PART 2! Critiquing the Expert Witness in Depp vs Heard Case - PSYCHIATRIST reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Everybody and their grandma knows about the high-profile trial defamation case between Amber heard and Johnny Depp. As an expert witness, I thought it was fascinating to watch Dr Shannon Curry being grilled by a lawyer. He gave me flashbacks as I have been on the witness stand so many times.
This is a reaction video to some of the footage from that trial. Hopefully it will give you some insights from the perspective of an expert witness.
This is part one. Part two coming soon to a theatre near you....
OTHER EPISODES YOU SIMPLY MUST CHECK OUT. I INSIST.
Amber Heard borderline personality disorder diagnosis:
• AMBER HEARD - Is borde...
Johnny Depp self-harming. Why do people do this?
• Johnny DEPP cuts self ...
Interview with undercover cop. He put his life at risk. Dude is legit.
• Undercover cop puts ow...
𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍 𝐔𝐊 - 11th & 12𝐭𝐡 June 𝟐𝟎𝟐2, 𝐋𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐨 𝐑𝐨𝐲𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐥 & 𝐒𝐩𝐚, 𝐒𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥❜𝐬
Be there, or regret it for the rest of your life. I will be doing this talk:
“Twisted tales from a career as a forensic psychiatrist”
Dr Sohom Das (MBChB, BSc, MSc, MRCPsych) is Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. In his role, he assesses, treats and rehabilitates mentally disordered offenders (who the tabloids but tabloids might call ‘the criminally insane’). His talk will outline the most shocking, memorable, heart-breaking, emotional and fascinating cases from his career.
Go to www.crimecon.co.uk to check out all the guest appearances, live talks, immersive experiences and who else going to be on Podcast Row! Buy your tickets using code PSYCH for 10% OFF - www.crimecon.c....
✅ Don't Forget to LIKE 👍 SUBSCRIBE 🔔️️️ SHARE ↗️
↪️bit.ly/DrDas-P...
i.e. WATCH Dr Das answer more of your questions:
✅ EPISODE 1 - • Psychiatrist ANSWERS Y...
✅ EPISODE 3 - • Your QUESTIONS ANSWERE...
▶️ WATCH MORE VIDEOS:
✔️ My Playlists :
▶️ True Crime Cases - bit.ly/true-cri...
▶️ Exploring Psychopaths - bit.ly/explorin...
▶️ Faking Mental Illness - bit.ly/faking-...
▶️ Gangs, Mental Health and Crime - bit.ly/gangs-cr...
▶️ Best of A Psych For Sore Minds - bit.ly/APFSM-be...
📚 YOU MUST BUY MY BOOK: HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU?!
IN TWO MINDS, 10 March 2022personally assessed hundreds of patients in prisons, secure locked psychiatric wards and courts across the UK.
▸ If anything from today's video resonated with you or if you're seeking urgent mental health care assistance, contact your local health care provider or if you are in the UK, go see your GP. It's okay not to be okay.
#AmberHeard #JohnnyDepp #Defamation
My view on the 3-4 hour interview of Dr. Curry was totally understandable seeing how this case was so high profile. They needed to make sure she could present her expert opinions in court in a precise, professional and understandable manner. Look at the experts AH’s team hired….now those experts were vetted via a 5 minute phone call, and it shows! Dr. Hughes was the exact opposite of Dr. Curry’s superior professionalism in my opinion.
What I think is interesting about “muffingate” is that - if Dr Curry is to be believed (and I do believe her) - AH interpreted the statement “you can thank my husband fir the muffins” to mean that Dr C had told her husband that she was interviewing AH, was excited about it and that her husband then rushed out to get muffins in honour of AH - sound consistent with what’s been said about histrionic PD?
I didn’t pick up on this before not understanding the actual role of an expert witness before you explained it, but I wonder if Elaine got so frustrated with the speculative nature of her questioning about Dr Curry being in favor of JD because that’s EXACTLY what her team did. It seems they only retained expert witnesses who were found in favor of AH. Which is apparently not how this is supposed to go. And she wants to say JD’s team didn’t fight fair…..
I don’t think it’s unusual for her to have gone to his house just because he is so famous it would be impossible for them to discuss at the office or another public place. It would be like Kate or William trying to be discreet in the UK. Not gonna happen.
And after watching both experts and then Amber Heard on the stand I think it’s totally obvious who is the actual expert. Hughes basically just said all abusers are men and then regurgitated what Amber told her like she’s a bestie or her treating clinician vs an expert witness.
