@@rainstorm571 their criticism is reasonable because if he tried that cross on a competent witness then he would have been destroyed, not the witness. It was still a bad cross, it just didn't matter at the time because he was somehow out-silly'd.
Someone on another channel said “I love how Dennison places a circus around you and lets you clown yourself.” (@BunkerBoy) This is the best analogy I’ve seen so far!
Looking back in retrospect, it really is unfair to say Dennison was bad at cross. Camille was specifically prepared for Amber. She knows her story inside and out, and was able to refer back to inconsistencies, evidence and exhibits easily for hours as she's been essentially studying for the cross for years. Dennison has been basically studying other fields like movies and psychology to be able to compete against board certified experts, so his strategy of "playing dumb" and letting them expose themselves and look stupid over the course of the cross was super entertaining to see
Well... I don't think that Dennison was strategically "playing dumb", as much as his speech pattern made those hoity-toity "experts" think he's dumb (and most of the commentators/panellists here not reading him well, either)... and then it was so-ooo fun to watch them get dismantled by Dennison... in some cases just by reading the rules and instruction manual to them.🤌💋
@@BlackQback I agree! Although I remember watching it live and thinking already back then how unfair bad opinions about him were, watching it over a year ago, knowing the outcome (and the highlights of the cross) it's simply hilarious xDDD
completely agree. Kurt especially is completely out of order. It's really annoying to listen to Runkle is the only one who calls it out - thank you Ian!
Agreed. It's also worth noting that the panel didn't take into account the fact that the trial was being televised, which means that the press would have called out Depp's lawyers as "abusive" if they were to really try to bully or constrain witnesses as might be the norm. In fact, Amber's PR team was actively planting stories along those lines throughout the trial and especially prior to key testimony coming in. I thought Dennison was brilliant throughout, consistently making experts look like biased fools, getting them to argue with him and appear excessively defensive, as though they were hiding something or had merely been paid to say what AH's team needed them to say, and getting AH's lawyers to waste their own time rehabilitating them on topics that didn't even need to be touched. It was a "slow death by a thousand cuts" approach, which completely undermined the experts' credibility, rather than an attempt to get a knock-out punch on one or two facts against potentially dangerous witnesses who have the knowledge and ability to punch back. Also agree with the comment that Kurt was out of order: he appeared to have been drinking (or maybe he was just especially riled up and coming across that way), but that was no excuse for such an abusive take. He should have left his own ego at the door and tried listening to other opinions (esp. Runkle) rather than going into "I'm the greatest lawyer of all time. None of you know what you're talking about" mode.
@@AJD09FB "the panel didn't take into account the fact that the trial was being televised, which means that the press would have called out Depp's lawyers as "abusive" if they were to really try to bully or constrain witnesses as might be the norm. In fact, Amber's PR team was actively planting stories along those lines throughout the trial and especially prior to key testimony coming in." 👍🎯 BTW, the whole "Amber Heard show" was one giant confession through projection. The fate even hinted at it through their "expert's" name - Dr. Spiegel = Dr. Mirror. As for Dennison, I have one miniscule criticism, which didn't make a difference as far as the trial results were concerned, just a bit took away from the "entertainment value". E.g. with Spiegel he missed an opportunity to to show to the jury just how dirty were AH lawyers playing, when "the genius" said "I was told it was vomitus..." (re photo of Johnny passed out on downers, with ice-cream dripping down his trousers), by asking a follow-up question "Who told you that?". Whether he didn't catch it in the moment, didn't think it was necessary or was firmly sticking to the principle "never ask the question you don't know what the answer will be" (though breaking that rule would've been zero risk at that point) - I don't know. But it surely would've been fun watching Spiegel either squirm and writhe trying to avoid answering that, or, even better - if he did answer! Similarly, when grilling Dr. Dawn Hughes about a frame she left blank (What happened - IPV by Johnny), he did ask whether she knows that people would need to review it, she tried to wiggle out "because it was in her 80+ pages of notes and would've been redundant", one extra question "So, you couldn't even write down a page and a paragraph of your notes where you answered that question, you purposefully made it hard to review, didn't you?" wouldn't have hurt. However, those are such miniscule omissions, compared to, say Miss Meyers not noticing that the "Molly" text was incoming at JD's phone, while all other texts were outgoing (especially since that text was brought up in UK, and if Johnny owned to writing it then, Rotten..born would've had UK transcript prepared)... Or the blond +size lawyer (I never remembered her name) failing to properly lay the foundation for Jeniffer Howell's testimony and e-mail to come in, so the Depp team had to cut out the tea about Whitney lying from her deposition. As for AH's team of lawyers and PR, I'm not touching that bunch🤢🤮, beyond what I said at the start of this litany. Sorry, I sometimes tend to perorate.
Dennison is a master. He didn't just discredit a witness in 10 minutes...he stunk up the entire AH defense in 50 minutes. Both Dennison crosses resulted in repeating AmberTrd and clowning her expert witness. Brilliant! and entertainmenting.
@@un9286 Camille is great when there are already contradictions and inconsistent statements, her style fits that much better. Dennison is great at getting the expert to hang himself. I think Camille would've been better at examining the Karen psychologist but here Dennison shined. He destroyed those two.
Btw to all the guys who say Denisson is bad at cross, you're 100% wrong. Cross is not just about Camille shutting down somebody. Everybody has a different style. And Denisson has a slow burn kind of style where the witness slowly contradicts and disregards their whole testimony. So hard luck if you're slow on the uptake and only expect action in the court. This is not Suits.
I absolutely agree with you. Thet give him such a hard time, on this channel only. I think he did very well today! He used their words against them and they had to continually back down their answers. It made them look incompetent to me. I'm not a lawyer, I'm in the medical profession where ethics is huge. Wait, Good Lawgic doesn't like Dennison.
IANAL but it was pointed out on Nick's channel (I think?) that the huge issue with Denisson is his inability to control the witness. He just lets them talk as much as they want which is apparently not what you are supposed to do during cross.
@@lazyman7505 Yes fair point. But that's his style. He lets them talk as much as they want but he makes sure that his questions are angled in a way that the witness commits perjury. And Dr. Spiegel did that and looked like an Idiot. If you hate Dr. Spiegel, then Denisson did a good job, cus the Jury probably hates him too. Wayne also did very well with the last witness. He made her look a random person testifying for Amber Heard and not an Expert witness. Good thing he is a movie buff because he made her look like a fish out water talking about the industry that she is currently working in.
I actually like Dennison’s style. He makes the witness feel comfortable and confident, but slowly and steadily he is pulling the rug from underneath them.
Exactly witnesses think they are in control and comes out as a fool once they start explaining too much while camille's style is aggressive she controls the witness it's all about the style and it doesn't matter coz at the end they are getting the results
Yes that's what I think too. Does the open ended questions at the start to get them feeling good, he lets them run their mouth, let's them make some bad mistakes with what they say. Then picks it apart. It's like a way of getting more stuff to pull apart then just what is said in direct. Because he changes gears on them it really throws them off. They way he asks questions really rattles them. He picks apart everything they say.
I think Dennison is very consistent with his cross. As someone who has studied and been involved with interrogations, when you're questioning someone, there's two major ways to get the information you want. You either attempt to gain their trust (which isn't going to work in this situation, as a defense witness is not going to trust the prosecution) or you attempt to make them so confident that they slip up and dig their own grave. Dennison has done this on every cross. He starts off as a little flakey and then as he goes on, he starts throwing his punches. The witness gets confident and starts showing off, then regrets it later.
Yup. He’s giving Dr snobnoxious the rope to hang himself with. He went back on his word on the stand twice. Somewhere in the middle and right at the end and mr D discredited him completely. He ended up looking like an arrogant narcissistic hack.
Dennison is great at cross when there is a need to get the expert to hang himself. Camille seems great at murdering the witness with inconsistent statements and contradictions.
He appeals to the jury too I guarantee it. He seems like a very lovely guy. Very kind, and endearing. He is just the kind of personality to be able to humble himself to that type of tactic I bet.
Yeah he's excellent. There was a few times he stayed on something too long and once or twice he made statements instead of questions, but generally he's very very good.
Big disagree on Denisson, I think his role today was to stretch over the day without letting Johnny on the stand and also bring a bunch of credibility issues so that AHs Team is forced to burn time in redirect
Yeah, I think he showed that so clearly during the last cross-exam. The only noteworthy thing he illicit from the witness was that she knew fuck-all about movies. And after that, especially after he learned that they would be going to 5.30, he just went full 'lull them to sleep mode'. Spoke about damages that the jury don't care about and without making any big points about it and all with the most monotone and slow voice he could. Leave them for the day with a feeling that this was just a big snoozefest.
I wish they would have asked if the article itself caused the damage. The rest is just consequences. Not saying victims shouldn't speak out but she did it tactically for maximum impact. I don't think the A-man movie was successful because of her.
Thank you. 100% agree. The legalbytes lady was constantly badgering him and talking over him...That's probably why the people thought he was bad at cross. Its actually the other way round. These guys are not too great at understanding the situation there. Simply let the lawyer finish the sentence before commenting.
They talk too much s hit about him. But if you throw these Lawtubers on there I'm pretty sure they won't do well like who are they trying to be on this panel all the time. 🙄🙄
Dennison was the one from JD's side who made a joke of most of AH's expert witnesses. He was very clever with his method and he hardly stops the witnesses and let them speak way too much and make themselves look like jokers. I don't have law degree but I'm sane enough to distinguish this and many more people does too
TIME STAMPS: Morning Show: 00:00 Hoeg hits 100K!: 14:43 Direct - Dr. Richard Moore (Orthopedic Surgeon): 29:22 Cross - Dr. Moore: 57:43 Redirect - Dr. Moore: 1:13:11 Direct - Dr. David Spiegel (Psychiatrist): 1:22:21 Morning Break: 2:09:22 Cross - Dr. Spiegel: 3:23:48 Lunch Break: 4:17:50 Redirect - Dr. Spiegel: 5:22:34 Direct - Kathryn Arnold (entertainment industry consultant): 5:51:55 Cross - K. Arnold: 7:28:26 Redirect - K. Arnold: 8:46:04 Lawyer Panel: 8:56:56
Thank you guys so much for doing this! WoW! 9 hours of hard work! Every time I switched on the actual trial, I just couldn't stand the boredom. I am so glad you guys make this so easy to follow.
Dennisons a top litigator for a reason. The panel is too critical of styles different than their own. He crushed that cross of the doctor and is definitely playing off of the jury, based on reported juror reactions. It’s a steady & calculated disarming of the witnesses.
Agree 100%. This panel keeps badgering him and not letting him finish. So people naturally start thinking that it was a bad cross. They also talk over at the most important moments. Even in the most exciting moments in the trial, iv'e never facepalmed or put my head down. These guys are just overreacting for no reason. Actually they're leading the people to believe Denisson isn't good at cross.
AGREE! I thought I was the only thinking the same. I came here after watching Emily's stream to see if they're also as entertained as her with this cross but they kept criticising Dennison, i can't help to roll my eyes haha
They talk too much s hit about him. But if you throw these Lawtubers on there I'm pretty sure they won't do well like who are they trying to be on this panel all the time. 🙄🙄
yeah he's super good at tearing into these expert witnesses, that's when they bring him in. Camille usually goes off a planned cross. This kind of conversational approach to cross Dennison is amazing at.
And Camille said in the interview that Dennison was the man who told her to use AH's testimony to trap her. Ben Chew or the firm they represent are not foolish enough to give him huge responsibility if he wasn't good.
Well said! I love that you used Colombo - couldn't put my finger on it until you mentioned that! 😄 I like how he draws them in, I'm sure the whole team know what they are doing. Together they're balanced IMAO.
8:02.17 Denison slowly establishing that he's bigger expert when it comes to the movies roles and finances than the expert witness. Even getting her to kinda admit his superiority by calling out "you are a movie buff, aren't you". That's some top tier flexing as lawyer.
It's so weird it seems like lawyers in general don't care for Dennison's style but it seems like it appeals to many of us laymen. And personally I love it as a laymen. I remember watching a reaction with asmongold aswell and it's so entertaining every time he comes up.
I agree, he's one of my favs, he doesn't come across as mean on cross but makes very valid points although sometimes it seems like he's not going to. I think he's good at putting the experts off their guard while being appealing to the jury/common person.
It seems like they all want to nail experts with hard facts whereas Dennison's approach is more psychological. He just makes them look bad without nailing them on specific facts.
