100% solid. >> it is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter that makes it hearsay. the question is whether it falls under a hearsay exemption. in california it pretty clearly does. this is pretty much an admission. under the hearsay exemption it is almost certainly going to come in. then there are constitutional questions. three relevant amendments, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth. there is a possible question about whether it was search and seizure. does he have a reasonable expectation of privacy. they will say it's the bathroom, how could he have known? but he was micked, he knew he was, i would think they have a ironclad.
it is not really self-incrimination unless he argues that he was acting as an agent of the police, and that will be a tough one, right? >> this is a key point and it is something that we will talk about in a little bit. when he started to talk to law enforcement, when it gets in, will have to deal with whether or not law enforcement will get to a time line that we will discuss in a little bit. stay there, david, thank you. >> in 2001, robert durst was arrested and charged with the murder of morris black. he admitted to chopping up his body, dumping them in galveston bay. they argued that durst was the victim of an angry neighbor that confronted him with a gun. the jury bought that defense and
after five days of deliberations durst was acquitted of murder. >> i understand you have a verdict? >> yes, your honor. >> will you hand it to the bailiff? will the defendant please rise. for the verdict of the jury is such, the jury finds the defendant, robert durst, not guilty. >> did they say not? are you sure? joining me now is the judge that red that verdict. retired texas district court judge mrs. chris. your reaction to what that happened in the last 24 or 48 hours?
>> you always have to expect the unexpected with robert durst and the things going on in his life. every time you think it is as shocking as it could being with something else happens that lets you know this case is so far from being over. >> you sat in that courtroom, and that trial is taken by many as a lesson in the ways that someone with ample resources can get something out of a justice system that someone without resources could. is that fair when you look at the defense of a man with millions of dollars who admits to dismembering his neighbor and walks out a free man. >> he can certainly afford the best lawyers in the state, if not the country, and they did their job, no question. that is not why he won his trial in my opinion. he won that trial because the state didn't do their job.
they came to court unprepared. they were -- they had not thought in advance of what questions they would ask. they challenged nothing that the defense did. the evidence they didn't present, and in that situation the lawyer, the guy with the prepared lawyer will win. it wasn't just having those -- that lawyer that got him out of this. >> you have to make rulings on admissibility all of the time. evidentiary laws are different in california from texas, but the constitutional issues are the same. what is your sense of the admissibility of that stunning piece of tape that we heard last night? >> i agree with some of the things that your expert said already about the hearsay exceptions, but there is also another exception called excited utterance. another reason would be to put it in that if he was so startled, thinking about this question.
was this going involuntarily made? yes, he contacted them knowing what the subject matter of the interview was. he came to them after many, many, many discussions. he voluntarily let himself be micked up, and it's not the first time knowing that mic is still on when the interview stops. so it will be real hard for him to say he was tricked or coerced or that he had an expectation of privacy, or that this was taken in any way knowingly or voluntarily. there is not going to be any case law on whether the confession of someone that goes into a television interview voluntarily and admits to being a serial killer gets admitted. as usual there is no precedent for anything that happens in this case. the time line of events in his life as shown in "the jinx"
is raising a lot of questions tonight. we used to have so many empty rolls! mom! that's why we switched to charmin ultra mega roll. charmin ultra mega roll is 75% more absorbent so you can use less with every go. plus it even lasts longer than the leading thousand sheet brand. charmin ultra mega roll. woman: for soft beautiful feet i have a professional secret: amopé and its premium foot care line. the new amopé pedi perfect foot file gives you soft beautiful feet effortlessly. its microlumina rotating head buffs away hard skin even on those hard-to-reach spots. it's amazing. you can see it and feel it. my new must-have for soft, beautiful feet. amopé pedi perfect.