Yes!! 💯 agree
Yes and it was only after 3 hours that she asked if there might be something to eat. Johnny then ordered food in for them all.
the funniest/weirdest part of asking an expert if they wouldn't be there if "you didn't find for the other side", is they hired experts....by saying it's NOT speculation they've effectively said in court that if their experts wouldn't find in favor of them they wouldn't have been brought in by AH's team
they basically descredited the veracity of ALL of their experts while doing curry's cross
what a stupid, stupid question
Shannon Curry is there as a witness and Amber's lawyer could ask her anything and everything to discredit her report on Amber's personality. Well, she didn't? She couldn't? The lawyer choose to discredit the expert, dinner menus, muffins, what the psychologist talks with her husband....
Gratitude for your insights, Dr.! Q: Many DV/IPV survivors were triggered by AH's cold stares, apparent smirking at JD's pain, and scary cackling and taunting of JD in the audios. If AH were your patient, and there were counter-transference issues, how would you handle them? Should we be glad that JD is even alive?
I think it's unfair to characterize it as dodgy based on your prior experience it's possible you aren't as talkative as Dr. Curry and the case is HUGE with tons of documents and evidence which could take a long time to discuss. Having a dinner meeting is a common occurrence in business dealings as well. She said this is highly visible and the paparazzi constantly follows Depp so having a private discussion would be nearly impossible in just about any office in a city. So meeting at Depp's house is basically the only way to keep the meeting private. If you've never had a client as famous as Depp who's known worldwide and beloved how can you base meeting at his house on your experience? He definitely can't go to an office without someone snapping a photo of him.
Celebrity lawyers in high profile cases work differently. They have to interview people more thoroughly. It would be foolish not to vet experts properly.
I would probably agree that as a unbiased expert having dinner at the clients home does come across a little off however this is a very different unusual client which may have needed this privacy , I'm not sure. However I don't believe this doctor was in any way being underhanded by not disclosing as you say why would this be relevant , it's her expertise and how she carried out her job that is important and I find this lady engaging and honest .✌️
I'm enjoying this series. Please don't leave us hanging half way through!! Part III please Sohom. Totally agree with everything Sheila Kay says in comments below. If you give someone enough rope, they will inevitably hang themselves which is what Heard's lawyer was doing. The jury won't be stupid. They totally understand what is going on here I'm sure.
Bredehoft would have had to tell Heard: 'I can try the available tactics that lawyers use when they don't have facts to work with. But those tactics will quickly run dry on the jury.'
"Muffingate" .... hahaha. Your vids are entertaining and interesting.
Thanks! 😃
Yay! Looking forward to this! 👍💕
Hope you like it!
Your input is very interesting and provides an unbiased outside view in the whole media bubble that seems to have formulated an opinion right from the get go. It's a pity that the UA-cam algorithm hasn't quite caught on to it. I think the 4 hour dinner is very telling. As a jury member, I'd be interested how this "interview" was conducted that it had to take so much time but I guess this question would have been objected.
Elaine was so frustrating to watch during this trial, I cant imagine how Dr. Curry and others stayed so calm and collected. Elaine argued after every objection, continued speaking, tried rearranging the same words to ask the same question, and just kept trying to push nonsensical issues. ie the muffins. Kept accusing Depp's witnesses of wanting their 15 minutes, and of being 1 sided. When clearly her "experts" were paid and were clearly 1 sided.
Dr. Curry on the other hand was a freakin rockstar and handled Elaine like a champ! I initially felt bad for Elaine having to try to defend a compulsive liar, but her continuing to embarrass herself after the trial has killed any sympathy I had for her.
There's another weird thing about the 4h meeting. She says she knew Camille already, live in the same city, have worked together, ... it should be even easier by Camille if she's a good professional or not, so no 4h meeting needed.
Camille being professionally acquainted with Dr. Curry is very different from the entire team (Camille, Ben Chew, and Wayne Dennison) being familiar with Dr. Curry’s qualifications, her depth of knowledge, and what her demeanour would be under intense and extended questioning. I think it’s obvious that Amber Heard’s team did not vet their expert witnesses to nearly the same extent, and it had serious consequences for their case.
I work for a defense team in the US for violent crime and capital punishment. We constantly work with and meet with our experts. We have lunch meetings sometimes to ask about their findings, but not with the client.
Yes to part 3 please. I’d love to hear your input on the cross from Amber Herds counter suit with the experts
It lasted 4 hours because she wasnt initially contracted as a expert witness but a consultant .. only when Amber brought her counterclaim alledging ptsd did her role morph.