I love watching reactions after the livestream. Dennison cross not being good… I’m like wait for it… and then he pulls the cluster B stream out. I get Dennisons style 100%. He uses his manner of speaking to his advantage. It’s effective with experts because they think they’re the smartest person in the courtroom, often they are, but he leverages the way he presents. Shnell saw it coming, he was holding back laughter. This doctor walked into a landmine by underestimating Dennison. Don’t underestimate his style and approach, that’s what he banks on. Im a SME in IT that does consulting work in telecom. I use this tactic at work when I get pushback from team or person I need to get deliverables or approvals for work flow from. I’m certain the jury loves Dennison. He’s relatable.
I do prefer Camille's clean and surgically precise crosses, but (as I am no lawyer) I do appreciate Dennison's way of letting the witnesses to lower the guard and incriminate themselves with mixing their own testimonies and then if necessary asking (out of blue) the question that needed to be asked.
Camille style is perfect when there are already inconsistent statements and contradictions to the facts. Dennison seems perfect when there's a need to get the witness to hang themselves.
Yes! I really enjoyed his work. At points he was having fun…It’s been a long trial & he deserved to ‘waste a little time’. Some of #LawTube have been in the court & talked about jurors watching Camille. Whilst watching his full testimony (@Emily D Baker) I noticed that she was making gentle faces (eye rolls, shared exhaustion & even a laugh) WITH JURORS 😳 I think that, at least a couple of them adore her!!
Today was the first day I had to switch to a different stream due to the commentary. Usually it’s ok but it was a lot today and it was hard to listen to opinions of the panel when everyone is talking over each other on top of testimony. Still lots of love for the channel! Just something to consider ❤️
Yeah agreed I was really enjoying all 3 of the crosses and the last two were actually really fun I really wanted to hear what they were saying, and they weren’t really talking about the actual case they were making more jokes and talking to each other. I think Denison did a really good job on those cross’s from a non lawyer position, they have to understand that too
Just saw the Dennison cross. I think he did an amazing job and that Marlon Brando thing at the end was the nail on the coffin. He made the doctor look like a fool, made people understand that many of those were aplicable to Amber too and the gotcha moments were great. Edit: the best part is that since the one making a fool of himself is the witness there's no way for himself to get himself out of the pit during redirect.
I can't believe I have to explain this to people who should know better than me but there is never only one way to get the job done. Camille's method worked because of her personality and the witness she's targeting. Eventually, you may think Camille and Denisson use the good cop / bad cop tactic. He's trying to sound friendly and let people speak, just like they let Amber speak to let her dig deeper. And when the witness gets less defensive and shows signs of fatigue, this is where he starts to attack. It may be annoying when we spent so much time with useless witnesses but it's like watching a movie. People will mostly make their opinion based on the ending. An average film with a great ending will be rated higher than a good film with a disappointing ending. And after bashing him for hours, some of you were like "I prefered the way he ended", but that was the point! And he couldn't get to that point without setting everything up before that. It's far for perfect but it made more sense that you seem to aknowledge.
I think another time they were wrong was when JDs blonde lawyer did the cross on Whitney. I think it came off really good. Whitney whether you like her or not doesn’t come off as hatable like Amber and there is no need to dig into her. Everyone knows she’s going to defend her sister. There doesn’t need to be fireworks and be aggressive every time you cross a witness. The lawyer got her to repeat some moments that were inconsistent and introduced a new witness to counter everything she said. Kept short and sweet.
Dennison has his way of cross he lets the witness crash and burn all on their own while he just stands there and watch. I mean it's quite genius tbh. He basically ask them about their practice/profession and most of the witnesses contradict their own testimony within minutes. I laughed so hard at this; gotta say Dennison was fun to watch too.
About Dennison: he has a particular style, I like it, good chance some of the jury likes that a lot. Apart from doing great in being nice and respectful while exposing witnesses' unlikableness (the psychologist and the psychiatrist), he's good at not doing the conclusions explicitly, but letting that for the jury. If you do everything for them, they'd get a minimal agree/disagree reaction. If they need to 2 + 2 for themselves, they'd get more involved. When the witness is as uncooperative as the psychiatrist, he can't really land the implicit conclusion thing, but then he gained a lot on the unlikableness.
Agree ☺ I hate it when layers try to testify themselves with their questions because it might sound like a "gotcha" moment when they say "so you DID kill him!" but it doesn't mean anything because they are the lawyers and not the witness.
You guys weren't actually following what Dennison was doing to the psychiatrist. He made it abundantly clear that his opinion wasn't valid in anyway. He wasn't getting stuck in the weeds, he was letting the witness make himself look like an ass cause he wasn't answering the questions. If you watch the cross again and actually pay attention to what is happening as opposed to what you want to happen you will see the effectiveness of what transpired. You can also see he is playing off the jury. My 2 cents anyway. Love your stuff
It was disrespectful how they've been reacting to their fellow colleague W. Dennison. If only they got off their high horse and paid attention they could've learned a thing or two...
I think Dennison is amazingly effective! He has successfully dismantled everyone he has crossed. He has cornered them with facts and let’s them hang themselves. This man could be a voice over star in Hollywood. He is a very likeable attorney.
I knew they were expecting less from W. Dennison esp. after their disappointment with his CX with Dr. Hughes. I do understand that they have preferences, it's just that it wasn't met, then they disagreed. I watched Rekieta's stream first, I personally have the same opinions they had on Sir Dennison.
This panel is lame. They keep talking over the lawyer and start yelling out ways to ask the questions. Especially the lady annoyed the crap out of me. Cant expect Camille's style from everyone.
Great streams overall. Just don't get yourselves into an echo chamber about Dennison's style of cross. It's clearly affecting the (live) chat and people get into that cycle of repeating those same words, even before a new witness's cross. I hop into other streams where they enjoy Dennison and their chat is in a positive mood about him. I know it's just the nature of chat/people, but I think we can be more open to others than that.
Elaine's constant "What if any" is driving me completely fucking insane. What's worse is she gets away with asking the same question by just saying "what if any"
She doesn't always. There is often another objection, or an overruled objection is sustained. The judge actually called her out directly the other day.
Agreed, it’s worse than nails on chalkboard to my ears. And now she is starting almost every question with “What it any…” her voice with that start is getting really hard to listen too.
Listen just because he's not textbook, takes moves that look risky to you, and doesn't have the crisp controlled aggression of Camille cannot possibly mean that Dennison as a senior member of the team is somehow less effective when upon reflective he pretty consistently tied the experts up with their own words. I thought it looked like he'd done his homework and endeavored to make the guy not notice he's trapped before its too late by just being so friendly and earnest and that perplexed tone when pointing out a contradiction.... let the man cook.
I dont know why this panel feels the need to be SO RUDE to dennison. He is a MASSIVELY SUCCESSFUL LAWYER no doubt more succesful than most of the panel.
I’m 2 years late to the party but I agree the hate on him was not needed he had the witness looking crazy on the stand and made anything he said not credible.
I hope y'all noticed how every time you got all irritated with wackadoodle spiegle's cross, every time right after that he trapped the little wackadoodle man in his own bs. He's just a friendly guy offering a carrot, then casually bopping his snoot with the stick held behind his back. Remarkably effective, IMO (i am not a lawyer)
So, the Goldwater rule isn’t applicable to this case, but it’s applicable to Dr Curry?? Who actually met with AH?? But Dr Curry CANT diagnose AH???? WTF IS EVEN HAPPENING
I’m really curious about this as well. I thought they couldn’t dx until they actually meet with the client. I don’t understand how this is medically ok or how it’s getting into court.
Agreed. Double standard galore in so many aspects. Some randos, diagnosing people they never even DM'd once, like nobody's business, unchecked, unchallenged.
They are answering superchat questions in the pm. You can listen to the trial if you start at beginning. I would suggest watching today's testimony till the psychiatrist that looks like angry bird or the scientist from back to the future. finishes . He's the second expert of the morning .
Dr Curry could examine Amber because the judge ordered it due to her claim involving PTSD. Johnny is not claiming any mental damages so it’s entirely optional for him.
I have to disagree with the assessment of Dennison as a cross examiner. The Dr. Spiegel cross might not have followed the rules of a cross exam, however it was very successful at dismantelling this man's expertise... So does it really matter? This isn't a math equation, it's an end to a means. I've seen some Twitch streamers refer to Dennison as a "Wizard Destroyer" or the "Anti-Wizard" because of how he handles expert witnesses. And in regards to this case specifically, Dennison really leans into the memes which gives fuel to the internet discourse around this case. I think he's exactly what they needed for these witnesses. Edit: Dennison not Denizen
The problem is that with this timed chess format, it is somewhat of a math equation. You could probably take a man off the street and he would be able to dismantle Spiegels expertise, he was destined to self destruct. Unless it is JD Teams intention to burn through their time advantage, his performance for large stints of his crosses today were painfully bad. Just as AH team has lost the jury at this point, my concern is that its still possible that JDs team can mistakenly do the same thing, resulted in them not being able to capitalize on their advantage. But perhaps it is just their strategy and they willing put dennison on to bumble along. They did still somehow burn more of AH teams time, which is wild to me... Hoeg was right, hes got columbo energy Oh and just one more thing...
I thought it was perfect for this witness. He let the doc set his own trap and blunder into it. I think the jury will view him as a dundering fool. At best.
@@debrab2154 i will admit that especially for the spiegel he was able to get his guard down more than camille may have with the spice she lays off the bat. If anything my main gripe is that they get to the point where they already have enought to preoccupy elaine on the redirect, and then he would continue to talk past that point. Now, upon further thinking, it might actually be the best use of depps time, even if it isnt necessarily efficient. Even if it costs a lot of time, as long as it can preoccupy elaine with also wasting heards time subconsiously. As long as depps team planned for this method of attack, im more than happy with Dennison performance, and i think hes a good lawyer regardless. He certainly has briliant moments that sneak up among the diguise of pain and bumbling, perhaps intentional. Also kurt goes too far imo, both on dennison here as well as in other things ive seen on hoegs streams (e.g. metoo), but that just my opinion at this point. I dont agree that dennison was really even bad overall perse, just more about the potential weaknesses in strategy from burning time. Edit: Maybe they intentionally got into the minds of heards team in such a way that it made them forget their time limits because they see how leisurely the cross appeared. It certainly resulted in that effect.
@Yosh totally fair, and i have no doubt that both experts he crossed had their credibility nuked in the eyes of the jury. All i hope at this point was that all the time wasting was a planned strategy that played into his method of crossing, and that it wont bite them in the ass later down the road when they have less time monopoly after heards team runs out.
@@joshuaford4460 AH's team spent 4 hours on direct today so I don't think this had much to do with their timing. They seemed to have this scheduled and planned. Many times I've seen this panel argue that "the point is made, move on", when the point really wasn't made yet. Maybe it looks that way to a lawyer or someone who's seen all the evidence, but it's simply not convincing to someone with a fresh perspective. Also, many of the concepts that these experts rely on are complex and are best taken down with attacks from multiple angles (i.e. Dr. Spiegle's psychological analyses of a person's character or Kathryn's statistical analysis of social media to project career outcomes and prove damages). If you want the cross to be convincing on these testimonies you have to genuinely show a lack of capability in areas that the jury won't have an understanding of. This takes time to both reveal the mechanism by which the tools work while also showing that they're being used improperly by the expert. Regarding time, JD's team can easily relax with 16hrs left on the clock. Dennison is looking at the JD team and laughing with them while making memes out of these experts. They clearly aren't worried and I really don't see why they should be: The lawyers inside the courtroom had comparable notes on the jury members inside (i.e. he was received well). I thought his cross of Dr. Hughes wasn't that good, but regarding today I think this take on him is just bad.
It's been a year, so I'm revisiting the trial under a fresh 'commentary' lens, and I have to say, seeing a panel of lawyers talking over cross-exam to bad-mouth Dennison is very disappointing, especially with hindsight. I'm not a lawyer, but even I noticed the stark contrast between the laid-back team focusing on facts and evidence (vs.) the condescending hulk-smash bullies who had nothing to work with, and it's part of the reason Team Depp resonated with everyone. A lawyer says "He's letting the witness talk too much", but this layman appreciates it because instead of being slimy bullies, they calmly led witnesses into digging their own grave for free - and remained likeable while doing it. That stuck out far more than whatever is considered 'uber lawyering'.
I appreciate your comment! Tbh we all learned a lot from watching Dennison, and if you asked most (if not all) of us today, we’d have a different perspective on his style of cross-examining. We all come from our own experienced backgrounds, but that doesn’t mean we’re not also continuing to learn along the way 💙
I don't get all the hate for Dennison's crosses. I get it, he's a bit long winded. He's not as good as Camille on cross, but most of the panel has agreed they probably couldn't do better than her either. Dennison nailed both of his Xs and got what he needed, just took his time doing it. It could definitely be polished but none the less it was effective.
yes...you are 100% right ...the whole panel was clueless.... Thats the difference between youtube lawyers that practice law from their mother's basement and real lawyers ...
