VT VT - Lynne Kathryn Schulze, 18, Middlebury, 10 Dec 1971

[Satch]

Although I personally believe that Durst is guilty of all the crimes, which he has been accused. Durst's history does not indicate that he would be interested in killing Lynne. Those who believe that he killed those of which he is accused point out the patter of Durst doing this for passion and power. Kill those who got in this way, that were a threat to him. Kill, get their insurance money, expand his real estate empires. If Durst was to kill, there would have to be money or political prestige involved. Unless there was someone in Lynne's family with power, money and prestige. But with Robert having no family connections to LS, why would he care? If Durst is the bad guy, and let's say that he killed Lynne. What was the motivation for that?

No reports that Durst was a pedophile or anything like that. He's not a Ted Bundy type. And it's a good point about this eye witness who claimed to see Lynne eating prunes that she supposedly bought from "All Good Things." I never really thought about this til now. But to see that from across the street? I don't think that is credible.

I think that somebody knows something and is not talking.

Satch

 

[carbuff]

I went back to look at some of the articles from the 2015 renewal of interest.

This article includes the powerpoint presentation from the Middlebury Police from March 2015 (Durst was arrested March 14 that year and LE nationwide was alerted to look at cold cases in areas where he was known to have lived). Midd Student Shopped at Durst's Store on Day She Disappeared

Boston Globe article about the same press conference: After Robert Durst arrest, new spotlight on 1971 disappearance of Vermont student - The Boston Globe

Addison Independent article including statement from family: Police shed light on Durst-Shulze link; Family releases statement | Addison County Independent I especially noticed the picture of Durst with the wife he's accused of murdering. Rather strong resemblance to Lynne, I think.

 

[Mysteries1974]

I suspect he had another victim in California. She vanished in 1972.

 

[Zephyranth]

As for LE being alerted in 2015 to look for cold cases in areas where Durst lived, however, in Vermont's case they'd been working with a 2012 tip for three years already by that point.

If Durst really lived at the Robbins Crossroad property in 1970, police would have searched it in 2012. But it wasn't until 2015 that Vermont police would search it, and almost immediately bring the family to it for closure.

Clearly, LE's 2012 investigation showed no Durst at that property, nor had they found any other reason to search it.

So the question is: WHY did they search it in 2015?

One scenario that comes to mind is Durst, under pressure, telling something he knew. It doesn't seem to have been a confession, because police won't even name him a person of interest. Plea bargain?

Whatever was told to police in 2015, and by whomever, it made them immediately search a specific property and act as if a 40 year old cold case was all but solved, and with no conviction (or even identification) of Durst as the murderer.

Who, then?

I still hold out some thought that Durst might have murdered on someone else's behalf.

 

[Mysteries1974]

Where was Durst in May of 1972?

 

[Zephyranth]

Where was Durst in May of 1972?

I don't know, but David Vilner owned the property, still, on which Lynne had vanished.

He then sold it to a James Minchin.

The Israels are the only people to allege, publicly, that Robert Durst lived at the Ripton property. Upon inspection, however, the only people to have a proven association with the property in question are the Vilners, who also owned All Good Things.

 

[Zephyranth]

It's time to ask whether the New York Israels, Vilners, Minchins (and perhaps even the Dursts), had any prior associations before acquiring properties in rural Vermont.

 

[Mysteries1974]

It's time to ask whether the New York Israels, Vilners, Minchins (and perhaps even the Dursts), had any prior associations before acquiring properties in rural Vermont.

The worst part is that Vermont has a lot of mountains and leveled places. Lynne’s remains could be anywhere

 

[carbuff]

Several of the comments under the articles refer to the Ripton property as a "commune."

 

[Mysteries1974]

Several of the comments under the articles refer to the Ripton property as a "commune."

interesting

 

[carbuff]

interesting

That might explain why there's so much uncertainty about who lived there and when.

 

[Mysteries1974]

That might explain why there's so much uncertainty about who lived there and when.

So the ones who owned the property are the ones who abducted and killed Lynne?

 

[carbuff]

So the ones who owned the property are the ones who abducted and killed Lynne?

I don't hold to that theory.

 

[Mysteries1974]

I don't hold to that theory.

Ok, we can conclude that Lynne met her end on that property

 

[carbuff]

Ok, we can conclude that Lynne met her end on that property

There does seem to be some evidence pointing that direction. Not sure I'm one hundred percent convinced though.

 

[Zephyranth]

Police seem confident enough about Lynne's death there that they brought her family to it. My question is whether this is because of physical evidence, an eyewitness account, or both.

