Dr Kirk, I’ve seen most of your videos and I can say with certainty that you are the most carefully worded psychologist that does these reaction videos and I have NEVER seen you diagnose ANYONE. In fact, I’d even go farther to say when it’s two opposing people that you’re reviewing, you make very sure to give both sides the same unbiased benefit & always say “this is what COULD be going on”. I’d say you are beyond careful with your words and never diagnose anyone.
As someone with a puny BA and some masers classes in psychology it was frightening. So was Dr. Hughs. Her general bias was oozing out of every pore. Not just in reference to Amber Heard. I think there was some countertransference happening.
@@cd4536 right? the first time I watched it, I was popping in and out of a few work calls, so I didn’t get to watch it super closely. then I went back and watched it again and became legit furious. I do this shit for a living as a trial attorney, and I couldn’t believe they put this guy on the stand.
This guy gave me the impression that he was REALLY enjoying being the center of attention, and he did NOT like having his authority or opinion challenged
@@ania5038 haven't heard the evidence. Also, everyone has "traits" of NPD. We all think we are better than others at times, we all try to control people and situations at time to make us feel powerful or important or cast us in a good light, we are all manipulative at times, we all have moments where we actively seek out attention, etc...
Dennison was the most effective attorney. Many attorneys criticized cross, however I think his approach was effective in dismantling the expert witnesses by allowing them to over explain. Dennison capitalized when their testimony did not meet the standards of their said expertise.
At a glance, he seemed like he isn’t doing great. But at the end of each cross, we’re left with the desired result for Depp’s case. The desired result being that these “experts” are incompetent AND unethical who knowingly broke ethical guidelines and didn’t follow the manual for diagnosing patients.
Dr. Spiegel and Dr. Hughes’ “expert testimonies” really undermine the credibility of psychologists and psychiatrists. Having a BA in psychology, I was *appalled.* So glad Dr. Curry and Dr. Shaw gave much more ethical and professional testimonies. Thank you for giving your commentary and pointing out how armchair diagnosis is against the standards of psychiatry!
@@equatorialjourney4478 cause u kno, real test results matters. its not like honda saying hes not providing a diagnosis, but let me tell u a fake scenario of this case n let me make up my theories. every expert witness on depps side seems very educated n have reasons for their statements. from ambers side seems like all frauds n men haters. diagnosing depp without interviewing or testing. ironically funny to these videos
@@equatorialjourney4478 No. Stating that "expert testimonies" undermine credibility of psychologists and psychiatrists, and feeling appalled by it, does not make an armchair diagnosis. It might help if you look into diagnosis and what it means, as you'll find it doesn't apply to @KitKatLag's statement. If I say Spiegel has Histrionic Personality Disorder and that's why he's acting this way, THAT would be me givining a diagnosis, more precisely an armchair diagnosis, even if it is true that he's Histrionic. That's a huge difference.
This guy was a nightmare. He made their expert choices so much worse. He contradicted Dr. Hughs and then when she did her rebuttal she had to completely ignore his testimony rather than using it for added weight to her own. So bizarre. They had a deposition. They had to know he was not a good witness.
@@sabias3932 I suspected that too, a lot of people did. We were all wrong - according to him he was first brought onto the case in 2019. So, being new to the case isn't a possible reason. He's also given expert witness testimony before on medical malpractice cases (according to him), so it's not even that he's new to being an expert witness. I think he is new to doing it in a public setting though. He said that when he came onto the case initially, he was under the impression that it wouldn't be a full-on public jury trial. So his role did change over time. It's possible that he's genuinely good in his field, but not good in a public courtroom.
@@srolesen He absolutely doesn't have a well-rounded understanding of personality disorders, I agree. Hasn't a clue what he's talking about where those are concerned.
@@srolesen He could still be good in his field though, honestly. Narcissistic traits are overrepresented in some fields and psychiatry is one of them, according to people I know who have worked with them.
The only way I could get through Dr Spiegel’s testimony was by convincing myself that he was there was comic relief. The alternative option of believing that this man is real is too frightening
My theory is that Amber's team billed her for an expert witness, pocketed the money for themselves, then found some guy in the park arguing with squirrels and passed him off as the expert.
it’s truly bonkers. her attorneys had MULTIPLE opportunities to observe this man’s ability to communicate. you typically meet at least once before retaining them to tentatively evaluate, then again usually several times once they’ve retained the expert to be an officially testifying expert, and then several times in the lead up to depos/trial, etc.. and then the discovery depos themselves are great previews of how they’ll behave on the stand. they had TONS of opportunities to step back and determine it might be a good idea to scrap his testimony.
I don't think they have had the luxury of too many options regarding experts as I reckon Amber had very specific narratives that she wanted corroborated (e.g. Johnny is a narcissist).
@@andaredvex yep. especially when they were seeking out a psychiatrist’s opinion without an evaluation. you’d be hard-pressed to find ANY psychiatrist ever willing to do that.
They likely had very few choices. Especially when they wanted him to present evidence they weren't allowed to get because there wasn't probable cause based on the case circumstances. The defence's request to examine Depp was denied after all.
As you can read in the many comments, we've never witnessed you diagnosing or giving a medical opinion on anyone on your channel. Quite the contrary, so continue doing what you do and thank you.
It's also notable that Johnny Depp has been diagnosed with ADHD. Being late, poor working memory, etc. It's not a cognitive decline. It's perfectly explained by ADHD and drug abuse.
Yuup. The 3 words thing triggered me so much. I would forget the words within 30 seconds if I had to focus on conversation, never mind 5 minutes. When I was working at a bar, I'd be made fun of because I had to write down every single drink order, because any interruption would make me straight up forget. I'm still shocked that it was never addressed during the trial, ngl.
@@MinDeRien had the same experience serving and bartending. It’s not a good job for me. I liked the movement and talking to people but was very stressful in other areas
the biggest tell on this guy is HOW COMBATIVE and ANGRY he got. the best expert witnesses acknowledge the limitations of what they can actually opine on, given the scope of their methods and the scope of material reviewed. when they argue and squibble like this, it’s a major red flag about their credibility. and I wanted to clarify that the attorney, dennison, absolutely knows the difference between diagnosis and traits.. the issue is that Dr. Spiegel has been all over the map and inconsistent with his wording - traits vs diagnosis - throughout the case, including the pre-trial depositions. that’s why he keeps pressing him about his prior testimony. then he even changes during the course of his testimony at the trial. he even eventually changes his tune and says he DID diagnose johnny with NPD. the scary thing is that this man is the chair of the psychiatry department at EVMS. he teaches med students and residents. that fact floored me.
Oh boy, that is concerning. You do miss things when you only watch a testimony through reactions. So the guy who delivered this bizarre testimony comes with high credentials. Could this have any consequences? Edit; Hadn't watched that part of people online attacking him yet, people did that with the other psychiatrist too so it's not a big surprise. I was thinking more in the lines of his credentials taking a hit, not bullying.
@@kitten00776I've heard the law was on Amber Heard's side but if her witnesses aren't doing a good job and the facts appear to be against her, I don't see how that wouldn't hurt her case. Poor jury though, having to listen to it all.
@@calahara Yeah im coming from a viewpoint of if I was on the jury. I dont have any law or phycological experience. It was I think, 6 or 7 weeks of information. I would think that would be extremely overwhelming to try and process all that information to form an opinion.
@@kitten00776 6 weeks of information, there was a 1 week break in between because the judge had a conference. At least there also was some time wasted in court, I'm sure the jury doesn't need to talk about things like the muffins. But yeah, they have more audio to go through too, not everything was played in court. I do hope they figure it out relatively quickly. They'd finally get to talk about it and people finally get to move on. Though I'm not sure Amber Heard can, even more so because people (especially on the internet) likely will frequently remind her, my biggest hope is that she'll get the help she needs.
There’s a rumor that Amber may have hired the wrong Dr. David Spiegel. There’s one who graduated from Yale and teaches at Stanford. I like that thought although unlikely. Lol more likely this is one of the only guys they could get to say what they wanted him to say.
@@IratePuffin Don't think so. This Dr Spiegel is a very well-known expert in trauma, PTSD, IPV, substance use, psychiatric medications. His research and reviews over many years have changed the PTSD classification in the DSM. He doesn't rattle off DSM symptoms, his research defines them.
I have never thought you “diagnosed” on any videos I’ve heard. You’re doing great. You help me learn a lot. I think Dennison is trying to show he’s not reliable by conflicting himself and not explaining in a way the jury will understand, knowing the jury doesn’t get the difference between diagnosis & traits.
Agreed. When I first saw a different reaction of this specific cross-examination, one of the first things I thought was one of the first things I learned from Dr. Honda is you CANNOT diagnose from afar.
Yes, I think the lawyer in this instance (and Dr. Spiegel by accident) did a good job creating confusion in the minds of the jury and made it easier to for them to discount his prior testimony. By the end, they must have been questioning his ability to look at both parties objectively at the very least.
I believe Johnny Depp but at the same time, Heard’s lawyers are doing their job. They’re doing the best with what they have. I feel awful that anyone may walk away damaged from doing their job. Everyone has the right to competent representation.
I just found out today that Elaine has been crying in the toilet after closing arguments. I can only imagine the immense toll of representing Amber must have taken on her.
I actually think they did pretty good, I just think Amber was waaaay too involved with everything and they couldn't do much.. At the end they just looked tired...
the fact that someone emailed dr honda saying he diagnoses from afar had me so confused. he literally makes a point of saying "i'm not diagnosing from afar, that would be unethical, i'm just using this as a jumping off point" LEGIT ALL OF THE TIME?!