@@FabiolaRVela I see where you're coming from, but I think he's got a folksy way of talking, which makes him more relatable to the jury, and makes him seem less intelligent to the expert witnesses. If someone thinks they know way more than you, they can act condescending (and therefore unlikeable) and more easily fall into word traps.
That part where the doctor said “only victims seek therapy” is INSANELY wrong! Sometimes narcissists or bpd will go to a therapist to have someone condone their behavior AND victims are afraid to go to a therapist from denial or fear of retribution for their partner!
Not only that, but many victims will be fearful of going to therapy, for all kinds of reasons. I was incensed listening to his garbage. Conceited fool.
I hope we can stop using words like crazy and insane to describe everything. That is CRAZY good news! It's so important, It's insane! I'm not even sure when this started, but it's everywhere. That was the abuser in my house's favourite word. Now his son uses those words and has built on them. I'm completely out of hope. I'll never catch up with medical bills. Everyone I love has died. I'm not famous and rich and eccentric.
-Depp went from 18h 30min to 15h 51min (2h 39min used). -Heard went from 08h 14min to 04h 09min (4h 6min used). -Total hours used is 6h 45min. -Total hours remaining for both parties is 20h.
I agree it felt like Dennison was being strategic and he’s a way better actor than AH! Elaine totally fell into the trap and wasted so much time. And I do think AH strategy is to run out of time so she can continue to play the victim by saying “well, we had some really amazing evidence and testimony to share but my lawyers ran out of time having to fight all the viscous things Johnny said about me in yet another attempt to silence me. I never had a fair shot.”
I agree. I think that he intentionally speaks in the manner that he does to irritate AH's witnesses and it works every time. Dennison has me on edge every time he gets up to speak.
I like Dennison . I know he has flaws ...but it seems like he lets these people walk on him just to open them up. I think he has a pretty effective approach. But I can see how someone more competent could take advantage of that but he seems to know who to let step on his toes .
General observations: 1. Dr Moore is qualified to perform surgery, obviously, but he may not be qualified to comment on the cause of injuries, that goes more into forensics. As Camille pointed out, people could easily lie about what caused injuries for a variety of reasons like insurance etc. 2. Dr Spiegel's cross was good because ethics were brought up so often, it is a case that is weirdly morally ambiguous and 'muddy', having someone seem blatantly unethical is a plus. 3. Dennison's crosses seem longer and almost long winding, but it also means that the opposing side spends more time in redirect addressing all that was brought up.
Kurt I don’t agree with the witnesses being so bad that Dennison looked good. That annoying psychologist completely changed when they returned from break. He came back a lot less annoying and argumentative. Which leads me to think the AH team spoke with him even though they shouldn’t have. Dennison was playing to his ego and getting under his skin. He played the crazy doctor at his own game while giving the impression that he too was an idiot as everyone thought he was. I say play to your strengths even if that means you have to act stupid. I read a book once that the main character was told he was unteachable and how could someone not know the basics of repairing things. The reply was, ‘sure I know how to do it but if I can get your dumbass to do it for me why not have you do it for me instead?’ It was such a mic drop that to this day I remember that little part of the book. Work smart not hard, if the ‘expert witness’ is doing your job and becoming snippy to boot, let them sink their own boat and sit back to watch. Maybe not the best thing but surely effective. Also, he is kinda bringing it to the level that the jury will either understand they are trying to BS them or just zone them out. Either way it’s a win. Plus Elaine coming back to try and put those fires out is just icing on that marble cake ;)
To me it looks like Dennison had the job to spin things out to make sure Johnny was safe from testifying today. A press statement is not a guarantee they won’t call him.
As a film buff with a Bachelor's of Science degree in Creative Media and film with emphasis on Screenwriting and Production I found it INSULTING that Arnold would compare Amber's LACK of a career to GAL GADOT, CHRIS PINE, JASON MOMOA, and ZENDAYA then go on to say she didn't know that Chris was in Star Trek, and that "there weren't many superhero films to pull from". Wonder what the jury thought of THAT nonsense
I am a bit of a film bluff but not super hero movies. I have never heard of AH until she filed the retraining order. I seen The Danish Girl 3 or 4 times never knew she was in it. She doesn’t stand out. She doesn’t have the ‘it’ factor at all for star power.
@@StilettoCutsQuick. even if you aren't into the superhero scene she has no excuse given IT'S HER JOB to know these things. Also just how do you NOT KNOW who the new BATMAN is?!
I had no idea who AH was until this trial and a few weeks in to boot. I mean, I really only knew Jason Momoa was in Aquaman, I had no idea AH was up there with him. She really doesn't stand out to me. I had no idea she was in 50 products??? That seems wild to me. I certainly couldn't name any except the Danish Girl they parade about and the Aquaman movies.
I thought Dennisons cross was actually good. He let them talk, let them sink themselves and at the end of the day I can be sure that none of the jury gave any credibility to any of these witnesses. I call that a good outcome, maybe he is not pinning them down point by point but at the end of the day he achieves what he sets out to do, destroy their credibility
Just rewatched the direct and cross of the psychiatrist. I have so many issues with this doctors professionalism. So many unethical comments and conclusions; pretty horrifying. However, I have changed my mind about the cross - as a lay person, it was good. It allowed the Dr to do the most damage to himself as he kept talking. Dennison was actually quite good at baiting him and achieving the result needed. Does it really matter how he got there in the end?
I think Dennison is old school and uses the fact people like to hear the sound of their own voice. His skill set is deftly delivered and results obtained. PLEASE TRY NOT TO TALK OVER EACH OTHER - ALL OPINIONS ARE A DELIGHT TO LISTEN TO.
They have SO much time to use discrediting witnesses that I think Dennison is just having fun with it at this point. He got a clown for a witness and decided to turn it into a circus, and he's the ringmaster.
So, Elaine tries to say that JD is a narcissist for eating candy in the court, knowing that we have seen footage of AH eating snacks while TESTIFYING in the UK??? who is she working for??!! XD (I love that at that moment Camille Vazquez took candy from JD and start laughing XD)
I find Byte and panel's reactions to Dennison's cross of "expert witness" baffling. Dude was a clown and got treated as one and everyone else seemed to be for it especially Nick and company.
I just finished Nick's stream, yeah, I thought personally that Dennison's cross with that Psych was good, not the best, but good. I think it differs greatly because they have a "preferred" way of doing CX if they were the one on the podium.These lawyers are critical in the technical aspects but it's up to the jurors in the end.
Agreed. I feel like so many here was stuck on how a textbook cross-exam should look like. But for this specific witness open-ended questions was soooo much better at showing what a fool he was. It made him say a ton of dumb stuff that there's no way a yes/no question could illicit. Even the repetitive questions that got the people here frustrated was amazing because the witness had 0 discipline and it just made him look more and more unhinged. Dennison had obviously gotten a read on him during the depo where he had called Depp an idiot. And he successfully made the witness display that vileness again.
Yep. Dennison giving him room to respond at length, to the same questions over and over, only allowed this witness more opportunities to act like a surly jackass in front of the jury.
guys you need to understand that this isnt amber heard, these are experts, its not all camille stop simping on her, she good thats for sure but so is dennison, just with different approach, camille also crossed an expert but in a more aggresive and tense way, dennison did the same, just in a subtle way and in the purpose of making them lower their guard and then trap them.
Dr. Doofinsmirtz was hilarious. He hated Denison but ended up talking to him pretty well at the end 🤣 I understand why you guys hate his lawyering but i actually like it because he’s a bit funny plus I tend to stammer and talk in circles >.>
I completely disagree about Dennison's ability irt Spiegel. You mentioned lawyer brain vs layperson, but it's really important here. Dennison simultaneously casts him as massively arrogant, not intelligent, and deeply corrupt within the first 15 minutes just by challenging him on ethics. Spiegel isn't even that wrong about rendering opinions without direct examinations. But Dennison paints him into a corner immediately, then pokes him with a stick until his ego unravels. I don't think that's easy. Could be wrong though
I feel like you just didn’t get the point of this cross. Calling it trash. It was meant to be as it was to bring him unhinged and how it did that. They’ve obviously consulted psychologist Dr Curry on how he would react under certain circumstances. Giving him closed questioned would have helped him to stay composed.
I think they missed, that guy's ego being shaken by the gravity of Dennison's immediate attack on his ethics is what put him on the back foot. He was an unbearable academic, Dennison set him burning with those first questions
6:18:19 "you can't claim damages for something that hasn't even happened" but somehow when talking about Amber's damages she can talk about all the things that didn't happen (that were not even expected to happen) for 5 years...... make it make sense. I can't believe they didn't point it out on cross, this was the major demonstration of bias, totally double standard
This! I was wondering exactly this! The team in cross didn't point out this obvious bias and discrepancy in her analysis, urgh!! Her witnesses trigger me..
@@mehetabshaikh9684 lol, yeah. I was told to not be so loud. I personally find gaslighting so disgustingly disrespectful I yell at the blatant lies, contradictions and double standards. Screw the unethical mf'ers.
Рік тому+1
3:33:50 The most interesting part of the whole day is watching Johnny absorb Dr. Spiegel's behavior with an enigmatic smile on his face and think how fantastic it would be to play such a colorful character in a future film production. I think he would be brilliant ✋😂
Both Dennison and Vasquez are good lawyers with their respective weaknesses. Additionally, Dennison has a stutter so he has a stop start cadence. Christopher Melcher is fair and balanced when it comes to assessing the ability of the lawyers at this trial. On Popcorned Planet Melcher said Dennison “destroyed” Dr Spiegel. On the same channel he previously observed that Vasquez’ was unable to control AH on the first day of Cross X.
Dennison did great. I know the panel are lawyers and the cross might have seemed painful, but We heard him diagnose Depp. Speigel walked back his diagnosis. He was perfect to dismantle Speigel. I came back just to watch again
This is my second time watching LegalBytes AFTER having seen Emily D Baker’s stream during the trial... This channel infuriated me by talking over key moments, including Speigel’s admission of using Pirates as a baseline
I completely agree. I watched Emily throughout the trial and am going back to watch this stream. It’s very difficult to listen to anyone’s input when they’re all talking over each other. Not sure why Dennison was ripped apart for his cross but honestly, as most of this panel are lawyers - it’s disheartening to see that they can’t appreciate his style. He’s a classic litigator and has a great slow burn style. I thought he was an absolute all star during this trial. Unfortunately, I won’t be watching anymore of the commentary by this panel. I just don’t care for the yelling over one another.
The remaining time difference between Depp's team and AH's team is astounding. Interested to see how both sides utilize their respective remaining allotment, especially JD'S team, as they have more than 3x as much time left than AH's team.
It’s funny how Rottenborn accused Johnny about losing the court time 🤣 JD’s team will have 1hour per witness on their side and, if Amber’s team manage their time well, they will have 16 minutes to cross. Maybe 10 if they want to keep some time for the closure arguments.
@@Jennifersbody765 that’s probably why rottenborn said that to JD, he knew they were losing time crossing him that they’d need later because JD has such a slow cadence. According to the different lawyers I’m watching for this trial, everyone gets fresh time for closing statements, the current time is just for arguments.
One of the reasons why JD team has so much time left than AH team is because the AH team spammed truckloads of objections in the first half of the trial. This results in lesser testimony duration given by JD's witnesses(and JD himself) as JD's attorneys has to move on to new questions after the objections were sustained. AH's witnesses on the other hand, are mostly unskippable depositions(though redacted) that cannot be objected on the spot. And also AH's live witnesses spends too much of the court's time saying the same thing over and over again without bringing anything substantial or new to their case. Not only they waste time on mundane stuff, their testimony defies common sense. This results negative impression in jury's mind and no matter how hard they keep recounting the same narrative, the story just won't stick into the jury's head. AH team brought this upon themselves by wasting their own time while conserving time for JD team.
Dennison’s strategy is not like Vasquez’ at all, but I do think it is effective. Sometimes you have to give someone enough rope to hang themselves with. Which I think he does.
