There are internal police documents where they first said some other guy was most likely the writer of the note, which will probably come back to haunt them now.

If the only "hard" evidence in this entire case is the handwriting comparison, and the LAPD is basically saying "at one point we were pretty sure it was some other guy, but now we're pretty sure it was Robert Durst," I can't see how a jury will convict him on those grounds. Keep in mind there's no hard proof he was in L.A. at the time of her murder, no murder weapon, and depending on the extent to which the prosecution is allowed to speculate on his wife's disappearance, not even an iron-clad motive. The probably won't be allowed to even mention the TX case to the jury.

Not saying he's innocent, just not sure there's enough evidence to actually convict him.

As for the TX case, it seemed ludicrous to all of us watching on TV that they'd exonerate him, but if the TV show was correct and the statue is such that the burden is on the state to DISPROVE self-defense (as oppose to the defendant having to affirmatively prove it), then they clearly didn't have the ability to do that. Even the cop (as a wittiness for the prosecution) said on the stand that they couldn't prove it. I probably would have voted not guilty too.

----