One of the joys of living in Houston is that fact the Robert Durst tends to make the front page of the Chronicle. I’m almost ashamed to say I haven’t been following it except for the headlines, but comments and statements like
would make me say to my lawyer, “Howza 'bout a plea? Huh?” Since he pleaded “Not guilty”, I can’t figure out (and the newspaper doesn’t make clear) what sort of defense he is going for. Can anyone come up with any sort of plausible (or even implausible) defense for this guy? I tend to think that the dismemberment part sort of negates the self-defense part or am I wrong?