Another brilliant video Doc, may the followers pour in. Definitely a great channel 👍
Could you analysis the other psych that took the stand? One of the things I noticed was how bias she was when referring to perpetrators & victims of IPV. The perp was always a male, the victim always female. Very Bias.
Would love to hear your opinion on her testimony 😊
I agree that Dr Curry meeting with Johnny and his legal team for drinks and dinner seems irregular, but muffengate just makes Amber's lawyer look like she's trying to make something out of nothing...and not very smart. Thanks again Doc
Looks like a murky strategy to destroy the truth.
She didn't spend all that time having dinner. She spent all that time being interviewed and asked for something to eat. Elaine Bredehoft misrepresented the situation
Orrrr, maybe, she’s hoping she gets a referral to other high profile clients because that gives her exposure and could further her career. Which is what people in many professions do.
Dr Das, thanks for more fascinating content. Could you do a breakdown of Black Bird ?
@apsychforsoreminds In the US it is common to have lunch, dinner, even coffee with the client. Especially high profile cases. I prefer to interview my lawyer through coffee, lunch, or dinner.
When you have no grounds to dispute the evidence presented you try and throw red herrings. Dr. Shannon Curry was a professional to the Nth degree. She knew the case, she explained her reasons for her diagnosis, unlike Amber's experts who had to constantly be told they couldn't read from their files, they had to just refresh their memory, or Dr. Speigel who was bizarre to say the least.
I’m really enjoying these videos! I also believe the lawyer/attorney here was undermining the psychologist. Muffingate though... 😂 she was pretty obsessed with the subject of the muffins. It was quite frustrating and irrelevant. Amber’s attorney seems to have a habit of asking inappropriate questions throughout this whole trial. You’d think she’d have many, many years of experience and should know better. Just my opinion.
Elaine is reproducing malignant narcissism tactics for the benefit of the jury.
It's interesting to hear your feedback - more reactions would be good for sure - maybe Dr Hughes and then Amber? As they're talking about her
Maybe, for fairness Depp as well
Yeah, do the next one. This is hilarious. Mostly because it's not happening to me.
Don't you think that maybe because of the length of time being dealt with, the length of the interview/dinner being 3 or 4 hours was reasonable considering how long the trial is taking? You can see the drama and stupid involved; the 4 hours would have only been skimming the surface of this story.
Why would you make a clinical opinion on hearsay of a possibly slighted ex?!
Love these videos!!
It’s assumed that therapists won’t tell. The most unfortunate for patients and mental health happened and broadcast loudly via this trial that they do.
They both signed waivers permitting the mental health professionals to disclosure to the expert witnesses and to the court. In Amber Heard’s case in particular, since she was counter suing and claiming damages based on PTSD caused by Johnny’s abuse and the subsequent statements by Adam Waldman, it would be bizarre not to have her mental health be an issue subject to examination during the proceedings. It would be like claiming a broken arm and then not letting any evidence about whether you had a broken arm be considered by the court.
14:36 - Elaine is trying to say that Currie has changed her testimony, or rather the statement that she has lots of high profile clients is not one that she's made before. That she's embellishing her court testimony with facts that she didn't mention during previous interviews. While I can't hear what the actual objection is, I think that's what's going on here.
I don't think Elaine did a very good job of undermining Dr Currie, it was too wide it made her look as if she was reaching / searching. You can see that she lost the court audience when she went back to the muffin question. I'm sure the jury were fed up with it too.
I'm in a field where I could become an expert witness. This makes me want to avoid it.
I'm not surprised that Amber Heard had access to muffins during an evaluation and assumed it could only be because she was so special and famous 🤦♀
Love your reactions!! 👍🏼👏🏻😄
love you!
If Amber Heard's legal team had met with Dr Spiegal the way Depp and his team met with Dr Shannon they would have seen what a train wreck he was going to be as a professional witness.
I strongly suspect the reason for the unconventional meeting with Dr Shannon was for this purpose, to determine how good a witness she would make. Not in terms of what she would say, but rather whether or not she would come across as professional and credible on the witness stand.
The inference Heard's lawyer is trying to plant in the mind of the court is that Dr Shannon is either a dribbling Johnny Depp fan or so excited by the career boost that appearing in this case would give her that Dr Shannon would, one way or another, overstep her professional obligations.