you are a documentarian, but this is an authorized biography, what is this? >> it was clear that it would not be bob's story. it would not be dinner theater with bob durst. it would be unique in that bob durst would talk to us for the first time ever. but at the same time he knows the kind of deep dive that we do. the things that we have worked on. we are sort of obsessional about our research. so if you want today do a pop piece about yourself, you're not going to call me you call someone else. i know that he was prepared for the kind of work that we do. >> that is part of my interview with the director of "the jinx." after participating in the series, robert durst was
they abruptly canceled on this appearance and other media outlets as well giving that we're likely to be called as witnesses in any case that law enforcement may decide to bring against robert durst, it is inappropriate to comment. they spoke to several outlets about the case, and the timeline of events surrounding his arrest in new orleans on saturday. a top official telling the l.a. times that the arrest was not tied with the series finale of "the jinx." abc news was told he has been working with law enforcement for years. >> was there any kinds of deals surrounding the tiling of the arrest. >> we don't have that kind of power, we're not in charge of the arrest timing, and i was very nervous about it. i was on the phone with our law
enforcement contact two nights before saying i'm uncomfortable. i have security, my family is uncomfortable. and i feel this arrest should be made, but i understand you need to do what you need to do but tell me where we are and i didn't get any color on it. >> as for the time line behind the making of "the jinx" that was also discussed at length. they found at apparent bathroom confession on tape. >> he got up and say goodbye and we thought that was the end, but his microphone kept recording, we always leave it on him, he knows that, and he went to the bathroom while it was recording and months later we had an editor listening to material we had left behind. we'll go back and finish the series and we discovered a shocking piece of audio. >> "new york times" said two years, you said months. >> it was many months since we sat down with him.
we have the kind of revelation which he was unable to determine which of the two handwritings were his own, after that he got off. many months later we realized the more interesting revelation may have been the secret revelation. joining me now is "new york times" contributor. the time line here is difficult to pin down, and they seemed a little squirrely, frankly. >> that is what i started the interview with, they were interested in sorting out the inconsistencies. so where they confront him with the letter seemed to happen when you watch the film, after he had been arrested on his brother's
door stoop for a violation of protection. it seems like the interview happened before the arrest. so that raised some questions and they didn't really have a direct answer for me. >> it seems like a chronological issue that the way things appeared were in 2012. we jump ahead, we jump back without any time slates telling us that what we seen has been rearranged chronologically. >> the deeper more profound issue here, which has to do with the duty of the documenttarian, is when they discover -- they're investigating this open case, and we're getting these dates, this is two or three years ago right? the evidence is floating around. the person is expected of doing horrible violent things. i can't cash out -- when do they talk to who.
>> your explanation is when the interview happened two or three years ago and they didn't discover the audio until two or three months ago. that is their explanation, but they had the evidence for some period of time before the arrest was made. if they turned it over right away we don't know but there is lack of clarity here. >> i think there is also an ethical issue. what role are you inhabiting when you discover an important bit of evidence. i don't think a journalist has any requirement to turn evidence over to -- but there is a time line issue, it's not usually the case -- >> the thing is it is kind of journalism.
it seems like they manipulated some of the evidence for dramatic effect. so perhaps that is to be expected. >> i feel like we're sort of standing on interesting ground right now preponderate podcast, the serial life. someone convicted doing time for a murder that he says he did not commit. >> yeah, it is entertainment, it is hbo, prime time. this is not hard core network journalism, it is different. >> and the fascinating irony is that everything they did will be in legal proceedings. if there is things edited, things left out -- >> i think that's why they stopped talking, they might be revealing things that could come up later in a trial.
i will talk to someone who says the way con servetives have reacted to the d.o.j. report is bad for america. police have arrested a ♪ yeah, girl ♪ ♪ you know, i've been thinking about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ ♪ bundle ♪ ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby ♪ and that's how a home and auto bundle is made. better he learns it here than on the streets. the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive.
of a ferguson police department. the suspect acknowledged firing the shots, but maintains that the police officers were not his target. >> he may have had a dispute with other individuals, we're not sure we completely buy that part, but it is possible that he was firing at other people and the officers were shot in the path. >> prosecutors also say that mr. williams had attended the demonstration the evening of the shooting and previous rallies. twitter was quick to fill with people saying they denied seeing him. mr. williams lawyer stressed the following in this order. it was not his client's intent to shoot the police. he was not a demonstrator, and his client did not take the
shots in question. >> i can be clear this is not an ambush shooting. there was not any goal to target the police. and that he is not part of the protest community. i don't think my client was involved in this shooting is what i'm saying. >> the question of whether the alleged shooter was a demonstrator. that polarization in ferguson was apparent in the days following the justice's department harsh report of the ferguson police department. many conservatives accuse the justice department of being predictably biassed against police. our next guest makes the case that conservatives should care very much about many of the findings in that justice department report. joining me now is leon wolf.
it is a fantastic piece. what is your basic case here? >> i think that a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum are really kind of missing the boat when it comes to ferguson, and it is unfortunate in the way that it is shaping our national dialogue. as i'm sure you're aware, there was two department of justice reports issued concerning ferguson. one dealt with the shooting of michael brown and the other dealt with the ferguson pd at large. liberals for the most part are ignoring those which tends to decimate don't shoot, and the conservatives ignore the second part that says not with standing of how you feel about michael brown there was serious problems with ferguson p.d. that need to be addressed.