Exactly! I sometimes get tired of all of the qualifiers that people like Dr. Honda have to constantly repeat over and over but I finally understand why he does it! People can be so silly, lawd
I’ve only been watching your videos for about 7 days, and it’s obvious you won’t go beyond ethical boundaries when doing these reactions. It’s perhaps frustratingly true of you at points when I’m allowing my emotional reactions to something (this case in particular) get the best of me.
I've only watched for a week or two as well and I totally agree with you. I keep being amazed at how impartial he is. No matter how implausible something he reacts to is he still manages to talk about it in a very professional way.
Welcome to the glorious world of Psychology in Seattle! I’ve been watching Dr. Kirk for a couple of years now, and he is quite consistent in his integrity and attempts to maintain impartiality. He’s really impressive. And his back catalogue is awesome 😊❤️💐
Yup this is why we love him! Sometimes it can be frustrating, but when you really look at that frustration, it’s usually projection. If you’re open to it, these videos can teach you a lot about yourself
@@mattheusser1390 Sounds about right. I’ve only watched a couple of Dr. Grande’s videos. I can’t put my finger on why, but I find Dr. Kirk more relatable. I also appreciate his role-playing/examples, which he gets into with many of his reality TV reaction videos, especially 90 Day Fiancé. I’ve used some of the techniques he’s modeled, and found them highly effective with my husband 👍💐
Thank you for this. Even veterinarians know not to diagnose an animal they haven’t actually seen. It was infuriating listen to this dr try to diagnose JD with such a serious personality disorder.
I think Mr Dennison knows exactly what he's doing. Some people have compared him to Columbo. He asks these somewhat simplistic questions that make you think he isn't grasping the issue, but he leads the witness into saying the point he wants them to make. For instance, NPD is a cluster B personality disorder, cluster B personality disorders could be linked to IPV, what are the other cluster B disorders, oh hey, isn't that what Amber Heard was diagnosed with? I think Dr. Spiegel's ego is so fragile that he's more concerned with defending himself than his client.
He was paid by the hour, so he tried his best to make his testimony last as long as possible. Talking nonsense than he slipped up on how he came to his fake diagnosis
"humans are generally incompetent" and "Amber's team is actually doing a good job" .... Both those statements were very good to hear for my perfectionistic brain lol. Movies do make everything seem so slick
The best comment I've read about Dr. Spiegel from another video: "The hill I will die on is that this 'expert' is actually a patient who escaped, tied up the real psych, locked him in a cellar, wrote himself some strong and unlimited stimulant prescriptions, and came to court to in the doctor's place to carry on the facade."
I really like your empathy and trying to see things from multiple perspectives. I believe it's one of the best trait of self-actualized people, to be able to put themselves into others peoples shoes and really deeply try to understand them. Always pleasure to see your insight on this heavy topics, keep up the good work
I’ve been following you for a couple years. You are extremely careful and consistent in saying “I don’t know, I’d need more data, but IF this is true…” or you talk about how we will use this as an example or “jumping off point.” You’re totally fair, balanced, and kind to the people you talk about, even the ones who are hard to give the benefit of the doubt to!
Correct. I think that's the reason so many of us feel safe with Dr. Kirk. He uses examples to guide us in using psychology to improve our relationships. ❤️
You're perfectly correct and ethical Dr. Kirk in all of your videos. When you watch Dr Curry's rebuttal, she states pretty much the same as you do about being extremely careful with expressing opinions as a professional
@@GroovyFeminist She shared the results and the tests with the lawyer teams, both of them. But she is not allowed to have notes on the stand and she offered more than once that Amber Heard's lawyer can bring her the notes and they can go through it together. But the lawyer obviously didn't want to do that. So the really important question here is: Why did AH's lawyer not go through the test results, specifics and notes when Dr. Curry was on the stand?
Dr Kirk we all know that you are using these people as a way to discuss psychological disorders and not diagnosing anyone. Please keep up the good work!
I love that you play devils advocate for all individuals in these videos. I really appreciate your ability to remain non-partial and critical of all sides of the narrative. It is my opinion that any individual that is giving you trouble are lashing out because you did not exactly support their opinion. I did not agree with all of your assessments on occasion but you have continuously proven with your professionalism to not take sides. It made me look at my own biases and confront them. Thank you for such great commitment.
My sister is a therapist. Says many things are in the muddy middle , neither black or white. Each case must be investigated in depth and people are not their diagnoses and change over time.
@@CraigTheLawyer yeah, I agree. I think they meant questions that could, without context, go one way or the other with answers and could seriously impact the lawyer’s case if the person on the stand doesn’t answer how the lawyer might’ve anticipated. I think that a lot of lawyers already know kind of how a witness may answer to certain questions and that’s why they feel safe asking them.
So excited for the cross finally! The direct exam was interesting, but the cross is where things took off. For the record… I’ve listened to probably close to 100 hours of your commentary and I’ve never heard you come close to diagnosing anyone. I’ve always found you to be incredibly responsible and appreciate the redundant, but necessary, reminder that throwing terms around can be damaging, stigmatizing, and distort understanding of complex issues.
You made several points in this video that I genuinely appreciate. Firstly, this is exactly what court looks like. Attorneys make mistakes, stutter, have technical difficulties - they're just people doing a job. Secondly, the misuse of clinical terms drives me up the wall. It's so hard for me to see people claiming another person is gaslighting them, or that they dont owe them their emotional labor, in general conversation on social media. It's upsetting because it reduces those terms to catchphrases and makes them seem like casual parts of conversation, or like the person being accused of these things is somehow terrible or abusive. Thank you for mentioning both of these points.
At the end, when he was talking about the decline of clinical psychology, is how I (as a cell/molec biologist) feel about forensic biology. There is no regulations, a lot is submitted without any meaningful scientific validation, no mention of any determinations of error rates, and no way of reliability testing. And people go to jail on these findings. Wild.
Delightful reaction Dr. Kirk! I felt like even your famous neutrality and general kindness would reach their limits with this guy. I also have a masters degree in psychology although I have never been practicing. It still makes the hairs stand up on my back when I see unprofessionalism showcased like this and I feel your pain when you worry about how psychology comes across after testimonies of this kind. So glad that I've found your channel two years ago! You are the epitomy of the perfect therapist everyone wishes they had and people like you are the ones keeping psychology's prestige somewhat intact. P.S.: Hope judge Azcarate has restored your faith in judges. She seems really top notch, fair and is one pleasant character.
Just a little background. When JD sued AH for defamation and 50M in damages, she filed counter claim for 100M. Not only that but her previous accusations abut 3 incidents grew to countless incidents, plus added sexual assaults and rape. Furthermore she claimed she suffered PTSD which is why court ordered to have Dr. Curry evaluate her. Dr. Hughes diagnosed her with PTSD 10 days after Dr. Curry based on bunch of checklists and way before she administered CAPS-5. But because Amber Heard can't resist she wanted to have Johnny evaluated as well which court denied 2 times because there was never any claim involving his mental health. So we have this experts humiliating themselves in front of the world, even exposing some shenanigans that her lawyers are trying to pull.
Amber could have had previous PTSD, She had many issues as a younger person, Her behavior is questionable, Would be interested in why/how her high school best friend was killed when she was just 16 yrs. Allegedly she was riding in a car with drunk driver, but who was driving?
IIRC Curry in her rebuttal said she could have complex PTSD from her childhood but her scores were so high and questionable she cannot diagnose her with PTSD from her supposed domestic abuse
@@Penguuwn yes. But the point is she is making claims that alleged abuse by JD caused her PTSD and a very serious one. There are some details surfacing now about a car incident she was involved in high school where one of her friends lost their life, and in original Dr. Curry's deposition she talked about how she was combative when questioned about high school. The context I've tried to provide is why Dr. Spiegel is testifying, she have to get back at Johnny in some way and he is brought up to talk how bad his substance abuse is. He is talking about risk factors and presenting it as 100% proof that it happened. And his entire testimony crumbled when he said "HE WAS TOLD they were feeding lines to JD through his earpiece", "HE WS TOLD that was vomit on picture where JD is sleeping ", he was comparing JD's processing speed to pirate movies, among other things, it's just silly.
The best lesson my mom could ever teach me…“Never assume competence.” I probably say it to myself about three times a week! We we screaming it at this guy…just cause he’s got a title doesn’t mean he knows what he’s doing (or talking about!)
I will co opt “ Never assume competence” And allow the idea to guide daily action Competence will include my own Not paranoid just the glass is only half full The jackass psychiatrist in this example is a decade younger than I am And he has certainly lost his marbles
Which is alarming because he has a title lol. It takes years of training, 12 on average. You would think by the end of 12 years of rigorous education and on the job training that you would be at least somewhat competent.
He does seem knowledgeable, as he’s able to recall specific statistics and information about the topic, but his presentation and overall demeanour is horrendous. He’s supposed to be impartial but he answers every question with arrogance and being snarky. Presentation is important to a jury, and for a psychiatrist, he looks nuts 😂
“It’s a squishy world”. Well said. I really appreciate your unbiased perspective. Side note, I also absolutely agree that review bombing any of these expert witnesses is absolutely wrong. It’s also unnecessary as people will watch this and draw their own conclusions.