I find it entirely reasonable for JD's team to interview Dr Curry over an extended period of time to establish her character, personality and ability to remain composed and to think on her feet. They needed to know how she would respond under cross-examination, how she might be perceived by the Jury etc. This is something that AH's team failed to assess with their expert, i.e. how she would come across and AH's psychologist came across less well because of her abrasive personality and haughty manner!
I am not an expert witness but for any job you are undertaking. If you have the opportunity to explain what you will be doing. What you are obligated to do and how it can effect the person or company hiring you. Why would you rush it? Specially if you know its gonna be a high profile case which will be broadcasted. EVERYWHERE. I would take my time understand ehat is expected from me and explain what is my job and ehat they should be expecting. It doesnt mean she was agreeing to diognes her with anything
Yes do part 3
Yessss do part three please :)
I would think that her large retainer would out do a dinner and drinks. I think because in the UK (and in Nz etc) most expert witnesses are strictly prohibited to take payment, gifts etc from lawyers I'd assume.
However in the USA they are paid experts so a dinner doesn't seem strange to me
Ok, here is another thing. In the U.S. it would be improper to tell anyone who your clients are. Ever. Obviously, in the case of Shannon Curry...once she's testified in a trial, then it's common knowledge...but nothing more than confirming this would be ok.
ElAINE is a horrible trial lawyer. 90 percent of US lawyers is gonna tell you that. Elaine was such an embarrasment.
Part three please
Take look at Amber’s paid expert witness and then tell me it isn’t necessary to interview the the expert witness before trial!!!
You can write a lot on papers!
It dose’s tell enough of how you are under pressure.
Winning this trial was the only real way for Johnny to get his life back.
The burden of proof was Johnny!
Not the other way around like in England.
If you were fighting with the odds against you and the outcome so important:
Would you leave your expert witness credibility to chance?
Ms. Heard could have helped herself by hiring a different defense team. Her team seems to end up flustered in every cross examination as seen here.
How have you not reacted to Dr. Dawn Hughes?? 😅
You have to remember that was a civil case not criminal, very different. This case is extremely high profile and I can see why there was a “dinner” for 3-4 hours. She was an expert witness for JD, just as AH had a phycologist Dawn Hughes who tried to argue she didn’t have BPD (insufferably). The reality is AH’s team was a sh!t show and JP won in the court of public opinion.
More, please. :)
I think during this time frame our country was still in shut down because of covid, not trying to use that as excuse, but we should take that into consideration. In California we started opening back up in June of 2021.
What do you think of the other expert witness?
I think the US legal system’s customs and rules with regard to expert witnesses are probably different from those of the UK in some respects. Perhaps in the US system in high profile cases it is normal for lawyers to do extensive interviews with potential expert witnesses to check whether they are effective on the witness stand. Maybe there is nothing improper about this if there is no attempt to influence the evidence the witness will give. If it’s merely a process of assessing fitness to withstand relentless questioning there is nothing wrong with a four hour interview.
Don't even try to understand "Elaine". She was a mess
That could be said about the UK judge with JD and the Sun now that is really dodgy with all of that bias mess with that case. Again you don’t have Hollywood in the UK
Brilliant 🤩
Dr Shohom, do you think you will ever be able to give a straight-faced analysis of yesterday's (23 May) psychiatrist? 🤨
Amber Heard would think that s. curry's husband brought her special muffins just for her, because Amber thinks she is so special
Muffingate >< The lawyer is really reaching. But that's good for Ms Curry, i'm sure she knows the more ridiculous the questions she's being asked, the fewer legitimate problems there are being found by the lawyer. No sweat they've got bothin'
Please let the “dinner and drinks” go. You’re not practicing in America are you, so you don’t know how things work. Elaine has apparently convinced you that it’s “dodgy”?
Muffins-gate? 😀
Muffin-gate!!😅😅
ve you brother
Ms Vasquez had the same job but did it so much more professionally .
I'm sure the 4hrs included some media training things to see if Dr Curry was up to the challenge. I think they picked her because of her abilities, the fact that she's a clinical psychogist means she's always evaluating people across the board, made her a good psychogist to evaluate Ms Heard. people with borderline really good at spitting medical professionals, but Curry's calm and hard to flustered personality mean she would pick up on Heard's sociopathic tendencies, which is why Curry knew she was malingering her PSTD symptoms. Though I'm shocked that any trained psychogist wouldnt pick up on her t-scores, so Dr Hughes is pretty bad. However, I do think Dr Curry's intelligence and beauty must have at least annoyed Ms Heard, and I do think that played into Team Depp choosing Curry.