Loved going back months later and realising that these lawyers were really inept (bar Hoeg, Mike & Runkle) when it came to giving their thoughts on Dennison’s cross. 🤣🤣🤣
Dennison and Camille are used on different witnesses for a strategic reason. All of the attorneys are perfect for who they examined period. They are all great! Dennison's first question was EXCELLENT. They should not have allowed Elaine to mention information to the jury knowing they were denied the motion. Dennison needed to clarify. Dennison analyzes his victims. This man talks his way into a mess and so Dennison allows them to confuse themselves and the jury. I have absolutely adored Dennison's examinations. He is a quiet beast. Thats wat makes him an attorney on Depps team and not us. Y would you want to use more time on Kate Moss? this attorney gets a witness to say im wrong, and u guys think hes not good? hes exceptional at listening to the"expert" witnesses and hemming them up. making information clear for the jury. thats wats important.
Alyte all you've done with this channel is insane! I've watched all of it. Take a bow. Thank you! Please accept my frustration from today's stream - there was far too much panel discussion during the witness testimony and cross. I had to leave the stream and watch elsewhere because I could not follow. Hope tomorrow is better :)
We don’t have to be frustrated about how she manage her channel. 🤔 If there was no commentaries, I would go somewhere else. There are subtitles for the trial anyway when the pannel talk if we don’t heard something.
@@kiiiwiiibird I understand. But there are not so many solutions. I reverse sometimes if I missed anything or if I didn’t heard the pannel. :/ they won’t just make commentaries during breaks.
I agree 100% with you, Josh! I usually appreciate the panel’s comments along the trial but yesterday there were too many interruptions... they were not even paying attention anymore for long minutes while I was trying to understand what was happening at the trial. Hopefully they will find a better balance today.
So in regards to Dr. Speigal - he is not a credible witness for a multitude of reasons... I am a Speech Language Pathologist - we are trained in the administration of the MOMA - Johnny has ADHD - this has a HUGE impact on working memory. (I also have ADHD) The fact that he didn't even acknowledge the diagnosis, and how stress further exacerbates ADHD symptoms is a HUGE issue. Another glaring issue is his unprofessionalism - just using the word "idiot" in any reference to a patient is outrageous. This made me really lose respect for Heard's law team - he was not hired for his credentials - he was hired for him agreeing to give the opinion they wanted. Really, really, really horrible - I cannot believe that this guy is called as a witness for anything. What scares me about him and Dr. Moore - is that most people assume doctors are ethical and can be trusted. I'm afraid this was a huge win for Amber's team.
@chatty chatty chatty.......Spiegel loves to hear himself talk. Jd's team shouldn't have objected and just let him go. They would have run out of time today.
I do think the jurors are smart enough to know this was not a credible witness. Judging by the feedback received about their reactions I’m pretty confident that is the case.
@@stevep2380 I probably shouldn’t say this, but I’m afraid it looked like something was really ‘off’ with him. I really don’t think they (amber’s team) should have put him in that position.
Denisson may look and sound as though he is beating around the bushes not as straight forward and Camille but I believe that is his own style. Every lawyer has their own way of questioning or cross examine a witness. He may take a longer way than Camille but it doesn't really mean he doesn't achieve the same goal. That's whey these people are on the same team. They are there to achieve the same goal. They trust each other as a team. The other team goes round and round and end up with all BS and their witness statements being pushed back really ugly. So even if Denisson is no Camille, I'm fine as long as they can prove who is lying and being bias on the stand.
Dennison is great in my opinion. His style lets the "experts" paint themselves into corners, then he lights the wall on fire. His cross at the start was him talking about Amber, and spegal didn't even realize it.
So, according to Kathryn Arnold what Adam Waldman had to say is more important than a Washington Post article. I had never heard of Mr. Waldman until this trial, but I had heard that Amber was setting Johnny Depp up after their divorce, that he was giving her $7 million, her claims that she would donate the money and I am not a Johnny Depp stan.
I got the feeling that he used the direct to observe this guy, assess him and the jury's response to his answers and then decided, that this approach with open questions and feigned naivety was the best to make that guy disassemble himself. Also, he let the jury come to the "wait, some of this sounds like what we heard of Amber??"-conclusion themselves, instead of rubbing it under their nose. Pretty effective strategy.
4:03:33 The "Doctor" is clearly a massive narcissist as Dennison probably evaluated from their first exchange so my take on this is he's been kicking his ego to pieces to get to this point. Had Dennison led with the questions your panel wished he had you would probably not gotten anything close to this more docile responses, but more aggravated, power dynamic. IMO Dennison is doing great and controlling this. You kind of want the jury (and viewers) to see this guy go off the rails. Mission accomplished haha
I Agree, Denisson Cross was to force AH team to do a longer redirect by making him go on and on with the cross going in circles to make AH team to make redirect losing there time. Tactical Lawyering. And compared to other non lawyer reaction channel they like the Denisson way.
Better Call Dennison! : Quacknado This summer! When a court room of experts are parade before the jury an attorney stands and demolish all their credentials! Along with his fiery co-star Camille Vasquez attorney Wayne Dennison will reduce all bias exports to nothing but quacks. I loved every minute of this 😂😂🤣 it was so bad it was good
If I were JD, I'd do my best to drain AH's clock by answering the direct questions slowly and rambling, when accused of delay tactics, just respond, "Sorry, I can't help it. As you heard from an expert yesterday my response times are slow because I'm a drug addled idiot." Then relish the collective sigh of relief throughout the court room as Elaine runs out of time and can no longer "What, if any" anyone again.
I usually watch Emily D Baker live while working and come back later to watch your streams. I'm entirely too invested in this trial, but I don't wanna miss anything! You all bring so much value to the experience.
I thought Dennison was good as well. I thought he did a great job of poking the bee hive and then standing there smiling and even swaying his upper body with glee as this guy just unleaded rediculous remarks that sounded unfounded and biased.
This guy makes me so upset. I’ve met so may “doctors” like him. Even to this da,y, after 25 years of Ritalin helping me concentrate and survive life, doctors ask me if don’t take it on weekends like I stop having ADD on the weekends. I am so tired of these narcissistic “doctors” exerting power and control over the lives of his patients. Most psychiatrists go into the field to figure out their own physiological issue and this guy obviously has issues with power and control.
yeah same!! i've been taking adderall for over 15 years now and i've experienced too many people trying to shame me for needing to take it all the time. i have inattentive type ADHD and i really have a hard time if i don't take it bc i'm so used to being able to function better, and there is no reason to be ashamed of that!! there is such a stigma against ADHD meds bc so many people abuse them and that makes life harder for us who actually need them.
I wholeheartedly agree!!! I was thrown a mountain of pills from the age of 13 on. I was diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, and then it was bi-polar and panic disorder. I was on Ritalin and then tegretol, and Klonopin, and then depacote and Xanax and addrall. It was like a carousel of pharmaceuticals. It was like one minute I was up and the next down.
Any ideas as to why there is no mention of Ambers huge movie flop "London Fields"? Or the suit she brought against the producers? First director quit when she was hired sighting her lack of talent and it was the lowest rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes.
I wanna know why Amber's attempted defamation case against Doug Stanhope was ok, but not Johnny's. Doug wrote an op-ed saying Amber was blackmailing Johnny.
Also, the fact that the producer of Aquaman was concerned over the lack of chemistry she has with Mamoa. None of that’s discussed (it’s funny Jason follows Johnny’s social media but not Amber’s btw).
Johnny's face during Spiegel's cross was just killing me 😂. The guy is a buffoon and it shows. The arrogance couldn't be worse. And the weird tongue thing!
Or even J.Ds own Doctor (Kipper) saying he did emergency treatment and cleaned the wound... Also, that expert said there were no other injuries to J.Ds hands. That doesn't match Amber's version of events
@@jessejames96 100% agree. I hope his thoughts would change seeing it but after the final week of AH witnesses, I give up on any of them having a shred of dignity.
Courtesy of Law School Grit TIME STAMPS: Morning Show: 00:00 Hoeg hits 100K!: 14:43 💕 Direct - Dr. Richard Moore (Orthopedic Surgeon): 29:22 Cross - Dr. Moore: 57:43 Redirect - Dr. Moore: 1:13:11 Direct - Dr. David Spiegel (Psychiatrist): 1:22:21 Morning Break: 2:09:22 Cross - Dr. Spiegel: 3:23:48 Lunch Break: 4:17:50 Redirect - Dr. Spiegel: 5:22:34 Direct - Kathryn Arnold (entertainment industry consultant): 5:51:55 Cross - K. Arnold: 7:28:26 Redirect - K. Arnold: 8:46:04 Lawyer Panel: 8:56:56
You guys sound like armchair sportsman. Everyone has an opinion on what should have been done and how but when you're in the game you don't have the same time or pressure to deal with the moment.
"He isn't very good at cross"
Proceeds to absolutely destroy the man.
Literally, I do not understand how people said it wasn't a good cross. He literally got the expert to say he was wrong lol.
He was definitely asking bad questions, but it evidently didn't matter because of how argumentative the witness was.
@@1specified still doesn’t mean it was bad overall, these guys went nonstop with how bad he is, when he’s the expert destroyer
@@rainstorm571 their criticism is reasonable because if he tried that cross on a competent witness then he would have been destroyed, not the witness. It was still a bad cross, it just didn't matter at the time because he was somehow out-silly'd.
Dennison is great at cross. I Loved watching him.
Anyone Dennison crosses just goes bonkers on the stand. I don't know what he's doing, but it's genius.
Really genius! Its like driving in circles but yet you arrive at your destination with a perfect parallel parking move lol
@@cellyszn20 arrived with a parallel park AND on time!
@@Val_Benko 😂😂😂🤣🤣
lol ur so right.
Agreed!
Someone on another channel said “I love how Dennison places a circus around you and lets you clown yourself.” (@BunkerBoy) This is the best analogy I’ve seen so far!
YES absolutely. Denisson was great! Even Emily Baker said so. This panel is not good at law.
💀😭
Looking back in retrospect, it really is unfair to say Dennison was bad at cross. Camille was specifically prepared for Amber. She knows her story inside and out, and was able to refer back to inconsistencies, evidence and exhibits easily for hours as she's been essentially studying for the cross for years. Dennison has been basically studying other fields like movies and psychology to be able to compete against board certified experts, so his strategy of "playing dumb" and letting them expose themselves and look stupid over the course of the cross was super entertaining to see
Well... I don't think that Dennison was strategically "playing dumb", as much as his speech pattern made those hoity-toity "experts" think he's dumb (and most of the commentators/panellists here not reading him well, either)... and then it was so-ooo fun to watch them get dismantled by Dennison... in some cases just by reading the rules and instruction manual to them.🤌💋
@@BlackQback I agree! Although I remember watching it live and thinking already back then how unfair bad opinions about him were, watching it over a year ago, knowing the outcome (and the highlights of the cross) it's simply hilarious xDDD
completely agree. Kurt especially is completely out of order. It's really annoying to listen to Runkle is the only one who calls it out - thank you Ian!
Agreed. It's also worth noting that the panel didn't take into account the fact that the trial was being televised, which means that the press would have called out Depp's lawyers as "abusive" if they were to really try to bully or constrain witnesses as might be the norm. In fact, Amber's PR team was actively planting stories along those lines throughout the trial and especially prior to key testimony coming in. I thought Dennison was brilliant throughout, consistently making experts look like biased fools, getting them to argue with him and appear excessively defensive, as though they were hiding something or had merely been paid to say what AH's team needed them to say, and getting AH's lawyers to waste their own time rehabilitating them on topics that didn't even need to be touched. It was a "slow death by a thousand cuts" approach, which completely undermined the experts' credibility, rather than an attempt to get a knock-out punch on one or two facts against potentially dangerous witnesses who have the knowledge and ability to punch back.
Also agree with the comment that Kurt was out of order: he appeared to have been drinking (or maybe he was just especially riled up and coming across that way), but that was no excuse for such an abusive take. He should have left his own ego at the door and tried listening to other opinions (esp. Runkle) rather than going into "I'm the greatest lawyer of all time. None of you know what you're talking about" mode.
@@AJD09FB "the panel didn't take into account the fact that the trial was being televised, which means that the press would have called out Depp's lawyers as "abusive" if they were to really try to bully or constrain witnesses as might be the norm. In fact, Amber's PR team was actively planting stories along those lines throughout the trial and especially prior to key testimony coming in." 👍🎯
BTW, the whole "Amber Heard show" was one giant confession through projection. The fate even hinted at it through their "expert's" name - Dr. Spiegel = Dr. Mirror.
