The nuances in his handwriting were so unique they're practically a fingerprint.
Are they, though? I thought block lettering/print are considered the most anonymous form of handwriting. Durst certainly uses that as his defense several times...which also shows his planned intent for using it in the cadaver note.
Still, his argument of why someone would use it supports why he would use it. The forensics guy argues that they are pretty much dead-on, so I assume there is some type of evidence here--I'm just not sure how solid this type of evidence is in court.
As pyonir mentioned earlier, I think the best part of that interview was when Jerecki asked Durst to identify which example was his handwriting, and which wasn't, and Durst admitted that he couldn't. That's the kind of theater that works in court, I imagine (that stupid glove bullshit), but there is no way in hell that Durst's lawyers will allow him on the stand to be confronted in such a way.
...unless his lawyers suddenly grow a pair and decide to just pillory this fucker and let justice finally take its course. Then again, I've been wondering if that is why they allowed this documentary to happen in the first place.