In 2015, someone clearly pointed police to the property, causing them to search it. A rumor that "Robert Durst lived there" might be strong enough to justify the initial search, but it certainly wouldn't be strong enough to justify bringing next-of-kin there for closure. Police haven't torn the place up yet, as would be expected after even a small forensic discovery; so far it seems more likely that someone gave a strong eyewitness account of her being killed there--perhaps not on the property itself, but in the state forest abutting the property.

Anyone could have killed her there; however, police and FBI are not behaving as if they are convinced it was Robert Durst who did it. [EDIT: Or they're keeping this close to the vest as leverage on the suspect, whether that is Durst, or someone else.]

It is interesting to me that when FBI questioned Vilner (several times, by his account), they didn't ask him about Durst, only about whether he recognized Lynne. It would be logical to question him about that, though, since he owned the store for all practical purposes, despite his temporarily lending it to Durst (if in fact he did lend it--that is far from established. He says he sold it for cash, and only for a few months, after which he got it back; the convenience of his claim to have taken an ownership break, just when Lynne disappeared, bothers me.)

That doesn't mean Vilner did it, but it is he--not Durst--for whom ownership of both the store and the Ripton property is firmly established. Vilner's and Israel's suggestion that Durst owned the store are unproven; Vilner himself denies that Durst lived on the Ripton property (though that denial itself begs scrutiny).

Police now seem to believe firmly that Lynne died in Ripton soon after she disappeared. This makes Celine Slator's strident editorial on Jan 28, 1972, insisting Lynne was not murdered, very interesting to me. I've only read a summary of the editorial; a copy is (hopefully) on its way and I'll add it to this thread.

Vilner said that he, Israel, Durst, and several Middlebury professors used to play poker together; I wonder who the professors are, and whether Vilner ever hosted them in Ripton? Did Lynne have an involvement, possibly, with a professor, which became problematic in some way?

 

[carbuff]

What I suspect happened is that Durst told LE some kind of story that they initially went overboard with until they realized he's a compulsive liar and his story didn't hold water at all. So basically you're thinking what he wanted everybody to think. "Not me, no, must have been these other guys."

There's some rich New Yorkers versus (relatively) poor Vermonters going on, and probably some town and gown as well.

 

[Mysteries1974]

What I suspect happened is that Durst told LE some kind of story that they initially went overboard with until they realized he's a compulsive liar and his story didn't hold water at all. So basically you're thinking what he wanted everybody to think. "Not me, no, must have been these other guys."

There's some rich New Yorkers versus (relatively) poor Vermonters going on, and probably some town and gown as well.

Who really killed her then?

 

[carbuff]

Who really killed her then?

I don't think she's dead. I think she left on her own.

 

[Zephyranth]

What I suspect happened is that Durst told LE some kind of story that they initially went overboard with until they realized he's a compulsive liar and his story didn't hold water at all. So basically you're thinking what he wanted everybody to think. "Not me, no, must have been these other guys."

There's some rich New Yorkers versus (relatively) poor Vermonters going on, and probably some town and gown as well.

I appreciate that observation, carbuff. To the list of persons-of-interest I think we must add the yet-unidentified Middlebury professors; Vilner may have introduced them into the picture for a reason. Vilner also specified that Allen Israel "befriended Durst and was the only one who did," wherever that may lead.

In my experience, police aren't very easily fooled, nor do they hastily offer up conclusions (to put it mildly). Their four-decade history of caution with this case leads me to believe that they wouldn't easily believe a false witness statement, nor recklessly suggest that closure is now possible. Whatever was told to them in 2015 was enough to move them from 44 years of silence to something approaching a conclusion. Bowdish had been on the case for three years, so I think we can rule out an over-enthusiastic new detective.

I agree that Durst is a significant part of the seismic shift in 2015. The question for me is whether he's the source or the target of a revelation (or both, if he confessed to something).

The police's statement that they can't give the ultimate word until the medical examiner weighs in, is key, imo. They might be hoping to learn more during the discovery phase of the current murder trial, too.

Vilner saying Robert never lived there is nagging at me today. Israel is adamant Robert did live there ("When we moved out, he moved in.") There's an important story in that contradiction, somewhere.

P.S. As for the rumored drug dealers on the Ripton property, Vilner says they were the people he sold the property to. (Vilner said Durst "never lived at the house in Ripton" that Vilner owned, and that Vilner "sold the house in cash to some guy" who he was sure was a drug dealer and who then moved in there with some other people.) According to the town, Vilner sold the house to James Minchin of Brandon, VT on Jul 12, 1972. Minchin sold it the next year.