As for Dennison, I have one miniscule criticism, which didn't make a difference as far as the trial results were concerned, just a bit took away from the "entertainment value". E.g. with Spiegel he missed an opportunity to to show to the jury just how dirty were AH lawyers playing, when "the genius" said "I was told it was vomitus..." (re photo of Johnny passed out on downers, with ice-cream dripping down his trousers), by asking a follow-up question "Who told you that?". Whether he didn't catch it in the moment, didn't think it was necessary or was firmly sticking to the principle "never ask the question you don't know what the answer will be" (though breaking that rule would've been zero risk at that point) - I don't know. But it surely would've been fun watching Spiegel either squirm and writhe trying to avoid answering that, or, even better - if he did answer! Similarly, when grilling Dr. Dawn Hughes about a frame she left blank (What happened - IPV by Johnny), he did ask whether she knows that people would need to review it, she tried to wiggle out "because it was in her 80+ pages of notes and would've been redundant", one extra question "So, you couldn't even write down a page and a paragraph of your notes where you answered that question, you purposefully made it hard to review, didn't you?" wouldn't have hurt.
However, those are such miniscule omissions, compared to, say Miss Meyers not noticing that the "Molly" text was incoming at JD's phone, while all other texts were outgoing (especially since that text was brought up in UK, and if Johnny owned to writing it then, Rotten..born would've had UK transcript prepared)... Or the blond +size lawyer (I never remembered her name) failing to properly lay the foundation for Jeniffer Howell's testimony and e-mail to come in, so the Depp team had to cut out the tea about Whitney lying from her deposition.
As for AH's team of lawyers and PR, I'm not touching that bunch🤢🤮, beyond what I said at the start of this litany. Sorry, I sometimes tend to perorate.
Dennison is a master. He didn't just discredit a witness in 10 minutes...he stunk up the entire AH defense in 50 minutes. Both Dennison crosses resulted in repeating AmberTrd and clowning her expert witness. Brilliant! and entertainmenting.
he probably could do that in 10mins. i've seen Camille do it
@@un9286 Camille is great when there are already contradictions and inconsistent statements, her style fits that much better.
Dennison is great at getting the expert to hang himself.
I think Camille would've been better at examining the Karen psychologist but here Dennison shined. He destroyed those two.
Knowing that there are lawyers like the ones on AHs team i'm already satisfied by him not embarrassing himself entirely.
Btw to all the guys who say Denisson is bad at cross, you're 100% wrong. Cross is not just about Camille shutting down somebody. Everybody has a different style. And Denisson has a slow burn kind of style where the witness slowly contradicts and disregards their whole testimony. So hard luck if you're slow on the uptake and only expect action in the court. This is not Suits.
I absolutely agree with you. Thet give him such a hard time, on this channel only. I think he did very well today! He used their words against them and they had to continually back down their answers. It made them look incompetent to me. I'm not a lawyer, I'm in the medical profession where ethics is huge. Wait, Good Lawgic doesn't like Dennison.
@@RozeechildRN pretty sure they've said that closing arguments aren't included in the time allocations.
IANAL but it was pointed out on Nick's channel (I think?) that the huge issue with Denisson is his inability to control the witness. He just lets them talk as much as they want which is apparently not what you are supposed to do during cross.
@@lazyman7505 Yes fair point. But that's his style. He lets them talk as much as they want but he makes sure that his questions are angled in a way that the witness commits perjury. And Dr. Spiegel did that and looked like an Idiot. If you hate Dr. Spiegel, then Denisson did a good job, cus the Jury probably hates him too. Wayne also did very well with the last witness. He made her look a random person testifying for Amber Heard and not an Expert witness. Good thing he is a movie buff because he made her look like a fish out water talking about the industry that she is currently working in.
@@parikshithmo I agree with you, against Dr. Spiegel he was clearly the best choice.
I actually like Dennison’s style. He makes the witness feel comfortable and confident, but slowly and steadily he is pulling the rug from underneath them.
Agree. This panel is not good at understanding stuff.
Played them like a fiddle..He was excellent against that tech guy as well imo
Exactly witnesses think they are in control and comes out as a fool once they start explaining too much while camille's style is aggressive she controls the witness it's all about the style and it doesn't matter coz at the end they are getting the results
Yes that's what I think too. Does the open ended questions at the start to get them feeling good, he lets them run their mouth, let's them make some bad mistakes with what they say. Then picks it apart. It's like a way of getting more stuff to pull apart then just what is said in direct. Because he changes gears on them it really throws them off. They way he asks questions really rattles them. He picks apart everything they say.
@@ScenicWanders Exactly!
I think Dennison is very consistent with his cross. As someone who has studied and been involved with interrogations, when you're questioning someone, there's two major ways to get the information you want. You either attempt to gain their trust (which isn't going to work in this situation, as a defense witness is not going to trust the prosecution) or you attempt to make them so confident that they slip up and dig their own grave. Dennison has done this on every cross. He starts off as a little flakey and then as he goes on, he starts throwing his punches. The witness gets confident and starts showing off, then regrets it later.
Yup. He’s giving Dr snobnoxious the rope to hang himself with. He went back on his word on the stand twice. Somewhere in the middle and right at the end and mr D discredited him completely. He ended up looking like an arrogant narcissistic hack.
Dennison is great at cross when there is a need to get the expert to hang himself.
Camille seems great at murdering the witness with inconsistent statements and contradictions.
Yeah, Dennison tore Spiegel to shreds. Don’t see how others saw this as a bad cross, but hey I’m just an average Joe 🤷🏻♂️
He appeals to the jury too I guarantee it. He seems like a very lovely guy. Very kind, and endearing. He is just the kind of personality to be able to humble himself to that type of tactic I bet.
Yeah he's excellent. There was a few times he stayed on something too long and once or twice he made statements instead of questions, but generally he's very very good.
Big disagree on Denisson, I think his role today was to stretch over the day without letting Johnny on the stand and also bring a bunch of credibility issues so that AHs Team is forced to burn time in redirect
Yeah, I think he showed that so clearly during the last cross-exam. The only noteworthy thing he illicit from the witness was that she knew fuck-all about movies. And after that, especially after he learned that they would be going to 5.30, he just went full 'lull them to sleep mode'. Spoke about damages that the jury don't care about and without making any big points about it and all with the most monotone and slow voice he could. Leave them for the day with a feeling that this was just a big snoozefest.
Absolutely agree! They were literally dilly-dallying around for the whole day.
I wish they would have asked if the article itself caused the damage. The rest is just consequences. Not saying victims shouldn't speak out but she did it tactically for maximum impact. I don't think the A-man movie was successful because of her.
Thank you. 100% agree. The legalbytes lady was constantly badgering him and talking over him...That's probably why the people thought he was bad at cross. Its actually the other way round. These guys are not too great at understanding the situation there. Simply let the lawyer finish the sentence before commenting.
They talk too much s hit about him.
But if you throw these Lawtubers on there I'm pretty sure they won't do well like who are they trying to be on this panel all the time. 🙄🙄
Couldn't disagree more on Denisson, the guys a master at destroying experts in their own field.
Dennison was the one from JD's side who made a joke of most of AH's expert witnesses. He was very clever with his method and he hardly stops the witnesses and let them speak way too much and make themselves look like jokers.
I don't have law degree but I'm sane enough to distinguish this and many more people does too
TIME STAMPS:
Morning Show: 00:00
Hoeg hits 100K!: 14:43
Direct - Dr. Richard Moore (Orthopedic Surgeon): 29:22
Cross - Dr. Moore: 57:43
Redirect - Dr. Moore: 1:13:11
Direct - Dr. David Spiegel (Psychiatrist): 1:22:21
Morning Break: 2:09:22
Cross - Dr. Spiegel: 3:23:48
Lunch Break: 4:17:50
Redirect - Dr. Spiegel: 5:22:34
Direct - Kathryn Arnold (entertainment industry consultant): 5:51:55
Cross - K. Arnold: 7:28:26
Redirect - K. Arnold: 8:46:04
Lawyer Panel: 8:56:56
Bless you
you da real MVP
Omg thank you so much!
Bless your soul, thank you
Thank you guys so much for doing this! WoW! 9 hours of hard work! Every time I switched on the actual trial, I just couldn't stand the boredom. I am so glad you guys make this so easy to follow.
Stop the hate on Denisson ✋🛑
Dennisons a top litigator for a reason. The panel is too critical of styles different than their own. He crushed that cross of the doctor and is definitely playing off of the jury, based on reported juror reactions. It’s a steady & calculated disarming of the witnesses.
Agree 100%. This panel keeps badgering him and not letting him finish. So people naturally start thinking that it was a bad cross. They also talk over at the most important moments. Even in the most exciting moments in the trial, iv'e never facepalmed or put my head down. These guys are just overreacting for no reason. Actually they're leading the people to believe Denisson isn't good at cross.
He is way better lawyer than any person on this panel.
AGREE! I thought I was the only thinking the same. I came here after watching Emily's stream to see if they're also as entertained as her with this cross but they kept criticising Dennison, i can't help to roll my eyes haha
They talk too much s hit about him.
But if you throw these Lawtubers on there I'm pretty sure they won't do well like who are they trying to be on this panel all the time. 🙄🙄
I feel like the constant stumbling over word is what does it. He sounds really nervous, whether he is or not
One thing I'd say Dennison does better than Vasquez is not relying off a script of questions. He's very good at questioning off responses on the spot.
yeah he's super good at tearing into these expert witnesses, that's when they bring him in. Camille usually goes off a planned cross. This kind of conversational approach to cross Dennison is amazing at.
He's on the top for a reason.
And I can't believe people criticize him because of how he talks.
And Camille said in the interview that Dennison was the man who told her to use AH's testimony to trap her. Ben Chew or the firm they represent are not foolish enough to give him huge responsibility if he wasn't good.
I disagree completely on Denison. I love him! He’s a “Colombo” for lawyers. I think he’s a very good lawyer.
probably a lot better than any of these in the panel thats for sure
Well said! I love that you used Colombo - couldn't put my finger on it until you mentioned that! 😄
I like how he draws them in, I'm sure the whole team know what they are doing. Together they're balanced IMAO.
8:02.17 Denison slowly establishing that he's bigger expert when it comes to the movies roles and finances than the expert witness. Even getting her to kinda admit his superiority by calling out "you are a movie buff, aren't you". That's some top tier flexing as lawyer.
Ya that was so good he literally knew everything about movies and actors and that expert be like oh you are movie buff 😂
He doesn't suck. He wouldn't be in that law firm if he were not any good. And he did pretty well
Tbh Alyte and the panel's take on this one is way off the mark. Dennis was very effective there on cross on Dr.Clown. His objections suck tho.
He is actually a partner
@@Hydrosphere13 Dr Clown! 🤡🤡🤡
It's so weird it seems like lawyers in general don't care for Dennison's style but it seems like it appeals to many of us laymen. And personally I love it as a laymen. I remember watching a reaction with asmongold aswell and it's so entertaining every time he comes up.
They were wrong IMO especially Kurt. Kurt misses a lot of subtlety’s he only see in black and white
They weren't analysing rather streaming to take advantage of the wave it created and make subs and superchat donations 😂
I agree, he's one of my favs, he doesn't come across as mean on cross but makes very valid points although sometimes it seems like he's not going to. I think he's good at putting the experts off their guard while being appealing to the jury/common person.
It seems like they all want to nail experts with hard facts whereas Dennison's approach is more psychological. He just makes them look bad without nailing them on specific facts.
I love watching reactions after the livestream. Dennison cross not being good… I’m like wait for it… and then he pulls the cluster B stream out. I get Dennisons style 100%. He uses his manner of speaking to his advantage. It’s effective with experts because they think they’re the smartest person in the courtroom, often they are, but he leverages the way he presents. Shnell saw it coming, he was holding back laughter. This doctor walked into a landmine by underestimating Dennison. Don’t underestimate his style and approach, that’s what he banks on. Im a SME in IT that does consulting work in telecom. I use this tactic at work when I get pushback from team or person I need to get deliverables or approvals for work flow from. I’m certain the jury loves Dennison. He’s relatable.
Agreed. Good to see so many people side with Denisson. This panel is too quick to judge.
Yeeeees!!!! Agreed!
I do prefer Camille's clean and surgically precise crosses, but (as I am no lawyer) I do appreciate Dennison's way of letting the witnesses to lower the guard and incriminate themselves with mixing their own testimonies and then if necessary asking (out of blue) the question that needed to be asked.
Camille style is perfect when there are already inconsistent statements and contradictions to the facts.
Dennison seems perfect when there's a need to get the witness to hang themselves.
Yes! I really enjoyed his work. At points he was having fun…It’s been a long trial & he deserved to ‘waste a little time’.
Some of #LawTube have been in the court & talked about jurors watching Camille. Whilst watching his full testimony (@Emily D Baker) I noticed that she was making gentle faces (eye rolls, shared exhaustion & even a laugh) WITH JURORS 😳 I think that, at least a couple of them adore her!!