Man you’re amazing. I’ve never ever seen you step out ethically and you’re honestly an amazingly legal and ethical example for fellow clinicians to follow. You’re great! These videos are like popcorn to me lol
I love to see when a professional deeply cares about the ethics, optics, and concern for the general trajectory of the field. It is obvious that you care about psychology and it is much appreciated.
he was getting him to walk in the door to saying cluster b. thats why he backtracked so much, he wanted it from the dr mouth about cluster b traits. i think it took longer for him to get there but he did it. this lawyer also walked to the door of the other expert about the justice comment too.
This. Dr. Hughes probably did less harm since the vast majority of DV victims are women, but given how long she's been doing this while clearly believing it's not possible for a man to be abused by a woman, somewhere along the line she probably wronged someone.
Wait, what? A defamation case would never have a “public defender-assigned case” so this is an impossibility. Now, what DOES happen is in a criminal case, the government might have a court-mandated psychologist evaluate the defendant, and the defendant might not have the resources to counteract such an evaluation, but that scenario is very different that what we are talking about here.
21:20 I think the attorney did understand the difference between traits versus disorder. That was his point he was saying that IPV is associated with narcissistic personality disorder but Dr. Spiegel had previously testified in his deposition that narcissistic traits were not necessarily related to IPV. His point was if Dr. Spiegel is saying that he’s not actually diagnosing Johnny Depp with narcissistic personality disorder but rather just saying he has traits then that would not necessarily be associated with IPV. But Dr. Spiegel wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He doesn’t want to admit that he’s diagnosing him but he also still wants him to be associated with IPV. That’s why the attorney says how far back do you want to go? because now Dr. Spiegel is saying even just “narcissism” as in an adjective I guess is associated with IPV. So he’s gone from narcissistic personality disorder is associated with IPV to even narcissistic traits are associated with IPV to now even just plain old narcissism is associated with IPV. Ridiculous.
Dr Kirk, you always are extremely careful and sensitive in your wording and phrasing. I’ve watched at least a hundred of your reaction videos over the past year or more during covid. You are articulate and compassionate always! 🙏
Dr Kirk, I've never interpreted your reactions as diagnoses. You've always made it clear that you merely speculate and that you'd have to do an examination to come to a proper and informed conclusion. I believe this person has severely misunderstood you.
If I'm not wrong he also said that he gives himself at least three-four months of counseling and gathering data before formulating an hypothetical diagnosis. I really don't know what the person who contacted him is talking about
So what is honda doing when he's explaining his view on the case? If u say just his opinion, opinion based on what? If he's not actually providing diagnosis based on the case, what is he doing? Making up random scenarios n giving fake details? It doesn't make any sense?
@@Chalee711 Let's make an example, shall we? In the case of JD suffering from alcohol/substance use disorder it is his [strong] OPINION that it is LIKELY JD has it, due to the FACT that JD himself and all people in his life confirm his drug and alcohol abuse and his several attempts to recover through rehabilitation. Could it be all made up? If you wanna believe so, yes. Is it likely this is all made up? No. In the case of a personality disorder you need several sessions plus specific tests to formulate an hypothesis if someone has a PD. And only the therapist who is assessing a client through tests and counseling has the right to ultimately diagnose them. So the level of speculation for someone who receives information indirectly (like Dr Honda) without meeting the client or having access to test results is higher. He can formulate a set of hypothesis that may explain some behaviors that are shown or talked about in a video, but he never refers to his own speculations as FACTS. They are mostly meant to be seen as food for thought.
@@decrepitgirl right in short its speculation. so its a fake scenario hes making up n telling how he feels. but u kno theres a huge problem when ppl use his speculation n believe it.
@@Chalee711 if I said "if what AH claims about JD is true then it is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard" and from then on you think I'm claiming I KNOW everything she said HAPPENED as if I was there witnessing it... then sorry, but it's on you, not on me, I am not responsible for that.
I think the attorney absolutely understands traits vs a diagnosis but the "doctor" is saying JD has traits and has all but diagnosed him and has given him a provisional diagnosis of NPD. The attorney is trying to hold him to this diagnosis (so he can impeach him) but Spiegel is being shifty. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall. Which is hopefully making him appear less legit to the jury. I think he is accomplishing his goal. The less professional Spiegel looks the better for JD.
Dr. Honda, please don’t feel like you need to defend yourself. I have never seen ANYONE offer psychological insight who is more careful NOT to diagnose and who goes out of their way to explore alternative causes, cognition, and behaviors.
Part of the reason I love to watch your content, Dr. Honda, is that you have an amazing way of not pushing absolutes. I work in beauty and sales. Whenever someone asks me, "What's the best mascara" I frustrate them and myself bc there are so many caveats to that question! It's nice to know that while people get frustrated with my inability to give a single word answer to seemingly closed questions I am not alone in this!
This! People want a solution so they can discard their own responsibility. This way, they didn’t make a decision, you did. Obviously there is no best- it depends what is important to you!
I wonder if "expert witnesses" like Dr. Spiegel set off alarms with their respective licensure boards in their fields? Does their practice get reviewed by the board or no? Because they also have other patients who may be receiving potential malpractice or misdiagnosis.
I've been waiting for part 4 like a 5 yo on Christmas morning. I haven't seen any other peer reviews/reactions because I respect you and your opinions/impressions. I wanted to wait for your video. I was convinced all other proffs were going to back up that s*** show and tell me how petty I am for my complete and udder bewilderment. Not to mention secondhand embarrassment. However, we shared the same face while he contemplated how to answer the Willy Wonka question. When you replayed it again I knew, at that very moment, we were friends for life. I appreciate your commentary with a side of proff opinion. BFF's 4-ever!!
I have never EVER gotten the idea that you were diagnosing anyone. You are always very careful and most times note you would never really know any diagnoses considering you haven’t spoken to them! You make it very, very clear in your language. The whole time I was watching this guy I was just thinking about how you would NEVER say anything remotely like this lmao
Completely agree it seems like the majority of AH's expert witnesses seem woefully unprepared for thorough, skeptical questioning. I thought maybe they were super arrogant, but that's a great point that they prob haven't faced it much. It was super interesting to watch. Like they never imagined someone would question their claims.
I just found you and have watched a few videos…..AND already see how fair and unbiased you are AND how you never diagnosed or even alluded to it in the videos I seen so far. You just break it all down and educate us “normal” lol people. Which is what made me go on to video 2, 3, 4 and so on. Very real and very professional, which is extremely hard to find on the internet esp UA-cam these days. I thank you so much for that and keep doing what you do so wonderfully.
I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I’m a teacher and I was rattled by this testimony. He was arrogant, unhinged and aggressive. It’s hard to imagine how he could be helpful to mentally unwell people. I’m watching from Australia, this would never be even permitted in our legal system. He’d get stuck off, The AMA (Australian Medical Association) would be forced to make a formal statement and potentially take his licence.
The fact that you openly discuss the ethical situations facing you on camera and your language is beyond careful and proper. Keep doing what you’re doing!
I got the feeling that the experts with knowledge, passion die their craft and integrity wouldnt put their career at risk to lie for a client. Thats why we have been such a difference in experts in this trial.
This is why people liked Dr. Curry so much. She didn't elaborate or meander, she was very to the point. Either way, I like your videos Dr. Kirk! :) People need to stop attacking you, that's ridiculous.
@@hollywoodjaded Had you watched his video in full, you would have understood that I was referring to the portion where Dr. Honda states BOTH amber heard and Johnny depp supporters have been attacking him. I'm simply saying that people shouldn't attack him for his observations.
27:40 i think the misunderstanding is a little bit different there! Dr. Spiegel understood the question to mean if any/every personality trait makes ipv more likely! Not any related to narcissism nor any related with cluster b but just all personality traits. It's like: the lawyer asked him about all mc donald's in seattle, but he understood "all mc donald's" to mean all around the whole world, and then was like: "no, no only the ones in washington!"
It would have been smarter to focus on correlations between "substance abuse w impaired impulse control and anger issues" and domestic violence. I'm sure there's research supporting that, and that would have been a much more credible interpretation from the behavior we've seen in the record.
It's really fascinating to me how unlikeable and unprofessional most of the experts Amber Heard's team hired are. I wonder if it's because her case was weak, and all the better candidates turned it down, or if it's that she had a preference for more reactive people who would reflect more her strong emotions.
I think it's because they spent so much time looking for the person with the best CV possible that they never bothered to figure out if the person could do what they wanted them to do...
Maybe they should've done as Depp's team did with dr. Curry, interview the expert for a few hours before hiring, instead of impeaching her for doing so.
I also speculate that better candidates might have said no because they felt that what they wanted of them could not be done ethically, and that Amber had a very specific narrative (e.g. Johnny is a narcissist) that she wanted corroborated. That resulted in the huge gap between the quality of expert witnesses between the two sides.
When you are looking for an expert to back your legal argument you get what you get, and that is people who will support your case. In theory AHs team could have had the experts JD did, but they seemed not to agree. Experts are employed not forced, so these are the people who agree with that side of the case, or feel they can produce an argument to support it.
As a licensed clinician in the field, I absolutely appreciate you discussing the coaching and the concerns that surround it. I share those sentiments and it’s nice to hear another clinician with a following talk about it so people can really educate themselves on the difference.
I listen to your show very often and I was never under impression that you were diagnosing anybody. On the contrary, it is from you that I learned how unethical it may be to diagnose somebody without meeting them personally and treating and evaluating them personally.