I respect your professional opinion Dr Das. I see Dr Curry as professional in her testimony. Yes dinner and drinks with the legal team is unheard of and unprofessional. I agree she should have avoided mentioning this, it is afterall impertinent! Things in the US are often out of line with our standards and ethics. I find this entire case rather bizarre :)
These are celebrities not n my opinion the type of clients you deal with.
😅 0⁰0
You give amber lawyer too much credit she just dumb that's why her questions was the way they were that's why she lost her case
The exchange only served to reinforce Dr Curry’s position and undermine Heard’s lawyer. If allowed she would have been asking questions about the choice of font, the binding of printed copies, and the lack of pictures for the reader to colour in. One of the two women in this exchange knew what her job was and how to do it and the other didn’t.
Bredehoft knew that those things were irrelevant to the diagnosis. She was intentionally trying to mislead the jurors by creating bias against Dr. Curry. Bredehoft's hubris clearly left the most notable impression on the jurors.
part 3 please
It might be different in the UK, but in the US people who are on the stand, it is a HUGE faux pas to talk to the judge or say anything at all unless the judge addresses you, and you really cannot speak at all unless the attorneys address you directly. Just explaining because no matter how ridiculous or repetitive the cross examination is or now matter how frustrated you might get having to continue to deal with something like "muffingate" or something else irrelevant, you really just have to keep your composure and keep answering it over and over if that is how they want to waste their time.
In this case, I think it was actually great for the plaintiff side and bad for the defendant side that they did this because in this particular case each side has a total limit for direct examination and cross-examination. If Dr. Curry *had* blown up and broken court decorum it may have been effective, but she didn't and remained totally professional and just kept answering the questions. Waste of time? Yes. But it's a waste of the defendant's time, not the plaintiff's time. I think it just reinforced professionalism all told and wasted time on the clock.
Now that we are going into the last week of the trial, the plaintiff has 18 hours and the defendant only has 8 left and they STILL are not done with the defense case. This means that when they move into the redirect, they will have AT LEAST a 10 hour advantage (but probably more) since they have not wasted time on useless cross-examination. And the judge has said when they run out of time they will run out of time and not be able to do any further witnesses or cross. So yeah, although as an expert in the UK in your mind you may be thinking "this is a waste of time" - as a legal strategy it is actually very good if you have a very composed witness on limited time cases. If the other side wastes their time on issues that do not convince the jury of anything at all, then it is good legally for your case. I wouldn't expect a non-legal expert from another country to know these small nuances, but that also may explain part of why interviews may take longer in the US because in cases like this you may really need to know in tense and limited and high profile cases how experienced and unflappable they are. There is very little limitation and very little decorum unless the legal teams decide to object or direct in certain ways. In this case, while the plaintiff attorneys definitely could have tried to stop the defense from beating a dead horse, so to speak, on this muffin BS -- strategically it was to their own advantage with such an unflappable witness to let the other side waste a lot of time on a nothingburger.
Amazing post! TY. 👍✌️🌺
Thank you for your thorough explanation. Elaine Bredehoft is trying to make a banquet from a bucket of mud.
Thx for this detailed comment. I'm not a legal expert in general and I know even less about US laws and legal proceedings.
So true... AH's team wasted a lot of time on ridiculous things and as of today they have like 8 hours left, and JD has more than double that left.
@@Gokce-Aysun I hope that they will put this advantage to good use. JD is NOT in the clear yet.
I think that 4 hour dinner was to grill her (haha pun intended) in order to make sure she could keep her composure. as for the just giving your qualifications in a minute- bless you- here in the US for whatever reason they want every letter, school and bragging right you have back to 3rd grade.
The 4 hour interview was perfectly warranted IMO. It was going to be a huge case, they were looking for not just anyone who technically qualifies, and they were perfectly within their rights to be very diligent about it.
They needed someone who could assess AH without falling for her well rehearsed tricks and charms. They needed someone who could do their job with the degree of integrity that it would be hard to punch holes into their methods. They needed someone who could, on top of that, hold their own against shenanigans both in and out of the courtroom, and do so without compromising their own credibility.
And when you're keeping someone for multiple hours it's perfectly reasonable to offer them food, especially when you can't just step out for a bite because someone in the group is extremely famous. FFS Elaine, sometimes people show basic courtesy because they're decent people, not because they're trying to suck up to someone.