@@suzimonkey345 well, I imagine being able to call your opponent a turd in court is a rather rare occurrence. I would abuse the opportunity too.
Today was the first day I had to switch to a different stream due to the commentary. Usually it’s ok but it was a lot today and it was hard to listen to opinions of the panel when everyone is talking over each other on top of testimony. Still lots of love for the channel! Just something to consider ❤️
Yep me too I swapped to Emily
Agree, love the opinions of the panel but not over the top of testimony
This is funny, because I most often wish the panel talked more and still do. If I just wanted the stream, I could just watch the direct stream.
I think they're criticism on Denison was unwarranted
Yeah agreed I was really enjoying all 3 of the crosses and the last two were actually really fun I really wanted to hear what they were saying, and they weren’t really talking about the actual case they were making more jokes and talking to each other. I think Denison did a really good job on those cross’s from a non lawyer position, they have to understand that too
Just saw the Dennison cross. I think he did an amazing job and that Marlon Brando thing at the end was the nail on the coffin.
He made the doctor look like a fool, made people understand that many of those were aplicable to Amber too and the gotcha moments were great.
Edit: the best part is that since the one making a fool of himself is the witness there's no way for himself to get himself out of the pit during redirect.
I can't believe I have to explain this to people who should know better than me but there is never only one way to get the job done.
Camille's method worked because of her personality and the witness she's targeting. Eventually, you may think Camille and Denisson use the good cop / bad cop tactic. He's trying to sound friendly and let people speak, just like they let Amber speak to let her dig deeper. And when the witness gets less defensive and shows signs of fatigue, this is where he starts to attack.
It may be annoying when we spent so much time with useless witnesses but it's like watching a movie. People will mostly make their opinion based on the ending. An average film with a great ending will be rated higher than a good film with a disappointing ending.
And after bashing him for hours, some of you were like "I prefered the way he ended", but that was the point! And he couldn't get to that point without setting everything up before that. It's far for perfect but it made more sense that you seem to aknowledge.
I think another time they were wrong was when JDs blonde lawyer did the cross on Whitney. I think it came off really good. Whitney whether you like her or not doesn’t come off as hatable like Amber and there is no need to dig into her. Everyone knows she’s going to defend her sister. There doesn’t need to be fireworks and be aggressive every time you cross a witness. The lawyer got her to repeat some moments that were inconsistent and introduced a new witness to counter everything she said. Kept short and sweet.
So true..different ways with different characters and situations.. Well done well explained.
Dennison has his way of cross he lets the witness crash and burn all on their own while he just stands there and watch. I mean it's quite genius tbh. He basically ask them about their practice/profession and most of the witnesses contradict their own testimony within minutes. I laughed so hard at this; gotta say Dennison was fun to watch too.
Dennison is a pure genius and so underrated.
#justiceforDennison, he did great!
About Dennison: he has a particular style, I like it, good chance some of the jury likes that a lot. Apart from doing great in being nice and respectful while exposing witnesses' unlikableness (the psychologist and the psychiatrist), he's good at not doing the conclusions explicitly, but letting that for the jury. If you do everything for them, they'd get a minimal agree/disagree reaction. If they need to 2 + 2 for themselves, they'd get more involved. When the witness is as uncooperative as the psychiatrist, he can't really land the implicit conclusion thing, but then he gained a lot on the unlikableness.
Agree ☺ I hate it when layers try to testify themselves with their questions because it might sound like a "gotcha" moment when they say "so you DID kill him!" but it doesn't mean anything because they are the lawyers and not the witness.
IIRC they put Dennison on all the expert witnesses. There's a reason for that
You guys weren't actually following what Dennison was doing to the psychiatrist. He made it abundantly clear that his opinion wasn't valid in anyway. He wasn't getting stuck in the weeds, he was letting the witness make himself look like an ass cause he wasn't answering the questions.
If you watch the cross again and actually pay attention to what is happening as opposed to what you want to happen you will see the effectiveness of what transpired.
You can also see he is playing off the jury.
My 2 cents anyway.
Love your stuff
It was disrespectful how they've been reacting to their fellow colleague W. Dennison. If only they got off their high horse and paid attention they could've learned a thing or two...
Dennison's cross gave the good doctor enough rope to destroy himself. Just what was needed.
I think Dennison is amazingly effective! He has successfully dismantled everyone he has crossed. He has cornered them with facts and let’s them hang themselves. This man could be a voice over star in Hollywood. He is a very likeable attorney.
I knew they were expecting less from W. Dennison esp. after their disappointment with his CX with Dr. Hughes. I do understand that they have preferences, it's just that it wasn't met, then they disagreed. I watched Rekieta's stream first, I personally have the same opinions they had on Sir Dennison.
This panel is lame. They keep talking over the lawyer and start yelling out ways to ask the questions. Especially the lady annoyed the crap out of me. Cant expect Camille's style from everyone.
I like Dennisson today. I think he did well with Dr. Speigel. I think he had to adjust based on the horrible answers.
After a year and now seeing the sidebars, a lot of people in the panel and the chat did Dennison dirty.
Great streams overall. Just don't get yourselves into an echo chamber about Dennison's style of cross. It's clearly affecting the (live) chat and people get into that cycle of repeating those same words, even before a new witness's cross.
I hop into other streams where they enjoy Dennison and their chat is in a positive mood about him.
I know it's just the nature of chat/people, but I think we can be more open to others than that.
Elaine's constant "What if any" is driving me completely fucking insane. What's worse is she gets away with asking the same question by just saying "what if any"
She doesn't always. There is often another objection, or an overruled objection is sustained. The judge actually called her out directly the other day.
"Magic words" - whispered doing spirit fingers
Elaine tenacity is amazing, she deeply believes what if any is the cure all.
Agreed, it’s worse than nails on chalkboard to my ears. And now she is starting almost every question with “What it any…” her voice with that start is getting really hard to listen too.
And her reasoning why the objection should be overruled is alsways just "I don't think it is" it's pathetic😂
Listen just because he's not textbook, takes moves that look risky to you, and doesn't have the crisp controlled aggression of Camille cannot possibly mean that Dennison as a senior member of the team is somehow less effective when upon reflective he pretty consistently tied the experts up with their own words. I thought it looked like he'd done his homework and endeavored to make the guy not notice he's trapped before its too late by just being so friendly and earnest and that perplexed tone when pointing out a contradiction.... let the man cook.
I dont know why this panel feels the need to be SO RUDE to dennison. He is a MASSIVELY SUCCESSFUL LAWYER no doubt more succesful than most of the panel.
I’m 2 years late to the party but I agree the hate on him was not needed he had the witness looking crazy on the stand and made anything he said not credible.
I hope y'all noticed how every time you got all irritated with wackadoodle spiegle's cross, every time right after that he trapped the little wackadoodle man in his own bs. He's just a friendly guy offering a carrot, then casually bopping his snoot with the stick held behind his back. Remarkably effective, IMO (i am not a lawyer)
So, the Goldwater rule isn’t applicable to this case, but it’s applicable to Dr Curry?? Who actually met with AH?? But Dr Curry CANT diagnose AH???? WTF IS EVEN HAPPENING
I’m really curious about this as well. I thought they couldn’t dx until they actually meet with the client. I don’t understand how this is medically ok or how it’s getting into court.
Agreed. Double standard galore in so many aspects. Some randos, diagnosing people they never even DM'd once, like nobody's business, unchecked, unchallenged.
Dr Curry's examination was court ordered! Amber Heard put her mental status in issue in her pleadings.
They are answering superchat questions in the pm. You can listen to the trial if you start at beginning. I would suggest watching today's testimony till the psychiatrist that looks like angry bird or the scientist from back to the future. finishes . He's the second expert of the morning .
Dr Curry could examine Amber because the judge ordered it due to her claim involving PTSD. Johnny is not claiming any mental damages so it’s entirely optional for him.
I have to disagree with the assessment of Dennison as a cross examiner. The Dr. Spiegel cross might not have followed the rules of a cross exam, however it was very successful at dismantelling this man's expertise... So does it really matter? This isn't a math equation, it's an end to a means.
I've seen some Twitch streamers refer to Dennison as a "Wizard Destroyer" or the "Anti-Wizard" because of how he handles expert witnesses. And in regards to this case specifically, Dennison really leans into the memes which gives fuel to the internet discourse around this case. I think he's exactly what they needed for these witnesses.
Edit: Dennison not Denizen
The problem is that with this timed chess format, it is somewhat of a math equation. You could probably take a man off the street and he would be able to dismantle Spiegels expertise, he was destined to self destruct. Unless it is JD Teams intention to burn through their time advantage, his performance for large stints of his crosses today were painfully bad. Just as AH team has lost the jury at this point, my concern is that its still possible that JDs team can mistakenly do the same thing, resulted in them not being able to capitalize on their advantage. But perhaps it is just their strategy and they willing put dennison on to bumble along. They did still somehow burn more of AH teams time, which is wild to me...
Hoeg was right, hes got columbo energy
Oh and just one more thing...
I thought it was perfect for this witness. He let the doc set his own trap and blunder into it. I think the jury will view him as a dundering fool. At best.
@@debrab2154 i will admit that especially for the spiegel he was able to get his guard down more than camille may have with the spice she lays off the bat. If anything my main gripe is that they get to the point where they already have enought to preoccupy elaine on the redirect, and then he would continue to talk past that point.
Now, upon further thinking, it might actually be the best use of depps time, even if it isnt necessarily efficient. Even if it costs a lot of time, as long as it can preoccupy elaine with also wasting heards time subconsiously. As long as depps team planned for this method of attack, im more than happy with Dennison performance, and i think hes a good lawyer regardless. He certainly has briliant moments that sneak up among the diguise of pain and bumbling, perhaps intentional.
Also kurt goes too far imo, both on dennison here as well as in other things ive seen on hoegs streams (e.g. metoo), but that just my opinion at this point. I dont agree that dennison was really even bad overall perse, just more about the potential weaknesses in strategy from burning time.
Edit:
Maybe they intentionally got into the minds of heards team in such a way that it made them forget their time limits because they see how leisurely the cross appeared. It certainly resulted in that effect.
@Yosh totally fair, and i have no doubt that both experts he crossed had their credibility nuked in the eyes of the jury. All i hope at this point was that all the time wasting was a planned strategy that played into his method of crossing, and that it wont bite them in the ass later down the road when they have less time monopoly after heards team runs out.
@@joshuaford4460 AH's team spent 4 hours on direct today so I don't think this had much to do with their timing. They seemed to have this scheduled and planned.
Many times I've seen this panel argue that "the point is made, move on", when the point really wasn't made yet. Maybe it looks that way to a lawyer or someone who's seen all the evidence, but it's simply not convincing to someone with a fresh perspective.
Also, many of the concepts that these experts rely on are complex and are best taken down with attacks from multiple angles (i.e. Dr. Spiegle's psychological analyses of a person's character or Kathryn's statistical analysis of social media to project career outcomes and prove damages). If you want the cross to be convincing on these testimonies you have to genuinely show a lack of capability in areas that the jury won't have an understanding of. This takes time to both reveal the mechanism by which the tools work while also showing that they're being used improperly by the expert.
Regarding time, JD's team can easily relax with 16hrs left on the clock. Dennison is looking at the JD team and laughing with them while making memes out of these experts. They clearly aren't worried and I really don't see why they should be: The lawyers inside the courtroom had comparable notes on the jury members inside (i.e. he was received well).
I thought his cross of Dr. Hughes wasn't that good, but regarding today I think this take on him is just bad.
It's been a year, so I'm revisiting the trial under a fresh 'commentary' lens, and I have to say, seeing a panel of lawyers talking over cross-exam to bad-mouth Dennison is very disappointing, especially with hindsight. I'm not a lawyer, but even I noticed the stark contrast between the laid-back team focusing on facts and evidence (vs.) the condescending hulk-smash bullies who had nothing to work with, and it's part of the reason Team Depp resonated with everyone. A lawyer says "He's letting the witness talk too much", but this layman appreciates it because instead of being slimy bullies, they calmly led witnesses into digging their own grave for free - and remained likeable while doing it. That stuck out far more than whatever is considered 'uber lawyering'.