I, too, am hyper-vigilant about transmitting information accurately and ethically to patients (and everyone around me to be quite honest) and I have yet to hear a reaction or comment from you that does not contain the appropriate caveat and context to what you’re hypothesizing. You consistently reaffirm that you are “not diagnosing from afar,” and saying, “I don’t actually know because I’ve never met this person, and I wasn’t there, but we use this podcast as a jumping-off point,” etc. I very much appreciate your diligence, every single time. I also find you are considerate of others and choose your words so wisely. Keep being the gold standard, Dr. Honda!
You have always been 100% explicit in saying "I cannot diagnose people... I do not have the full picture... I'm just giving my feedback based on the limited information I'm seeing in this clip and they would need to go to a doctor and have extensive assessments and consultations to receive a diagnosis..." Please have no qualms about it, you've always been VERY explicit that diagnosing from afar is unethical and can certainly be inaccurate and that any feedback or information you're giving regarding clips you're watching is not offering diagnosis it's just relaying data based on the limited information in the clip you're seeing. You've always been very clear and ethical about the information you provide online and I've always very much appreciated that.
I think around 37min, Dr Spiegel is referring to Johnny Depps UK trial in a couple years back. So he meant in that video deposition he interacted faster than now in this trial. Loving the video it is really clearing up a lot and reassuring people on ethics in your field :).
@@florencefiancee Yep. I believe his theory is that Depp was in some kind of semi-acute semi-chronic cognitive decline from alcohol and drugs a few years ago, that have cleared up by now.
One of the major flaws this case brought out in our legal system is Expert Witnesses. How sketchy they can be, and how many cases have they won for their clients. Dennison is the Expert Wizard Vanquisher. He has slaughtered every Expert witness, except his own which he set up beautifully.
There are courses people can take to qualify them as an expert witness, and the course itself is a scam. Many people have suffered because of these scammers.
From this example, I'm convinced the only way experts should be used in law is to have a committee of people assigned by the court and costs split by both parties. The current system is so awful and I think seriously undermines ordinary people's understanding of what real expertise actually is.
@@caitthecat that’s how how someone gets designated an expert witness. If you watched this or any trial you would know that an expert is qualified on a case by case basis by confirming an educational background or work experience pertinent to the subject they would be testifying to. The best example of this is in my cousin Vinny when he qualified his gf as an automotive expert.
He was dodging the question to avoid providing info, as an expert, to the other side, so he tried to draw a circle, but the lawyer kept on track And the W.Wonka question, the psych was buying time, cause he didn't expect that q. and was finding ways to answer and overlooking beyond possible a-q outcomes, possibly also chilling his own mood and resetting before answering (he was possibly triggered or about to get triggered and looked for anything to hide his emotional reaction or set a pause on the way the lawyer was tracing)
"I don't expect my victims to have perfection." Now that was an interesting statement. Who are his "victims"? I think Johnny Depp's team did hear the remark of Dr. Speagal agreeing with Dr. Curry's assessment. Given Dr. Speagal did not assess Amber Heard officially, they may have consciously decided not to press it given Heard's teams prepensely to object based on speculation.
I snorted my coffee and cookies out my nose when he said absolutely Ms Heard shows cluster B personality traits. I missed that when I was watching the trial
You really hit on a lot of the major points I've been observing during this. It's fascinating to see the influence of human behavior and the effects of popular culture. I go through this a lot and at times find myself reflecting on the evolution of the mental health field. Glad that you've covered these points.
The idea that pure intuition and years of first person experience is enough to diagnose someone from afar would undoubtedly be very appealing to anyone's ego. That's why it's dangerous and shouldn't be done. It's not about ourselves and our self efficacy, it's about the people who could be mistakenly diagnosed with something they don't have
@@Chalee711 Mostly they talk like they have a level of certainty in what they claim they really can't afford having. You can hold onto your own theory about the course of events and it's ok, but you gotta remember it is just a start: if you aren't just anybody but represent a profession, and you don't have enough data to PROVE your theory it is very unprofessional to treat your personal beliefs as FACTS.
@@decrepitgirl but u kno, ppl take his words from these videos n believe its the truth. i mean he says hes not diagnosing, also unbias. why would he need to say unbias if hes not giving a diagnosis? cause its just a made up scenario
Thank you, Dr Honda. To be honest, I didn’t understand fully some of your commentaries with Dr Curry and Dr Hudges (when they first were on the stand) until I listened to Dr Spiegel and the Goldwater Ruling. Thank you for your professionalism and your insight. Thank you for educating us on the nuisances of your profession and diagnoses. Thank you.
Thanks for your spiel at the end. I also feel like ‘internet speak’ and everyone diagnosing everyone they don’t like as a narcissist is becoming far too common amongst people who present themselves as professional therapists, psychologists, etc. I don’t care for the ‘pop culturification’ of this medical science.
The co-opting of scientific language to apply to "vibes" is exasperating say the least. Psychology has replaced astrology now, "oh, they're such a narc with some BPD traits" is the new "oh, they're such an Aries with a Cap moon". And, unfortunately, you need to go no further than a scroll through this comments section. Oh, the irony!
Thanks so much for putting in all the time and work you are commenting on this trial. I’m learning SO much and your unbiased take is informative and refreshing.
I love your coverage and thoughts about this case. You very fair, honest, and unbiased and is kinda refreshing compared to what I’ve seen that some people are very rude in their opinions. I just hope that with this case but JD and AH move on and grow from this and heal from their past trauma both from this relationship. I also hope that we start believing victims, all victims regardless of gender, when they find the strength to come out and share their experience with DV and SA. I think that the MeToo movement should be something that welcomes everyone of all sexes and gender
Depp’s side brings in another clinician to rebut Spiegel’s testimony and that Dr explains very clearly how forensic psychologists are meant to handle these situations. It basically comes down to being very clear about your limitations and being clear that you can’t say anything with ‘scientific certainty’. And Spiegel said several times that his opinions were made with scientific certainty! The rebuttal doc was really good explaining all the ethical mistakes made by Hughes and Spiegel. P.s anybody who thinks you’re diagnosing from afar are clearly not listening clearly enough! You’ve always been very clear about not being able to diagnose anyone unless you’ve been treating them one on one.
It seems to me that there were two methodologies used by the two legal teams Amber Heard's lawyers looked for experts with the most years of experience and the most qualifications to look the best - of course many of us view those experts to have been unethical in their testimonies Johnny Depp's lawyers chose to find professional experts that would come across that way, professional in mannerisms and presentation. Skilled and knowledgeable. Personable, likeable. They chose experts like movie roles because not only were they looking for the best in their respective fields, they were looking for people that would appeal to a wider audience - which was also important to the task at hand. They thought outside of the box.
Yes! I noticed this from early on - AH's team goes for flash in place of substance. Like the child prodigy who, if you listened, was on the wrong side of every shift in tech in his career and really sunk to giving testimony on something unrelated to his actual specialty. And they tried to make hya out of Hughes being chair of a committee of her professional org. Those people aren't voted in because everyone in their field thinks they're the best. It's a thankless unpaid job to do that stuff that takes you away from the real work, so the people who do it are either truly selfless or narcissists who want the petty power and credential more than they care about the work. I can guess which one Hughes is...
Totally agree. AH's experts and team kept going on about how they had "X years experience" and being "board certified" as if these things trumped the sheer unprofessionalism, fudged demonstratives and unethical testimonies they gave.
For whatever it's worth, I've never thought you have diagnosed anyone you comment on. I actually wish you would because I would trust what you even just said you thought, but you always are very careful. It's crystal clear that you don't/won't and I respect that.
I feel like this guy, as well as Dr. Hughes did a LOT of damage to the mental health sector. How can we expect anything our therapists say to be true when they cant even agree with eachother? on POLICIES/RULES/FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS???
They were paid to simply lie. He was caught on a hot mic saying he would lie. The first part one could argue rely but the last part was definitely lie since rely doesn't fit in that particular sentence.
@@k.d.2589 lol, just look it up. I know it was being deleted as soon as it got posted but I'm sure u can find it if you try. I think it was over on Twitter though.
@@k.d.2589 I want to say a few sources coveting the JD trial also made a video about it the day he took the stand. I found the actual video of him saying it to hear it all to get a full context since some were saying rely. The first time it's possible he said rely but the second time he definitely said lie since the is the only word that would fit in with what he the rest of what he said.
@@jennifercarter9047 Hm I looked it up and listened to the audio multiple times. I couldn't make out what he was saying, so I'm not going to form any conclusions. Anything more would be speculation, and in this case bias would make it way too easy to jump to conclusions.
I’m an attorney as well and I honestly have no idea how any other attorney could think Amber’s team did a good job. Their experts were all awful, they failed to paint any sort of coherent narrative to the jury, and allowed Depp’s team to completely bulldoze them. Elaine very obviously was not well versed in very simple evidentiary rules to the point it was comical at times. Whether these blunders were due to incompetence or having a client that was running the show, I don’t know. But they absolutely did not do a good job. Totally disagree with Attorney Craig. Lol.
1:27 I know I've been confrontational before but in all reality no. You haven't diagnosed anyone on anything I've watched you talk about. It's okay to say "This or that person looks to have these traits" without going in to a full on diagnosis or forming an official medical position on it. And I still come back to see what you have to say on things because I find it educational :)
I am a health coach and long time clinician as an OT. There are a lot of unethical coaches and then there are many who are responsible, professional and ethical. You can still be held accountable even without a license, but it is nice to not be dictated by insurance companies. The coaching framework when done correctly is powerful but not to be confused with a diagnostician. Knowing when to refer out is important for any clinical problems.