Thanks Dr Das. "lawyer trying to muddy the waters" is a spot on description of Elaine. That is all she has tried throughout the case (unsuccessfully i.m.o.). Johnny's team have nearly 20 hours left to her ±4 hours - all due to her wasting time on muffins and other rubbish.
Exactly what I said. I can argue better than her. Why didn’t she contextualize the mental illness in the defamation?? Kept trying to flummox this curry lady. Why?? Bonkers.
Really interesting, hope you can do the rebuttal from both experts ie Johnny side and Amber . I'm finding it confusing to know who has the proper expertise and which one is right , it would be great if you could critique both of their rebuttals abd give your assessment, thankyou
Hey doc, good content and very entertaining personality, this channel should have many more subs!! But it def will 😎
I appreciate that!
You really should react to the Dr dawn huges (Ambers psych) first testimony.... She testified too so many events
This was incredibly informative. I felt enlightened by the explanation of the psychologist’s answers.Thanks Dr Das!
I feel like Elaine’s questions revealed more about HER strategy than her opponent’s.
Yes, please do more.
Thank you for everything.
Would love to see your comments on the Tech/Turd/Justice chap. What you think of his performance as an expert witness.
The 3-4hr interview (“dinner”) makes sense in THIS case. They need to know a LOT of things before hiring an expert in such a high profile case with a large experienced legal staff that’s going to be televised like this… otherwise, they might accidentally hire an expert like Dr Speigel. He looks good on paper with many years of experience and highly educated, but then he’s a mess on the stand.
They needed to know she could hold her own and not get rattled during cross and not be intimidated with it being so public. Then there’s a (very) slight risk they could’ve accidentally hired a woman who’s experienced domestic violence herself and will believe AH only because she sees herself (basically not able to be truly objective).
I’ve been through some long and thorough interviews myself. Some jobs just require that kind of thoroughness. One job interview included 2 interviews that were both well over an hour and the 2nd one was a round table interview with 7 people asking me questions. It was extremely nerve wracking. I could see a case this important requiring that kind of interview. His whole life and career was on the line here.
Really interesting,please continue,your content is most informative,really liking your channel
Thanks, will do!
Dr. Das, A list celebrities in the US have the luxury of professionals such as lawyers and doctors coming to them. I'm surprised you find this odd. Regardless I have appreciated your reaction but disappointed you have only done 2 short videos on Dr. Curry
The important point to take away from all this is .... Shannon Currie is intelligent, normal and Hot... whereas Amber Heard may be Hot (6-10yrs ago) but is bat shit crazy... So open and shut case really.... :-p
I think Elaine was saying if Dr. Curry's findings were more positive toward Heard then the plaintiff wouldn't have called her as an expert witness...
Why do I get the feeling Jonny has been taiters Deep in the Drs Muffin?
Far out! Muffingate! 😬 Thanks for your perspective!
Yes part 3 please Doc
You have to watch the forensic psychiatrists testimony and cross examination on the Heard Depp trial- complete car crash let us know what you think
Just uploaded this exact video my princess
Yes please continue with your analysis on this case. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning from you and looking at this from a different point of view.
Thank you, I will
Yes like it!!!
So glad you raised how good she was at her job. I have watched that a few times now - but the first time I admit to a little industry pride on her performance [ after Dr Shambles McPsychobabble, which was both uncomfortable and plain odd ].
6:55 The lawyer asked a different question: if the result of her examination would be not what they expected she probably wouldn't be on the stand. That's not up to Dr Curry though. And the court probably wouldn't allow them to get another examination.
Really interested in your videos. I can't watch, I just listen because of your constantly moving giant hands! 🙏
Hired by Johnny Depp's LEGAL TEAM,
NOT hired by Johnny Depp.
Do jurors receive any training? Attempting to undermine an expert is a strawman fallacy which is a logically incorrect argument, because even if someone is not an expert on a subject doesn't mean their opinion on a given matter is incorrect. Conversely, just because someone is an expert doesn't render all of their opinions correct, this is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. This case discusses the informed expert opinion reported by a contextually relevant professional who under law must deliver an objective assessment. So, discussing anything that is not directly included in the report is a diversion tactic that jurors should not be influenced by. These lawyers are paid too much to get away with these cheap tricks. It's also disrespectful not only to the experts, but to the court and jurors for wasting everyone's time. However, the fact that these tactics work on uninformed jurors justifies the use of these tactics for the client, but I hope for this to no longer be the case.
Are you going to do an episode on Amber's psychologist Dawn Hughes?
Really Elaine, wasting so much time on muffin 'Bribe??!" Jeez