I appreciate your comment! Tbh we all learned a lot from watching Dennison, and if you asked most (if not all) of us today, we’d have a different perspective on his style of cross-examining. We all come from our own experienced backgrounds, but that doesn’t mean we’re not also continuing to learn along the way 💙
I don't get all the hate for Dennison's crosses. I get it, he's a bit long winded. He's not as good as Camille on cross, but most of the panel has agreed they probably couldn't do better than her either. Dennison nailed both of his Xs and got what he needed, just took his time doing it. It could definitely be polished but none the less it was effective.
yes...you are 100% right ...the whole panel was clueless.... Thats the difference between youtube lawyers that practice law from their mother's basement and real lawyers ...
i don't get the hate either. i thought he did a good job. not everyone's style of cross is the same.
It’s the stuttering for me. It makes him sound like he’s nervous or like he’s another Elaine.
@@FabiolaRVela I see where you're coming from, but I think he's got a folksy way of talking, which makes him more relatable to the jury, and makes him seem less intelligent to the expert witnesses. If someone thinks they know way more than you, they can act condescending (and therefore unlikeable) and more easily fall into word traps.
He's just mot effective and stumbled a lot. Camille set our standard so high
That part where the doctor said “only victims seek therapy” is INSANELY wrong! Sometimes narcissists or bpd will go to a therapist to have someone condone their behavior AND victims are afraid to go to a therapist from denial or fear of retribution for their partner!
Not only that, but many victims will be fearful of going to therapy, for all kinds of reasons.
I was incensed listening to his garbage. Conceited fool.
That statement drove me absolutely wild. I do therapy with so many abusers and so many perpetrators- so much of his testimony was massively unethical.
Yes! He hasn’t a Clue about DV!
I hope we can stop using words like crazy and insane to describe everything. That is CRAZY good news! It's so important, It's insane! I'm not even sure when this started, but it's everywhere. That was the abuser in my house's favourite word. Now his son uses those words and has built on them.
I'm completely out of hope. I'll never catch up with medical bills. Everyone I love has died. I'm not famous and rich and eccentric.
Hi, Ria. How weird to see someone with the same "name" as me...!
-Depp went from 18h 30min to 15h 51min (2h 39min used).
-Heard went from 08h 14min to 04h 09min (4h 6min used).
-Total hours used is 6h 45min.
-Total hours remaining for both parties is 20h.
Thank you for posting this!!! I was trying to google it earlier and had no luck!!!
Thanks for this!
More like “total hours wasted today 6h 45 min” lol
⏰⏰⏰⏰ And rumors have it they want to call Depp?? With 4hrs left?? 😂
@@Cafe_Es_Bueno rumors is they finally won’t 🤔
I agree it felt like Dennison was being strategic and he’s a way better actor than AH! Elaine totally fell into the trap and wasted so much time. And I do think AH strategy is to run out of time so she can continue to play the victim by saying “well, we had some really amazing evidence and testimony to share but my lawyers ran out of time having to fight all the viscous things Johnny said about me in yet another attempt to silence me. I never had a fair shot.”
hahaha exactly
I agree. I think that he intentionally speaks in the manner that he does to irritate AH's witnesses and it works every time. Dennison has me on edge every time he gets up to speak.
Yeah, those nasty liquids and partial solids are very hard to contradict. - viscous 😘✌
I like Dennison . I know he has flaws ...but it seems like he lets these people walk on him just to open them up. I think he has a pretty effective approach. But I can see how someone more competent could take advantage of that but he seems to know who to let step on his toes .
👍💯👍
General observations:
1. Dr Moore is qualified to perform surgery, obviously, but he may not be qualified to comment on the cause of injuries, that goes more into forensics. As Camille pointed out, people could easily lie about what caused injuries for a variety of reasons like insurance etc.
2. Dr Spiegel's cross was good because ethics were brought up so often, it is a case that is weirdly morally ambiguous and 'muddy', having someone seem blatantly unethical is a plus.
3. Dennison's crosses seem longer and almost long winding, but it also means that the opposing side spends more time in redirect addressing all that was brought up.
Dennison is disarmingly sneaky. I think that is his style of questioning. I quite like it haha
Kurt I don’t agree with the witnesses being so bad that Dennison looked good. That annoying psychologist completely changed when they returned from break. He came back a lot less annoying and argumentative. Which leads me to think the AH team spoke with him even though they shouldn’t have. Dennison was playing to his ego and getting under his skin. He played the crazy doctor at his own game while giving the impression that he too was an idiot as everyone thought he was. I say play to your strengths even if that means you have to act stupid. I read a book once that the main character was told he was unteachable and how could someone not know the basics of repairing things. The reply was, ‘sure I know how to do it but if I can get your dumbass to do it for me why not have you do it for me instead?’ It was such a mic drop that to this day I remember that little part of the book. Work smart not hard, if the ‘expert witness’ is doing your job and becoming snippy to boot, let them sink their own boat and sit back to watch. Maybe not the best thing but surely effective. Also, he is kinda bringing it to the level that the jury will either understand they are trying to BS them or just zone them out. Either way it’s a win. Plus Elaine coming back to try and put those fires out is just icing on that marble cake ;)
To me it looks like Dennison had the job to spin things out to make sure Johnny was safe from testifying today. A press statement is not a guarantee they won’t call him.
As a film buff with a Bachelor's of Science degree in Creative Media and film with emphasis on Screenwriting and Production I found it INSULTING that Arnold would compare Amber's LACK of a career to GAL GADOT, CHRIS PINE, JASON MOMOA, and ZENDAYA then go on to say she didn't know that Chris was in Star Trek, and that "there weren't many superhero films to pull from".
Wonder what the jury thought of THAT nonsense
I am a bit of a film bluff but not super hero movies. I have never heard of AH until she filed the retraining order. I seen The Danish Girl 3 or 4 times never knew she was in it. She doesn’t stand out. She doesn’t have the ‘it’ factor at all for star power.
@@StilettoCutsQuick. even if you aren't into the superhero scene she has no excuse given IT'S HER JOB to know these things. Also just how do you NOT KNOW who the new BATMAN is?!
I had no idea who AH was until this trial and a few weeks in to boot. I mean, I really only knew Jason Momoa was in Aquaman, I had no idea AH was up there with him. She really doesn't stand out to me. I had no idea she was in 50 products??? That seems wild to me. I certainly couldn't name any except the Danish Girl they parade about and the Aquaman movies.
@@StilettoCutsQuick. lol she probably was a painting in The Danish girl 😂
@@TheRibottoStudios I didn't know there was a new batman let alone who the actor is... 🤷♂️
I thought Dennisons cross was actually good. He let them talk, let them sink themselves and at the end of the day I can be sure that none of the jury gave any credibility to any of these witnesses. I call that a good outcome, maybe he is not pinning them down point by point but at the end of the day he achieves what he sets out to do, destroy their credibility
Just rewatched the direct and cross of the psychiatrist. I have so many issues with this doctors professionalism. So many unethical comments and conclusions; pretty horrifying. However, I have changed my mind about the cross - as a lay person, it was good. It allowed the Dr to do the most damage to himself as he kept talking. Dennison was actually quite good at baiting him and achieving the result needed. Does it really matter how he got there in the end?
I think Dennison is old school and uses the fact people like to hear the sound of their own voice. His skill set is deftly delivered and results obtained. PLEASE TRY NOT TO TALK OVER EACH OTHER - ALL OPINIONS ARE A DELIGHT TO LISTEN TO.
💯👍💯👍💯👍
👏👏👏👏👏
❤️😊
They have SO much time to use discrediting witnesses that I think Dennison is just having fun with it at this point. He got a clown for a witness and decided to turn it into a circus, and he's the ringmaster.
So, Elaine tries to say that JD is a narcissist for eating candy in the court, knowing that we have seen footage of AH eating snacks while TESTIFYING in the UK??? who is she working for??!! XD (I love that at that moment Camille Vazquez took candy from JD and start laughing XD)
For the devil.
🤣
I find Byte and panel's reactions to Dennison's cross of "expert witness" baffling. Dude was a clown and got treated as one and everyone else seemed to be for it especially Nick and company.
I just finished Nick's stream, yeah, I thought personally that Dennison's cross with that Psych was good, not the best, but good. I think it differs greatly because they have a "preferred" way of doing CX if they were the one on the podium.These lawyers are critical in the technical aspects but it's up to the jurors in the end.
Agreed. I feel like so many here was stuck on how a textbook cross-exam should look like. But for this specific witness open-ended questions was soooo much better at showing what a fool he was. It made him say a ton of dumb stuff that there's no way a yes/no question could illicit. Even the repetitive questions that got the people here frustrated was amazing because the witness had 0 discipline and it just made him look more and more unhinged.
Dennison had obviously gotten a read on him during the depo where he had called Depp an idiot. And he successfully made the witness display that vileness again.
@@bajjanitor this comment was a better read on Dennison’s cross and strategy than the panel’s.
Yep. Dennison giving him room to respond at length, to the same questions over and over, only allowed this witness more opportunities to act like a surly jackass in front of the jury.
Yes. Especially the lady was way too critical. All the unnecessary reactions and talking over the right time annoyed the crap out of me.
That cross between Dennison and the dr. is worth going back and watching again! ❤ed that
guys you need to understand that this isnt amber heard, these are experts, its not all camille stop simping on her, she good thats for sure but so is dennison, just with different approach, camille also crossed an expert but in a more aggresive and tense way, dennison did the same, just in a subtle way and in the purpose of making them lower their guard and then trap them.
Dr. Doofinsmirtz was hilarious. He hated Denison but ended up talking to him pretty well at the end 🤣 I understand why you guys hate his lawyering but i actually like it because he’s a bit funny plus I tend to stammer and talk in circles >.>
I completely disagree about Dennison's ability irt Spiegel.
You mentioned lawyer brain vs layperson, but it's really important here. Dennison simultaneously casts him as massively arrogant, not intelligent, and deeply corrupt within the first 15 minutes just by challenging him on ethics. Spiegel isn't even that wrong about rendering opinions without direct examinations. But Dennison paints him into a corner immediately, then pokes him with a stick until his ego unravels. I don't think that's easy. Could be wrong though
I feel like you just didn’t get the point of this cross. Calling it trash. It was meant to be as it was to bring him unhinged and how it did that. They’ve obviously consulted psychologist Dr Curry on how he would react under certain circumstances. Giving him closed questioned would have helped him to stay composed.
I'm convinced alyte was a care bear in a previous life. Hearing her curse is adorable. Lol
Haha!! That made me laugh too!!!
I think they missed, that guy's ego being shaken by the gravity of Dennison's immediate attack on his ethics is what put him on the back foot. He was an unbearable academic, Dennison set him burning with those first questions
6:18:19 "you can't claim damages for something that hasn't even happened" but somehow when talking about Amber's damages she can talk about all the things that didn't happen (that were not even expected to happen) for 5 years...... make it make sense. I can't believe they didn't point it out on cross, this was the major demonstration of bias, totally double standard
Gaslighting, the entire defense strategy is literally just gaslighting. Amber had to pick these clowns personally she just had to.
You understood it on your own, wasn't it better than being told? I think what JD lawyers are doing is clever!!
This! I was wondering exactly this! The team in cross didn't point out this obvious bias and discrepancy in her analysis, urgh!! Her witnesses trigger me..
@@mehetabshaikh9684 lol, yeah. I was told to not be so loud. I personally find gaslighting so disgustingly disrespectful I yell at the blatant lies, contradictions and double standards. Screw the unethical mf'ers.
3:33:50 The most interesting part of the whole day is watching Johnny absorb Dr. Spiegel's behavior with an enigmatic smile on his face and think how fantastic it would be to play such a colorful character in a future film production. I think he would be brilliant ✋😂
I don’t understand why y’all are so critical of Dennison. He did a great job dismantling Spiegel.
Both Dennison and Vasquez are good lawyers with their respective weaknesses. Additionally, Dennison has a stutter so he has a stop start cadence. Christopher Melcher is fair and balanced when it comes to assessing the ability of the lawyers at this trial. On Popcorned Planet Melcher said Dennison “destroyed” Dr Spiegel. On the same channel he previously observed that Vasquez’ was unable to control AH on the first day of Cross X.
Dennison did great. I know the panel are lawyers and the cross might have seemed painful, but We heard him diagnose Depp. Speigel walked back his diagnosis. He was perfect to dismantle Speigel. I came back just to watch again
This is my second time watching LegalBytes AFTER having seen Emily D Baker’s stream during the trial... This channel infuriated me by talking over key moments, including Speigel’s admission of using Pirates as a baseline
I completely agree. I watched Emily throughout the trial and am going back to watch this stream. It’s very difficult to listen to anyone’s input when they’re all talking over each other. Not sure why Dennison was ripped apart for his cross but honestly, as most of this panel are lawyers - it’s disheartening to see that they can’t appreciate his style. He’s a classic litigator and has a great slow burn style. I thought he was an absolute all star during this trial.