Dr Kirk, I’ve seen most of your videos and I can say with certainty that you are the most carefully worded psychologist that does these reaction videos and I have NEVER seen you diagnose ANYONE. In fact, I’d even go farther to say when it’s two opposing people that you’re reviewing, you make very sure to give both sides the same unbiased benefit & always say “this is what COULD be going on”. I’d say you are beyond careful with your words and never diagnose anyone.
🙌💯 I concur ❤️💐
Yes, and that's why i like him. Everyone always gets a fair chance. 😊🙏
💯
Agreed. Anyone who misunderstands that isn’t paying attention.
@@lciav yeah or lacking in comprehension skills… He’s been so careful & consistent with the verbal disclaimer
I’ve been waiting all day hoping you would post this. As a psychologist this whole testimony was frightening.
As someone with a puny BA and some masers classes in psychology it was frightening. So was Dr. Hughs. Her general bias was oozing out of every pore. Not just in reference to Amber Heard. I think there was some countertransference happening.
@@cd4536 I can honestly get past hughes, but spiegel?! holy shit. he’s a nightmare.
Certainly been waiting since Part 1 lol
@@jilliansmaniotto2326 Yeah he's like borderline incoherent at this point. The pompous arrogance of this guy makes you feel kind of icky watching it.
@@cd4536 right? the first time I watched it, I was popping in and out of a few work calls, so I didn’t get to watch it super closely. then I went back and watched it again and became legit furious. I do this shit for a living as a trial attorney, and I couldn’t believe they put this guy on the stand.
This guy gave me the impression that he was REALLY enjoying being the center of attention, and he did NOT like having his authority or opinion challenged
Absolutely! Me too! I’d love to be able to say he was projecting his own NPD on JD.
Narcissists are quick to accuse others of being narcissists.
“gaslighty”💀💀💀
@@ania5038 haven't heard the evidence. Also, everyone has "traits" of NPD. We all think we are better than others at times, we all try to control people and situations at time to make us feel powerful or important or cast us in a good light, we are all manipulative at times, we all have moments where we actively seek out attention, etc...
Yes! It's the kind of behavior that I've experienced from older cis-het white men.
Dennison was the most effective attorney. Many attorneys criticized cross, however I think his approach was effective in dismantling the expert witnesses by allowing them to over explain. Dennison capitalized when their testimony did not meet the standards of their said expertise.
Dennison messed up on his first cross of Hughes but he redeemed himself on round 2 for her.
Fair point
He comes off unsure and passive...but bites like a Shark 🦈 I did not have much faith in him, but he delivers every time 😀
At a glance, he seemed like he isn’t doing great. But at the end of each cross, we’re left with the desired result for Depp’s case. The desired result being that these “experts” are incompetent AND unethical who knowingly broke ethical guidelines and didn’t follow the manual for diagnosing patients.
He was good at giving them enough rope to hang themselves with.
Dr. Spiegel and Dr. Hughes’ “expert testimonies” really undermine the credibility of psychologists and psychiatrists. Having a BA in psychology, I was *appalled.* So glad Dr. Curry and Dr. Shaw gave much more ethical and professional testimonies. Thank you for giving your commentary and pointing out how armchair diagnosis is against the standards of psychiatry!
Right!!
🙄... you are simply doing the very same thing : armchair refereeing to suit your bias
@@equatorialjourney4478 the difference is very, very clear. but ok lol
@@equatorialjourney4478 cause u kno, real test results matters. its not like honda saying hes not providing a diagnosis, but let me tell u a fake scenario of this case n let me make up my theories. every expert witness on depps side seems very educated n have reasons for their statements. from ambers side seems like all frauds n men haters. diagnosing depp without interviewing or testing. ironically funny to these videos
@@equatorialjourney4478 No. Stating that "expert testimonies" undermine credibility of psychologists and psychiatrists, and feeling appalled by it, does not make an armchair diagnosis. It might help if you look into diagnosis and what it means, as you'll find it doesn't apply to @KitKatLag's statement. If I say Spiegel has Histrionic Personality Disorder and that's why he's acting this way, THAT would be me givining a diagnosis, more precisely an armchair diagnosis, even if it is true that he's Histrionic. That's a huge difference.
This Doctor reminds me of the quote my dad gave me once, “if you can’t beat them, baffle them with your bullshit” 🤣🤣🤣
I can't 😆😆😆😆
Old adage:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit
Is your last name Spiegel??
@@bbqsauce3775 lol that sounds a lot better
This guy was a nightmare. He made their expert choices so much worse. He contradicted Dr. Hughs and then when she did her rebuttal she had to completely ignore his testimony rather than using it for added weight to her own. So bizarre. They had a deposition. They had to know he was not a good witness.
Feature of a bird
@@sabias3932 I suspected that too, a lot of people did. We were all wrong - according to him he was first brought onto the case in 2019. So, being new to the case isn't a possible reason. He's also given expert witness testimony before on medical malpractice cases (according to him), so it's not even that he's new to being an expert witness.
I think he is new to doing it in a public setting though. He said that when he came onto the case initially, he was under the impression that it wouldn't be a full-on public jury trial. So his role did change over time.
It's possible that he's genuinely good in his field, but not good in a public courtroom.
@@srolesen He absolutely doesn't have a well-rounded understanding of personality disorders, I agree. Hasn't a clue what he's talking about where those are concerned.
@@srolesen He could still be good in his field though, honestly. Narcissistic traits are overrepresented in some fields and psychiatry is one of them, according to people I know who have worked with them.
The only way I could get through Dr Spiegel’s testimony was by convincing myself that he was there was comic relief. The alternative option of believing that this man is real is too frightening
My theory is that Amber's team billed her for an expert witness, pocketed the money for themselves, then found some guy in the park arguing with squirrels and passed him off as the expert.
@@MakerInMotion I just spit my coffee out! 😂
I got through it by imagining him as Doc Brown in Back to the Future... 🤷♀️👀🤦♀️
@@kellstarama8235 "Marty! We have to go back to the 60s and stop the Goldwater Rule!"
@@MakerInMotion best comment I’ve ever seen 😂😂
This testimony was WILD. I thought he and the plaintiff's attorney were going to step outside at some point.
Hhaahahahaahahah yes!!!! Exactly!!insane
Actually I was so sad when the cross ended , it was Hella funny and when they asked him about willy Wonka I couldn't everyone was laughing
LOL!!!!
How could Amber's team think he'd be a good witness is beyond me... Thank you for your thoughts on this case!
it’s truly bonkers. her attorneys had MULTIPLE opportunities to observe this man’s ability to communicate. you typically meet at least once before retaining them to tentatively evaluate, then again usually several times once they’ve retained the expert to be an officially testifying expert, and then several times in the lead up to depos/trial, etc.. and then the discovery depos themselves are great previews of how they’ll behave on the stand. they had TONS of opportunities to step back and determine it might be a good idea to scrap his testimony.
I don't think they have had the luxury of too many options regarding experts as I reckon Amber had very specific narratives that she wanted corroborated (e.g. Johnny is a narcissist).
I can’t comprehend that either
@@andaredvex yep. especially when they were seeking out a psychiatrist’s opinion without an evaluation. you’d be hard-pressed to find ANY psychiatrist ever willing to do that.
They likely had very few choices. Especially when they wanted him to present evidence they weren't allowed to get because there wasn't probable cause based on the case circumstances. The defence's request to examine Depp was denied after all.
As you can read in the many comments, we've never witnessed you diagnosing or giving a medical opinion on anyone on your channel. Quite the contrary, so continue doing what you do and thank you.
It's also notable that Johnny Depp has been diagnosed with ADHD. Being late, poor working memory, etc. It's not a cognitive decline. It's perfectly explained by ADHD and drug abuse.
Yuup. The 3 words thing triggered me so much. I would forget the words within 30 seconds if I had to focus on conversation, never mind 5 minutes. When I was working at a bar, I'd be made fun of because I had to write down every single drink order, because any interruption would make me straight up forget. I'm still shocked that it was never addressed during the trial, ngl.
Yep I have all of these. Adhd plus trauma makes it worse
@@MinDeRien right!!!
@@MinDeRien had the same experience serving and bartending. It’s not a good job for me. I liked the movement and talking to people but was very stressful in other areas
Yes - I was really surprised this wasn’t brought up in his defence
the biggest tell on this guy is HOW COMBATIVE and ANGRY he got. the best expert witnesses acknowledge the limitations of what they can actually opine on, given the scope of their methods and the scope of material reviewed. when they argue and squibble like this, it’s a major red flag about their credibility.
and I wanted to clarify that the attorney, dennison, absolutely knows the difference between diagnosis and traits.. the issue is that Dr. Spiegel has been all over the map and inconsistent with his wording - traits vs diagnosis - throughout the case, including the pre-trial depositions. that’s why he keeps pressing him about his prior testimony. then he even changes during the course of his testimony at the trial. he even eventually changes his tune and says he DID diagnose johnny with NPD.
the scary thing is that this man is the chair of the psychiatry department at EVMS. he teaches med students and residents. that fact floored me.
Oh boy, that is concerning. You do miss things when you only watch a testimony through reactions.
So the guy who delivered this bizarre testimony comes with high credentials. Could this have any consequences?
Edit; Hadn't watched that part of people online attacking him yet, people did that with the other psychiatrist too so it's not a big surprise. I was thinking more in the lines of his credentials taking a hit, not bullying.
A lot, but not all of, Amber Heard witness came off as combative and unprofessional. It didn't seem to help her case much, might have even hurt it.
@@kitten00776I've heard the law was on Amber Heard's side but if her witnesses aren't doing a good job and the facts appear to be against her, I don't see how that wouldn't hurt her case. Poor jury though, having to listen to it all.