>> there is no sort of cause for federal rights charges. one is that they can't make a federal civil rights case which is a harder case than say manslaughter in the second jurisdiction, but the second reiterates what they found about the credibility of various witnesses vis-a-vis the encounter that happens and the physical ballistic evidence and thousand corroborates. in terms of the ferguson part of that, and you're right that it backs up the determination, in terms of the ferguson part of it, what about it is something that conservatives should be especially attentive to? >> i think that conservatives as much as liberals are attuned to civil rights issues. they oppose civil rights abuses by police. i think the disconnect is that conservatives don't belief they
occur as often. i don't think that ferguson is specially unique in this regard, these civil rights violations are relatively common place. they come from city hall, from city managers, that puts more pressure on police to write more tickets. >> this is why i was expecting sort of widespread conservative outrage in the report. in some ways it's the worst vision of big, bad government. here you have essentially turning armed agents of the state into revenue collectors first and fore most. it is about extracting money from people for a public till. it seems like a nightmare scenario. >> it absolutely is. not only in this case, but the eric garner case. look at the offense that brought
the attention to the police. it is absurd. people focus on the police, and i think there are issues that need to be addressed, but we need to dress these municipal ordinances. the increasing reach of the state. the facial overbreadth of the statutes. >> that is a very very good point. thank you for appearing, i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me on. >> chuck norris fact. benjamin netanyahu and turned to him for a campaign ad, that's next. romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction
so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com
>> president obama doesn't want netanyahu to win this upcoming election. >> i ask you to vote for prime minister netanyahu on election day. >> i pray to god to keep israel safe and america as well. >> in america you know a campaign is going badly when you need to bring in right-wing celebrities to make cheaply done commercials. benjamin netanyahu's party has fallen behind by four seats against the zionist union. in a push to draw up his base, he is stepping up the nationalist rhetoric.
he blamed his faltering campaign of leftist politicians and n.g.o. funded by shadowy tycoons. they know if they're in charge they will give up everything. they will divide jerusalem. he warmed of the danger posed by a potential right-wing government. showing that as long as he is in power there will be no concessions or withdrawals from the occupied territories. critics have long questioned his commitment to a two-state solution. something he publicly endorsed back in 2009. his administration has consistently rejected those questions as did his spokesman when i asked him about it last summer. >> you want to see a situation of two states for two peoples
where you have an independent jewish state and a palestinian state -- >> two years later, netanyahu gave the line to his spokesperson and proved the critics right. he said i think anyone that will establish a palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to israel. when asked if that meant if there would be no palestinian state if he were to continue as prime minister, he responded correct. joining me now is our guest daniel levy. >> i think bound israel's showers, his actions suggest that he has never been honest. he is being dishonest today on the iran issue. this is actually a rail moment
of truth telling. his intentions against the palestinians is not so new. this seems to be him desperate. she fighting with other right wing parties. that does not bode well for him. >> yeah, there is a sense in which he seems to be pivoting to right. away from others fighting for that same block of votes. is this a smart tactic? >> i don't think so. i think this is more likely to turn away more centerist voters, more interesting in the working
class and working poor and they may go to other parties as they seem to be doing if the momentum is with the opposition doubling down on a strategy where you're fighting for the hard right vote is unlikely to reclaim the lost ground if the poles are to be believed. >> how much do american politics, american endorsements, john voigt, chuck norris, how much does that matter? does that matter to israeli voters? >> zero. it is purely for your consumption, chris. you know this is a prime minister who is a car carrying measure of the gop. who knows who is using who. the iran nuclear deal, dragging people to a deal. this nonsense does not play out in any meaningful way.
>> the israeli center left has been in the wilderness, but it has been a long time since they had a real possible path way to forming their own government. what do things look like for them? >> well, things look remarkably good if one takes the position they began with when netanyahu called and early election like he did last year. if they finish with a four or five seat gap over netanyahu, if they have a lead of four or five plus seas, and israeli politics involve ten or 11 parties. if that lead is real, extended, and it bares out, they could
form a coalition, and the speech set on the rally, and the congressmens make that more difficult. you could form a coalition with centerists. not the settlers. but that are not the kind of chauvinist from the center right. >> daniel levy, thank you very much. i love this time of year, three big things go together, massive drinking, st. patrick's day, and ncaa brackets.
