Shoe Bandit Finally Caught? Will Durst Be Found Innocent? Suspects Come With Differing Financial Statements ~by Legal Pub

Rusty Wayne Sills, is a 56-year-old Largo man who is accused of being the Pinellas Park Shoe Bandit.  Is a man with an alleged footwear obsession guilty of burglary? A woman from the 8000 block of 43rd Way North complained that shoes left outside her home were disappearing and in their place, another pair of shoes was left behind.

After a few alleged shoe exchange incidents, the residents allegedly purchased a surveillance system to monitor the front door and exterior of their home. Subsequent video allegedly shows a man taking the shoes around 4 a.m.  Saturday morning a suspect, Rusty Wayne Sills was detained until police arrived. Sills has been charged with burglary and may be involved in some other similar cases. During a police interview, Sills apparently told police that he buys and sells shoes at a local flea market. Sills apparently denies that he is the individual depicted in the surveillance video.  Even if Sills is the man on the video, is burglary a bit severe charge for an entrepreneur with an obsession or perhaps even a passion for footwear? Does leaving replacement shoes mitigate the crime?

Sills, like all suspects, is to be presumed innocent until it is otherwise proven in a Pinellas County Court.  His bond is set at $10,000. 

3-17-2015:  In other developing news, the poor are not the only ones who become suspects. Millionaire, Robert Durst was arrested over the weekend and charged with having 150 grams of marijuana in his hotel room.  A gun was also found.  Just the day before, Durst was charged with murder of Susan Berman who died 15 years ago after being shot in the back of the head near Beverly Hills. (Durst was acquitted of murdering someone else in Texas many years ago, so he could be innocent in murder trial number two as well.)  Unfortunately, in a T.V. documentary about Durst's life, he allegedly mumbled about he "killed them all"  while in the bathroom. Perhaps more incriminating is an analysis of hand writing from a letter from Durst to Susan Berman a year before her death to a post death writing providing information as to the location of the body. (While the writing looks similar, Durst may not be the only person who does not know how to spell Beverly Hills.  

Durst, 71, was charged Monday in Los Angeles with first-degree murder.  If convicted, he could be sentenced to death. Durst is represented by Attorney Dick DeGuerin who wants an expedited hearing in Louisiana.   A hearing is scheduled for next Monday.

Will the words, "There it is. You're caught... What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course" ever be heard by any juror?  Perhaps not as it may violate his expectation of privacy as he did not know the microphone was operating.  Furthermore, a jury may never know that Durst's first wife, Kathleen, was declared dead after she vanished in New York in 1982. The difference between accusations, evidence and facts?  Legal scholars will disagree.

Durst claims he is innocent of all killings!  He is to be presumed innocent unless a court of law finds otherwise.