@@calahara Yeah im coming from a viewpoint of if I was on the jury. I dont have any law or phycological experience. It was I think, 6 or 7 weeks of information. I would think that would be extremely overwhelming to try and process all that information to form an opinion.
@@kitten00776 6 weeks of information, there was a 1 week break in between because the judge had a conference. At least there also was some time wasted in court, I'm sure the jury doesn't need to talk about things like the muffins. But yeah, they have more audio to go through too, not everything was played in court. I do hope they figure it out relatively quickly. They'd finally get to talk about it and people finally get to move on. Though I'm not sure Amber Heard can, even more so because people (especially on the internet) likely will frequently remind her, my biggest hope is that she'll get the help she needs.
Thank you doctor Honda, thank you for saying "Where did they get this guy?". I feel like absolutely everyone can relate to that sentiment
I feel like this guy has some undiagnosed things going on
Probably he was the only one who accepted to make these diagnosis
There’s a rumor that Amber may have hired the wrong Dr. David Spiegel. There’s one who graduated from Yale and teaches at Stanford. I like that thought although unlikely. Lol more likely this is one of the only guys they could get to say what they wanted him to say.
@@IratePuffin Don't think so. This Dr Spiegel is a very well-known expert in trauma, PTSD, IPV, substance use, psychiatric medications.
His research and reviews over many years have changed the PTSD classification in the DSM. He doesn't rattle off DSM symptoms, his research defines them.
“If I were late to my job…” Does anyone know a doctor who *isn’t* late to appointments? 🤣
What spiegel said is right on there but your comment is also spot on and funny... think a lot of Drs are quite narcissistic 😊
What spiegel said is right on there but your comment is also spot on and funny... think a lot of Drs are quite narcissistic 😊
I have never thought you “diagnosed” on any videos I’ve heard. You’re doing great. You help me learn a lot.
I think Dennison is trying to show he’s not reliable by conflicting himself and not explaining in a way the jury will understand, knowing the jury doesn’t get the difference between diagnosis & traits.
Agreed. I have never thought he did anything even near what this vitness did.
Agreed. When I first saw a different reaction of this specific cross-examination, one of the first things I thought was one of the first things I learned from Dr. Honda is you CANNOT diagnose from afar.
Yes, I think the lawyer in this instance (and Dr. Spiegel by accident) did a good job creating confusion in the minds of the jury and made it easier to for them to discount his prior testimony. By the end, they must have been questioning his ability to look at both parties objectively at the very least.
Asians are smarter than u think
@@Chalee711 I meant people not working in the field of phycology. Not that anyone wasn’t smart.
I believe Johnny Depp but at the same time, Heard’s lawyers are doing their job. They’re doing the best with what they have. I feel awful that anyone may walk away damaged from doing their job. Everyone has the right to competent representation.
Agreed. They are doing their best with client and evidence that they have.
I just found out today that Elaine has been crying in the toilet after closing arguments. I can only imagine the immense toll of representing Amber must have taken on her.
@@andaredvex I know!! That poor lady!
@@andaredvex A lot of people are cruel. I hope she gets the support she needs. 😔
I actually think they did pretty good, I just think Amber was waaaay too involved with everything and they couldn't do much.. At the end they just looked tired...
the fact that someone emailed dr honda saying he diagnoses from afar had me so confused. he literally makes a point of saying "i'm not diagnosing from afar, that would be unethical, i'm just using this as a jumping off point" LEGIT ALL OF THE TIME?!
Exactly! I sometimes get tired of all of the qualifiers that people like Dr. Honda have to constantly repeat over and over but I finally understand why he does it! People can be so silly, lawd
I thought the same thing!
I’ve only been watching your videos for about 7 days, and it’s obvious you won’t go beyond ethical boundaries when doing these reactions. It’s perhaps frustratingly true of you at points when I’m allowing my emotional reactions to something (this case in particular) get the best of me.
I've only watched for a week or two as well and I totally agree with you. I keep being amazed at how impartial he is. No matter how implausible something he reacts to is he still manages to talk about it in a very professional way.
Welcome to the glorious world of Psychology in Seattle! I’ve been watching Dr. Kirk for a couple of years now, and he is quite consistent in his integrity and attempts to maintain impartiality. He’s really impressive. And his back catalogue is awesome 😊❤️💐
Seconding goosebumps comment, welcome! Hope you all check out the hundreds of hours of other content
Yup this is why we love him! Sometimes it can be frustrating, but when you really look at that frustration, it’s usually projection.
If you’re open to it, these videos can teach you a lot about yourself
@@mattheusser1390 Sounds about right. I’ve only watched a couple of Dr. Grande’s videos. I can’t put my finger on why, but I find Dr. Kirk more relatable. I also appreciate his role-playing/examples, which he gets into with many of his reality TV reaction videos, especially 90 Day Fiancé. I’ve used some of the techniques he’s modeled, and found them highly effective with my husband 👍💐
Thank you for this. Even veterinarians know not to diagnose an animal they haven’t actually seen. It was infuriating listen to this dr try to diagnose JD with such a serious personality disorder.
I think Mr Dennison knows exactly what he's doing. Some people have compared him to Columbo. He asks these somewhat simplistic questions that make you think he isn't grasping the issue, but he leads the witness into saying the point he wants them to make. For instance, NPD is a cluster B personality disorder, cluster B personality disorders could be linked to IPV, what are the other cluster B disorders, oh hey, isn't that what Amber Heard was diagnosed with?
I think Dr. Spiegel's ego is so fragile that he's more concerned with defending himself than his client.
Exactly!
He was paid by the hour, so he tried his best to make his testimony last as long as possible. Talking nonsense than he slipped up on how he came to his fake diagnosis
Who is Columbo exactly? It be interesting to see the similarity.
"humans are generally incompetent" and "Amber's team is actually doing a good job" .... Both those statements were very good to hear for my perfectionistic brain lol. Movies do make everything seem so slick
The best comment I've read about Dr. Spiegel from another video:
"The hill I will die on is that this 'expert' is actually a patient who escaped, tied up the real psych, locked him in a cellar, wrote himself some strong and unlimited stimulant prescriptions, and came to court to in the doctor's place to carry on the facade."
That’s really funny , which UA-camr said that , 😂😂, I want to check out their channel
Sounds plausible 😂😂😂👌
I really like your empathy and trying to see things from multiple perspectives. I believe it's one of the best trait of self-actualized people, to be able to put themselves into others peoples shoes and really deeply try to understand them. Always pleasure to see your insight on this heavy topics, keep up the good work
I’ve been following you for a couple years. You are extremely careful and consistent in saying “I don’t know, I’d need more data, but IF this is true…” or you talk about how we will use this as an example or “jumping off point.” You’re totally fair, balanced, and kind to the people you talk about, even the ones who are hard to give the benefit of the doubt to!
Correct. I think that's the reason so many of us feel safe with Dr. Kirk. He uses examples to guide us in using psychology to improve our relationships. ❤️
@@xiomaragomez6649 exactly! He’s the best part of the internet! 😁
I totally agree
You're perfectly correct and ethical Dr. Kirk in all of your videos. When you watch Dr Curry's rebuttal, she states pretty much the same as you do about being extremely careful with expressing opinions as a professional
Except for when she diagnosed Amber with two personalities disorders and wouldn't share the specifics of her MMPI results.
@@GroovyFeminist she couldn't use her notes, so she couldn't be specific.
@@GroovyFeminist She met with amber a number of times and had her do many tests. What's the problem?
@@GroovyFeminist She shared the results and the tests with the lawyer teams, both of them. But she is not allowed to have notes on the stand and she offered more than once that Amber Heard's lawyer can bring her the notes and they can go through it together. But the lawyer obviously didn't want to do that. So the really important question here is: Why did AH's lawyer not go through the test results, specifics and notes when Dr. Curry was on the stand?
@@janine7070 Hopefully the jury will look at the actual test since they didn't get a straight answer from either expert.
Dr Kirk we all know that you are using these people as a way to discuss psychological disorders and not diagnosing anyone. Please keep up the good work!
I love that you play devils advocate for all individuals in these videos. I really appreciate your ability to remain non-partial and critical of all sides of the narrative. It is my opinion that any individual that is giving you trouble are lashing out because you did not exactly support their opinion. I did not agree with all of your assessments on occasion but you have continuously proven with your professionalism to not take sides. It made me look at my own biases and confront them. Thank you for such great commitment.
Yes 💙
My sister is a therapist. Says many things are in the muddy middle , neither black or white. Each case must be investigated in depth and people are not their diagnoses and change over time.
As an attorney, you never ask a question that you don’t know the answer to.
Yup
Eh, that’s sort of a convenient expression but not exactly true.
@@CraigTheLawyer yeah, I agree. I think they meant questions that could, without context, go one way or the other with answers and could seriously impact the lawyer’s case if the person on the stand doesn’t answer how the lawyer might’ve anticipated. I think that a lot of lawyers already know kind of how a witness may answer to certain questions and that’s why they feel safe asking them.
So excited for the cross finally! The direct exam was interesting, but the cross is where things took off.
For the record… I’ve listened to probably close to 100 hours of your commentary and I’ve never heard you come close to diagnosing anyone. I’ve always found you to be incredibly responsible and appreciate the redundant, but necessary, reminder that throwing terms around can be damaging, stigmatizing, and distort understanding of complex issues.
The attorney 100% understands "traits". This is part of the strategy.