well 911 is still busy. >> tomorrow is st. patrick's day. the city of chicago celebrated this weekend with a parade on saturday under sunny skies and as you can see in this time lapsed video, the dieing green of the chicago river. in the neighborhood of wrigleyville, things got a little ugly. they documented the may ham. an intoxicated woman banging her head on concrete. a man lying unconscious on a sidewalk as people took selfies with him, and a 20-year-old wearing a green vest with blood all over his vest. i used to live in chicago and it did not take long to find out not to go near wrigleyville during a st. patrick's day.
top of the morning to you if today everybody ask a little irish. >> city of boston where more than 15% of the population is irish held their st. patrick's day today. for the first time, two lbgt groups were permitted to march in the parade under their banner. the reversal prompted the boston mayor to become the first mayor to march in 20 years. for the first time an openly ga group will be allowed to march
under it's own banner. that is out @nbcuniversal. it is a lbgt rights and support group at nbc. this is a battle that goes back decades. it comes after a kmoez broken -- out at nbc universal is the only group allowed to march under their own banner. so far groups are still not able to march in our community's parades and the fight continues. the new york city mayor bill deblagio agrees. until gay groups are fully welcomed in new york city, we
will not have put the ugly scenes of the past behind us. that's it. good job. nice coating. and get this one next. whoa! what are you guys doing? making sure nothing sticks. otherwise, we gotta scrub all this stuff off. huh, what? nobody thought of this before? what's wrong with people? dish issues? not with improved cascade platinum. it powers through... your toughest, starchy messes... better than finish's best... the first time. as if your dishes were non-stick.
i hate cleaning the gutters. have you touched the stuff? it's evil. and ladders... awwwwwww!!!!! they have all those warnings on them. might as well say, "you're going to die, jeff". you hired someone to clean the gutters? not just someone. someone from angie's list. but we're not members. we don't have to be to use their new snapfix feature. angie's list helped me find a highly rated service provider to do the work at a fair price. come see what the new angie's list can do for you. so i don't know if you know this about me, but i love basketball. every year for years i would fill out a few brackets, and you get invites for brackets, and i stopped filling out brackets and i'll tell you why. it's because it makes the tournament sad for me.
the reason is you fill out a bracket and you pick a attack you care nothing about to go to the final four, and an amazing cinderella team comes along and your heart wants to root for george mason or someone else. so i stopped filling out brackets so i can root for the team that is brackets. the safest thing is to give the best seeded teams all of the way through. there is a new bracket this year that tries to get rid of that wrinkle. neil irwin, the idea here is you're best to have the number ones go through, the twos beat the 15s, and all of the way through. but that is no fun. how have you engineered your point system to reward picking upsets. >> this is like the stock market
or horse racing or all kinds of markets out there where it doesn't matter, it's not just about picking the winner, it's about picking a win near no one else picked. so, for example, kentucky is the overwhelming favorite. so you should get more points if you pick a upset against kentucky than if you go with a leader. >> and that's not the way most brackets work. they usually just score by round. games in the first round are a certain amount of points -- it doesn't matter if it's a 1/16 game or a 5/12 team. >> yes, this is a market based approach. so it really rewards you if you want to pick a bunch of upsets. >> it's dynamic so as people fill out the brackets it's in realtime, say like vegas odds, changing the points based on how favored a team is.
>> exactly, you can come back on thursday and make final selections. the idea is that this is a market mechanisms. not all of the favorite teams are over the nine teams. they don't get it exactly right if you believe in the open market and that's how this works. >> that is another thing too, right? what ultimately your bracket will do is show the real odds, the revealed preference of the seeding numbers. >> that's right. oregon is playing eastern washington, basically playing a home game, they have less favorable ods because they're not in a terribly favorable situation. this is what we have that affects what the payoff is if you pick the right upset or favor. >> the odds of picking a perfect bracket is 1 in 9.2 quintillion.
>> yes, someone will do a "you within a billion dollars if you get it correct." buffet and quicken loans did that but they know you will not get it correct. >> the odds are overwhelming that no one on earth will get it correct. >> you can check that out over on up shot. if i was going to do a bracket, that is the one i would do. rachel maddow show starts now. >> i do the monkey picking stocks. >> i pick the mascots that i think might win in a fake fight between the mascots.
there is a team in the tournament called wolford i think that i have never even heard of. going all the way! happy march madness. today we leashed about a thing that democrats and republicans agree on. and i should say this is the first time ever that both parties have agreed this much about this one thing. it is really interesting. a new gallup poll out today and we learn that democrats and republicans agree that they very much dislike both democrats and republicans. neither major party cracks 40% favorability in latest poll. this is the first time since gallup started tracking the party's images this way that neither party has gotten to 40%.