Unfortunately, I won’t be watching anymore of the commentary by this panel. I just don’t care for the yelling over one another.
I hope he wins the 50M and then splits them between the ACLU an the Children Hospital ! That would be epic !
The remaining time difference between Depp's team and AH's team is astounding. Interested to see how both sides utilize their respective remaining allotment, especially JD'S team, as they have more than 3x as much time left than AH's team.
It’s funny how Rottenborn accused Johnny about losing the court time 🤣 JD’s team will have 1hour per witness on their side and, if Amber’s team manage their time well, they will have 16 minutes to cross. Maybe 10 if they want to keep some time for the closure arguments.
@@Jennifersbody765 that’s probably why rottenborn said that to JD, he knew they were losing time crossing him that they’d need later because JD has such a slow cadence.
According to the different lawyers I’m watching for this trial, everyone gets fresh time for closing statements, the current time is just for arguments.
One of the reasons why JD team has so much time left than AH team is because the AH team spammed truckloads of objections in the first half of the trial. This results in lesser testimony duration given by JD's witnesses(and JD himself) as JD's attorneys has to move on to new questions after the objections were sustained. AH's witnesses on the other hand, are mostly unskippable depositions(though redacted) that cannot be objected on the spot. And also AH's live witnesses spends too much of the court's time saying the same thing over and over again without bringing anything substantial or new to their case. Not only they waste time on mundane stuff, their testimony defies common sense. This results negative impression in jury's mind and no matter how hard they keep recounting the same narrative, the story just won't stick into the jury's head. AH team brought this upon themselves by wasting their own time while conserving time for JD team.
Dennison’s strategy is not like Vasquez’ at all, but I do think it is effective. Sometimes you have to give someone enough rope to hang themselves with. Which I think he does.
Loved going back months later and realising that these lawyers were really inept (bar Hoeg, Mike & Runkle) when it came to giving their thoughts on Dennison’s cross. 🤣🤣🤣
Exactly 💯
Dennison and Camille are used on different witnesses for a strategic reason. All of the attorneys are perfect for who they examined period. They are all great! Dennison's first question was EXCELLENT. They should not have allowed Elaine to mention information to the jury knowing they were denied the motion. Dennison needed to clarify. Dennison analyzes his victims. This man talks his way into a mess and so Dennison allows them to confuse themselves and the jury. I have absolutely adored Dennison's examinations. He is a quiet beast. Thats wat makes him an attorney on Depps team and not us. Y would you want to use more time on Kate Moss? this attorney gets a witness to say im wrong, and u guys think hes not good? hes exceptional at listening to the"expert" witnesses and hemming them up. making information clear for the jury. thats wats important.
«A quiet beast»… I couldn't think of a better way to describe Dennison. Loved him sooooo much!
He’s got lots of time & he’s having a little fun…leave him alone!! 🤣😂🤣
It’s so FUNNY!!
It’s one of my best laughs in soooo long! 🤣😂🤣
Alyte all you've done with this channel is insane! I've watched all of it. Take a bow. Thank you! Please accept my frustration from today's stream - there was far too much panel discussion during the witness testimony and cross. I had to leave the stream and watch elsewhere because I could not follow. Hope tomorrow is better :)
We don’t have to be frustrated about how she manage her channel. 🤔 If there was no commentaries, I would go somewhere else. There are subtitles for the trial anyway when the pannel talk if we don’t heard something.
@@Jennifersbody765 But the subtitles are so subpar they can’t really be followed.
@@kiiiwiiibird I understand. But there are not so many solutions. I reverse sometimes if I missed anything or if I didn’t heard the pannel. :/ they won’t just make commentaries during breaks.
I agree 100% with you, Josh! I usually appreciate the panel’s comments along the trial but yesterday there were too many interruptions... they were not even paying attention anymore for long minutes while I was trying to understand what was happening at the trial. Hopefully they will find a better balance today.
So in regards to Dr. Speigal - he is not a credible witness for a multitude of reasons... I am a Speech Language Pathologist - we are trained in the administration of the MOMA - Johnny has ADHD - this has a HUGE impact on working memory. (I also have ADHD) The fact that he didn't even acknowledge the diagnosis, and how stress further exacerbates ADHD symptoms is a HUGE issue. Another glaring issue is his unprofessionalism - just using the word "idiot" in any reference to a patient is outrageous. This made me really lose respect for Heard's law team - he was not hired for his credentials - he was hired for him agreeing to give the opinion they wanted. Really, really, really horrible - I cannot believe that this guy is called as a witness for anything. What scares me about him and Dr. Moore - is that most people assume doctors are ethical and can be trusted. I'm afraid this was a huge win for Amber's team.
So well said
Do you mean a huge win for Johnny's team?
@chatty chatty chatty.......Spiegel loves to hear himself talk. Jd's team shouldn't have objected and just let him go. They would have run out of time today.
I do think the jurors are smart enough to know this was not a credible witness. Judging by the feedback received about their reactions I’m pretty confident that is the case.
@@stevep2380 I probably shouldn’t say this, but I’m afraid it looked like something was really ‘off’ with him. I really don’t think they (amber’s team) should have put him in that position.
Denisson may look and sound as though he is beating around the bushes not as straight forward and Camille but I believe that is his own style. Every lawyer has their own way of questioning or cross examine a witness. He may take a longer way than Camille but it doesn't really mean he doesn't achieve the same goal. That's whey these people are on the same team. They are there to achieve the same goal. They trust each other as a team. The other team goes round and round and end up with all BS and their witness statements being pushed back really ugly. So even if Denisson is no Camille, I'm fine as long as they can prove who is lying and being bias on the stand.
Dennison is great in my opinion.
His style lets the "experts" paint themselves into corners, then he lights the wall on fire.
His cross at the start was him talking about Amber, and spegal didn't even realize it.
I know this is mean but I found it hilariously ironic that dr Spiegel kept going on and on about narcissism
Love how they all say Dennison isn't good, yet everyone in the comments loves him. He made Dr spegal look like a clown
Denisson did a great job!!! With a guy like that you just hand him some rope!
Dennison is a way better lawyer than any of this panel will ever be. He was excellent.
So, according to Kathryn Arnold what Adam Waldman had to say is more important than a Washington Post article. I had never heard of Mr. Waldman until this trial, but I had heard that Amber was setting Johnny Depp up after their divorce, that he was giving her $7 million, her claims that she would donate the money and I am not a Johnny Depp stan.
I got the feeling that he used the direct to observe this guy, assess him and the jury's response to his answers and then decided, that this approach with open questions and feigned naivety was the best to make that guy disassemble himself.
Also, he let the jury come to the "wait, some of this sounds like what we heard of Amber??"-conclusion themselves, instead of rubbing it under their nose. Pretty effective strategy.
4:03:33 The "Doctor" is clearly a massive narcissist as Dennison probably evaluated
from their first exchange so my take on this is he's been kicking his ego to pieces to
get to this point. Had Dennison led with the questions your panel wished he had you
would probably not gotten anything close to this more docile responses, but more
aggravated, power dynamic. IMO Dennison is doing great and controlling this.
You kind of want the jury (and viewers) to see this guy go off the rails.
Mission accomplished haha
Rekieta is a pain sometimes but he does it better. The lawyers have swamped the market and it just isn't working.
I Agree, Denisson Cross was to force AH team to do a longer redirect by making him go on and on with the cross going in circles to make AH team to make redirect losing there time. Tactical Lawyering. And compared to other non lawyer reaction channel they like the Denisson way.
I see it as Camille is Bruce Lee, and Dennison is Jackie Chan playing a drunk character
Better Call Dennison! : Quacknado
This summer! When a court room of experts are parade before the jury an attorney stands and demolish all their credentials! Along with his fiery co-star Camille Vasquez attorney Wayne Dennison will reduce all bias exports to nothing but quacks.
I loved every minute of this 😂😂🤣 it was so bad it was good
If I were JD, I'd do my best to drain AH's clock by answering the direct questions slowly and rambling, when accused of delay tactics, just respond, "Sorry, I can't help it. As you heard from an expert yesterday my response times are slow because I'm a drug addled idiot." Then relish the collective sigh of relief throughout the court room as Elaine runs out of time and can no longer "What, if any" anyone again.
I usually watch Emily D Baker live while working and come back later to watch your streams. I'm entirely too invested in this trial, but I don't wanna miss anything! You all bring so much value to the experience.
same except i watch emily 2nd … I love hearing the different reactions LOL!
I watch all of Emily's and then come back here for any spicy moment reactions. Unfortunately my ADHD makes watching Alytes stream entirely. 😖
Same!
Emily has questions… as do we ALL!
@@ohh_manda can I say #mepoo ?
Imagine coming to court and your lawyer is Elaine! What if any…tears would you shed!
I thought Dennison was good as well. I thought he did a great job of poking the bee hive and then standing there smiling and even swaying his upper body with glee as this guy just unleaded rediculous remarks that sounded unfounded and biased.
Unleashed
This guy makes me so upset. I’ve met so may “doctors” like him. Even to this da,y, after 25 years of Ritalin helping me concentrate and survive life, doctors ask me if don’t take it on weekends like I stop having ADD on the weekends. I am so tired of these narcissistic “doctors” exerting power and control over the lives of his patients. Most psychiatrists go into the field to figure out their own physiological issue and this guy obviously has issues with power and control.
yeah same!! i've been taking adderall for over 15 years now and i've experienced too many people trying to shame me for needing to take it all the time. i have inattentive type ADHD and i really have a hard time if i don't take it bc i'm so used to being able to function better, and there is no reason to be ashamed of that!! there is such a stigma against ADHD meds bc so many people abuse them and that makes life harder for us who actually need them.
I wholeheartedly agree!!! I was thrown a mountain of pills from the age of 13 on. I was diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, and then it was bi-polar and panic disorder. I was on Ritalin and then tegretol, and Klonopin, and then depacote and Xanax and addrall. It was like a carousel of pharmaceuticals. It was like one minute I was up and the next down.
Any ideas as to why there is no mention of Ambers huge movie flop "London Fields"? Or the suit she brought against the producers? First director quit when she was hired sighting her lack of talent and it was the lowest rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes.
I wanna know why Amber's attempted defamation case against Doug Stanhope was ok, but not Johnny's. Doug wrote an op-ed saying Amber was blackmailing Johnny.
Also, the fact that the producer of Aquaman was concerned over the lack of chemistry she has with Mamoa. None of that’s discussed (it’s funny Jason follows Johnny’s social media but not Amber’s btw).
The judge probably didn't allow it.
@@pjhaze That was mentioned.
Johnny's face during Spiegel's cross was just killing me 😂. The guy is a buffoon and it shows. The arrogance couldn't be worse. And the weird tongue thing!
The expert made his claim without seeing the pictures of the broken vodka bottle, drops of blood and tissues which should have influence his opinions
I think AH team kinda screwed him on that and didn't give all the evidence. That's just my perception though, I could be missing something
Or even J.Ds own Doctor (Kipper) saying he did emergency treatment and cleaned the wound... Also, that expert said there were no other injuries to J.Ds hands. That doesn't match Amber's version of events
I don’t think it would of mattered. He was paid off.
@@wildyonder4161 I concur. I was just making an observation about the pictures mentioned
@@jessejames96 100% agree. I hope his thoughts would change seeing it but after the final week of AH witnesses, I give up on any of them having a shred of dignity.
Courtesy of Law School Grit
TIME STAMPS:
Morning Show: 00:00
Hoeg hits 100K!: 14:43 💕
Direct - Dr. Richard Moore (Orthopedic Surgeon): 29:22
Cross - Dr. Moore: 57:43
Redirect - Dr. Moore: 1:13:11
Direct - Dr. David Spiegel (Psychiatrist): 1:22:21
Morning Break: 2:09:22
Cross - Dr. Spiegel: 3:23:48
Lunch Break: 4:17:50
Redirect - Dr. Spiegel: 5:22:34
Direct - Kathryn Arnold (entertainment industry consultant): 5:51:55
Cross - K. Arnold: 7:28:26
Redirect - K. Arnold: 8:46:04
Lawyer Panel: 8:56:56
Kurt was so rude rude about Dennison. He did what he needed to do.
I disagree with the panel’s comments about Dennison and his cross. They clearly weren’t seeing where he was going.
You guys sound like armchair sportsman. Everyone has an opinion on what should have been done and how but when you're in the game you don't have the same time or pressure to deal with the moment.
I don't know what I will watch when this is over but my God I can't wait to never hear Elaine's voice again. 😂
Same 😂😂😂