You made several points in this video that I genuinely appreciate. Firstly, this is exactly what court looks like. Attorneys make mistakes, stutter, have technical difficulties - they're just people doing a job. Secondly, the misuse of clinical terms drives me up the wall. It's so hard for me to see people claiming another person is gaslighting them, or that they dont owe them their emotional labor, in general conversation on social media. It's upsetting because it reduces those terms to catchphrases and makes them seem like casual parts of conversation, or like the person being accused of these things is somehow terrible or abusive. Thank you for mentioning both of these points.
Don't worry doc.. Dr Shaw made sure to restore our faith in your profession and professionalism. Can't wait for you to see him.
💯
At the end, when he was talking about the decline of clinical psychology, is how I (as a cell/molec biologist) feel about forensic biology. There is no regulations, a lot is submitted without any meaningful scientific validation, no mention of any determinations of error rates, and no way of reliability testing. And people go to jail on these findings. Wild.
Delightful reaction Dr. Kirk! I felt like even your famous neutrality and general kindness would reach their limits with this guy.
I also have a masters degree in psychology although I have never been practicing. It still makes the hairs stand up on my back when I see unprofessionalism showcased like this and I feel your pain when you worry about how psychology comes across after testimonies of this kind. So glad that I've found your channel two years ago! You are the epitomy of the perfect therapist everyone wishes they had and people like you are the ones keeping psychology's prestige somewhat intact.
P.S.: Hope judge Azcarate has restored your faith in judges. She seems really top notch, fair and is one pleasant character.
Famous neutrality 😂❤ good description of Dr. Honda.
Just a little background. When JD sued AH for defamation and 50M in damages, she filed counter claim for 100M. Not only that but her previous accusations abut 3 incidents grew to countless incidents, plus added sexual assaults and rape. Furthermore she claimed she suffered PTSD which is why court ordered to have Dr. Curry evaluate her.
Dr. Hughes diagnosed her with PTSD 10 days after Dr. Curry based on bunch of checklists and way before she administered CAPS-5. But because Amber Heard can't resist she wanted to have Johnny evaluated as well which court denied 2 times because there was never any claim involving his mental health. So we have this experts humiliating themselves in front of the world, even exposing some shenanigans that her lawyers are trying to pull.
Amber could have had previous PTSD, She had many issues as a younger person, Her behavior is questionable, Would be interested in why/how her high school best friend was killed when she was just 16 yrs. Allegedly she was riding in a car with drunk driver, but who was driving?
IIRC Curry in her rebuttal said she could have complex PTSD from her childhood but her scores were so high and questionable she cannot diagnose her with PTSD from her supposed domestic abuse
@@caroler4297 yeah I thought she probably had ptsd or cptsd from childhood, bc it actually would make a lot of sense.
@@Penguuwn I thought she said that too! I’m not crazy!
@@Penguuwn yes. But the point is she is making claims that alleged abuse by JD caused her PTSD and a very serious one. There are some details surfacing now about a car incident she was involved in high school where one of her friends lost their life, and in original Dr. Curry's deposition she talked about how she was combative when questioned about high school.
The context I've tried to provide is why Dr. Spiegel is testifying, she have to get back at Johnny in some way and he is brought up to talk how bad his substance abuse is. He is talking about risk factors and presenting it as 100% proof that it happened. And his entire testimony crumbled when he said "HE WAS TOLD they were feeding lines to JD through his earpiece", "HE WS TOLD that was vomit on picture where JD is sleeping ", he was comparing JD's processing speed to pirate movies, among other things, it's just silly.
"Old therapist shakes fist at cloud."--OMG, I laughed out loud. Thank you for the Simpsons reference and laugh.
The best lesson my mom could ever teach me…“Never assume competence.” I probably say it to myself about three times a week! We we screaming it at this guy…just cause he’s got a title doesn’t mean he knows what he’s doing (or talking about!)
I will co opt
“ Never assume competence”
And allow the idea to guide daily action
Competence will include my own
Not paranoid
just
the glass is only half full
The jackass psychiatrist in this example is a decade younger than I am
And he has certainly lost his marbles
Which is alarming because he has a title lol. It takes years of training, 12 on average. You would think by the end of 12 years of rigorous education and on the job training that you would be at least somewhat competent.
He does seem knowledgeable, as he’s able to recall specific statistics and information about the topic, but his presentation and overall demeanour is horrendous. He’s supposed to be impartial but he answers every question with arrogance and being snarky. Presentation is important to a jury, and for a psychiatrist, he looks nuts 😂
Dr. Spiegel was literally entertaining 😂
I was flabbergasted.
He was one angry, flustered and a defensive guy the opposite of Dr. Curry's good natured, calm demeanor under Ross.
"Where did they get this guy?!" Dr Kirk says what we were all thinking when we watched this disastrous testimony 😆
“It’s a squishy world”. Well said. I really appreciate your unbiased perspective. Side note, I also absolutely agree that review bombing any of these expert witnesses is absolutely wrong. It’s also unnecessary as people will watch this and draw their own conclusions.
Man you’re amazing. I’ve never ever seen you step out ethically and you’re honestly an amazingly legal and ethical example for fellow clinicians to follow. You’re great! These videos are like popcorn to me lol
"We're human and we're ridiculous." I need this on a t-shirt
I love to see when a professional deeply cares about the ethics, optics, and concern for the general trajectory of the field. It is obvious that you care about psychology and it is much appreciated.
Agreed. Dr. Kirk does a great job explaining psychology and helping us use techniques to improve our relationships with others.
he was getting him to walk in the door to saying cluster b. thats why he backtracked so much, he wanted it from the dr mouth about cluster b traits. i think it took longer for him to get there but he did it. this lawyer also walked to the door of the other expert about the justice comment too.
That his testimony might have gone uncontested in "low-profile" or underfunded cases (public defender-assigned cases) is utterly horrifying.
This. Dr. Hughes probably did less harm since the vast majority of DV victims are women, but given how long she's been doing this while clearly believing it's not possible for a man to be abused by a woman, somewhere along the line she probably wronged someone.
@@kpanyc Totally agree.
Wait, what? A defamation case would never have a “public defender-assigned case” so this is an impossibility.
Now, what DOES happen is in a criminal case, the government might have a court-mandated psychologist evaluate the defendant, and the defendant might not have the resources to counteract such an evaluation, but that scenario is very different that what we are talking about here.
This cross reminds me of the old adage.. 'Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.'
Dr. Honda reacting to 'Dr. Spiegel vs. The Wizard Annihilator'. I'm here for it.
21:20 I think the attorney did understand the difference between traits versus disorder. That was his point he was saying that IPV is associated with narcissistic personality disorder but Dr. Spiegel had previously testified in his deposition that narcissistic traits were not necessarily related to IPV. His point was if Dr. Spiegel is saying that he’s not actually diagnosing Johnny Depp with narcissistic personality disorder but rather just saying he has traits then that would not necessarily be associated with IPV. But Dr. Spiegel wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He doesn’t want to admit that he’s diagnosing him but he also still wants him to be associated with IPV. That’s why the attorney says how far back do you want to go? because now Dr. Spiegel is saying even just “narcissism” as in an adjective I guess is associated with IPV. So he’s gone from narcissistic personality disorder is associated with IPV to even narcissistic traits are associated with IPV to now even just plain old narcissism is associated with IPV. Ridiculous.
Dr Kirk, you always are extremely careful and sensitive in your wording and phrasing. I’ve watched at least a hundred of your reaction videos over the past year or more during covid. You are articulate and compassionate always! 🙏
Dr Kirk, I've never interpreted your reactions as diagnoses. You've always made it clear that you merely speculate and that you'd have to do an examination to come to a proper and informed conclusion. I believe this person has severely misunderstood you.
If I'm not wrong he also said that he gives himself at least three-four months of counseling and gathering data before formulating an hypothetical diagnosis. I really don't know what the person who contacted him is talking about
So what is honda doing when he's explaining his view on the case? If u say just his opinion, opinion based on what? If he's not actually providing diagnosis based on the case, what is he doing? Making up random scenarios n giving fake details? It doesn't make any sense?
@@Chalee711 Let's make an example, shall we? In the case of JD suffering from alcohol/substance use disorder it is his [strong] OPINION that it is LIKELY JD has it, due to the FACT that JD himself and all people in his life confirm his drug and alcohol abuse and his several attempts to recover through rehabilitation. Could it be all made up? If you wanna believe so, yes. Is it likely this is all made up? No.
In the case of a personality disorder you need several sessions plus specific tests to formulate an hypothesis if someone has a PD. And only the therapist who is assessing a client through tests and counseling has the right to ultimately diagnose them. So the level of speculation for someone who receives information indirectly (like Dr Honda) without meeting the client or having access to test results is higher. He can formulate a set of hypothesis that may explain some behaviors that are shown or talked about in a video, but he never refers to his own speculations as FACTS. They are mostly meant to be seen as food for thought.
@@decrepitgirl right in short its speculation. so its a fake scenario hes making up n telling how he feels. but u kno theres a huge problem when ppl use his speculation n believe it.
@@Chalee711 if I said "if what AH claims about JD is true then it is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard" and from then on you think I'm claiming I KNOW everything she said HAPPENED as if I was there witnessing it... then sorry, but it's on you, not on me, I am not responsible for that.
I think the attorney absolutely understands traits vs a diagnosis but the "doctor" is saying JD has traits and has all but diagnosed him and has given him a provisional diagnosis of NPD. The attorney is trying to hold him to this diagnosis (so he can impeach him) but Spiegel is being shifty. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall. Which is hopefully making him appear less legit to the jury. I think he is accomplishing his goal. The less professional Spiegel looks the better for JD.
Dr. Honda, please don’t feel like you need to defend yourself. I have never seen ANYONE offer psychological insight who is more careful NOT to diagnose and who goes out of their way to explore alternative causes, cognition, and behaviors.
I RAN here. This vitness lives in my brain rent free. He made me so upset.
Dr Kirk literally talks about NOT DIAGNOSING FROM AFAR all the time! Conceptualizing about questions that could be asked is NOT DIAGNOSING!!!!
im really glad you did this video because you are always so kind and so objective.
Part of the reason I love to watch your content, Dr. Honda, is that you have an amazing way of not pushing absolutes.
I work in beauty and sales. Whenever someone asks me, "What's the best mascara" I frustrate them and myself bc there are so many caveats to that question! It's nice to know that while people get frustrated with my inability to give a single word answer to seemingly closed questions I am not alone in this!
This! People want a solution so they can discard their own responsibility. This way, they didn’t make a decision, you did. Obviously there is no best- it depends what is important to you!
Oh, you are not a mind reader and can't know out of the blue what their idea for "the best" product expectations are?
I wonder if "expert witnesses" like Dr. Spiegel set off alarms with their respective licensure boards in their fields?
Does their practice get reviewed by the board or no? Because they also have other patients who may be receiving potential malpractice or misdiagnosis.
Good question, I wondered the same thing.
I've been waiting for part 4 like a 5 yo on Christmas morning. I haven't seen any other peer reviews/reactions because I respect you and your opinions/impressions. I wanted to wait for your video. I was convinced all other proffs were going to back up that s*** show and tell me how petty I am for my complete and udder bewilderment. Not to mention secondhand embarrassment. However, we shared the same face while he contemplated how to answer the Willy Wonka question. When you replayed it again I knew, at that very moment, we were friends for life. I appreciate your commentary with a side of proff opinion. BFF's 4-ever!!
I have never EVER gotten the idea that you were diagnosing anyone. You are always very careful and most times note you would never really know any diagnoses considering you haven’t spoken to them! You make it very, very clear in your language.
The whole time I was watching this guy I was just thinking about how you would NEVER say anything remotely like this lmao
Completely agree it seems like the majority of AH's expert witnesses seem woefully unprepared for thorough, skeptical questioning. I thought maybe they were super arrogant, but that's a great point that they prob haven't faced it much. It was super interesting to watch. Like they never imagined someone would question their claims.
I just found you and have watched a few videos…..AND already see how fair and unbiased you are AND how you never diagnosed or even alluded to it in the videos I seen so far. You just break it all down and educate us “normal” lol people. Which is what made me go on to video 2, 3, 4 and so on. Very real and very professional, which is extremely hard to find on the internet esp UA-cam these days. I thank you so much for that and keep doing what you do so wonderfully.
I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I’m a teacher and I was rattled by this testimony. He was arrogant, unhinged and aggressive. It’s hard to imagine how he could be helpful to mentally unwell people. I’m watching from Australia, this would never be even permitted in our legal system. He’d get stuck off, The AMA (Australian Medical Association) would be forced to make a formal statement and potentially take his licence.
The fact that you openly discuss the ethical situations facing you on camera and your language is beyond careful and proper. Keep doing what you’re doing!
I got the feeling that the experts with knowledge, passion die their craft and integrity wouldnt put their career at risk to lie for a client. Thats why we have been such a difference in experts in this trial.
This is why people liked Dr. Curry so much. She didn't elaborate or meander, she was very to the point. Either way, I like your videos Dr. Kirk! :)
People need to stop attacking you, that's ridiculous.
@@hollywoodjaded Had you watched his video in full, you would have understood that I was referring to the portion where Dr. Honda states BOTH amber heard and Johnny depp supporters have been attacking him. I'm simply saying that people shouldn't attack him for his observations.
27:40 i think the misunderstanding is a little bit different there! Dr. Spiegel understood the question to mean if any/every personality trait makes ipv more likely! Not any related to narcissism nor any related with cluster b but just all personality traits. It's like: the lawyer asked him about all mc donald's in seattle, but he understood "all mc donald's" to mean all around the whole world, and then was like: "no, no only the ones in washington!"
It would have been smarter to focus on correlations between "substance abuse w impaired impulse control and anger issues" and domestic violence. I'm sure there's research supporting that, and that would have been a much more credible interpretation from the behavior we've seen in the record.
You are the absolute most fair clinician I've listened to on UA-cam. Very ethical. Keep bringing the facts!
It's really fascinating to me how unlikeable and unprofessional most of the experts Amber Heard's team hired are. I wonder if it's because her case was weak, and all the better candidates turned it down, or if it's that she had a preference for more reactive people who would reflect more her strong emotions.
I'm assuming the first two.
I think it's because they spent so much time looking for the person with the best CV possible that they never bothered to figure out if the person could do what they wanted them to do...
Maybe they should've done as Depp's team did with dr. Curry, interview the expert for a few hours before hiring, instead of impeaching her for doing so.
I also speculate that better candidates might have said no because they felt that what they wanted of them could not be done ethically, and that Amber had a very specific narrative (e.g. Johnny is a narcissist) that she wanted corroborated. That resulted in the huge gap between the quality of expert witnesses between the two sides.
When you are looking for an expert to back your legal argument you get what you get, and that is people who will support your case.
In theory AHs team could have had the experts JD did, but they seemed not to agree.
Experts are employed not forced, so these are the people who agree with that side of the case, or feel they can produce an argument to support it.
As a licensed clinician in the field, I absolutely appreciate you discussing the coaching and the concerns that surround it. I share those sentiments and it’s nice to hear another clinician with a following talk about it so people can really educate themselves on the difference.
I listen to your show very often and I was never under impression that you were diagnosing anybody. On the contrary, it is from you that I learned how unethical it may be to diagnose somebody without meeting them personally and treating and evaluating them personally.
I, too, am hyper-vigilant about transmitting information accurately and ethically to patients (and everyone around me to be quite honest) and I have yet to hear a reaction or comment from you that does not contain the appropriate caveat and context to what you’re hypothesizing. You consistently reaffirm that you are “not diagnosing from afar,” and saying, “I don’t actually know because I’ve never met this person, and I wasn’t there, but we use this podcast as a jumping-off point,” etc. I very much appreciate your diligence, every single time. I also find you are considerate of others and choose your words so wisely. Keep being the gold standard, Dr. Honda!
You have always been 100% explicit in saying "I cannot diagnose people... I do not have the full picture... I'm just giving my feedback based on the limited information I'm seeing in this clip and they would need to go to a doctor and have extensive assessments and consultations to receive a diagnosis..." Please have no qualms about it, you've always been VERY explicit that diagnosing from afar is unethical and can certainly be inaccurate and that any feedback or information you're giving regarding clips you're watching is not offering diagnosis it's just relaying data based on the limited information in the clip you're seeing. You've always been very clear and ethical about the information you provide online and I've always very much appreciated that.
I think around 37min, Dr Spiegel is referring to Johnny Depps UK trial in a couple years back. So he meant in that video deposition he interacted faster than now in this trial. Loving the video it is really clearing up a lot and reassuring people on ethics in your field :).
He's saying the opposite. He complemented Depp for being quicker in this trial than during some earlier deposition.
@@bajjanitor Then it makes less sense what Dr Spiegel is saying... xD
@@florencefiancee Yep. I believe his theory is that Depp was in some kind of semi-acute semi-chronic cognitive decline from alcohol and drugs a few years ago, that have cleared up by now.
I really appreciate how carefully and precisely you're expressing yourself. I never once percieved your words as you diagnosing anyone.
One of the major flaws this case brought out in our legal system is Expert Witnesses. How sketchy they can be, and how many cases have they won for their clients. Dennison is the Expert Wizard Vanquisher. He has slaughtered every Expert witness, except his own which he set up beautifully.
There are courses people can take to qualify them as an expert witness, and the course itself is a scam. Many people have suffered because of these scammers.
From this example, I'm convinced the only way experts should be used in law is to have a committee of people assigned by the court and costs split by both parties. The current system is so awful and I think seriously undermines ordinary people's understanding of what real expertise actually is.
@@caitthecat that’s how how someone gets designated an expert witness. If you watched this or any trial you would know that an expert is qualified on a case by case basis by confirming an educational background or work experience pertinent to the subject they would be testifying to. The best example of this is in my cousin Vinny when he qualified his gf as an automotive expert.
@@kpanyc dont matter, if they bring a quack, they get negative google review afterwards lol
He was dodging the question to avoid providing info, as an expert, to the other side, so he tried to draw a circle, but the lawyer kept on track
And the W.Wonka question, the psych was buying time, cause he didn't expect that q. and was finding ways to answer and overlooking beyond possible a-q outcomes, possibly also chilling his own mood and resetting before answering (he was possibly triggered or about to get triggered and looked for anything to hide his emotional reaction or set a pause on the way the lawyer was tracing)
"I don't expect my victims to have perfection." Now that was an interesting statement. Who are his "victims"?
I think Johnny Depp's team did hear the remark of Dr. Speagal agreeing with Dr. Curry's assessment. Given Dr. Speagal did not assess Amber Heard officially, they may have consciously decided not to press it given Heard's teams prepensely to object based on speculation.
My victims could be interpreted two ways.😉
@@katiehettinger7857Do you mind if I ask which two ways?
I snorted my coffee and cookies out my nose when he said absolutely Ms Heard shows cluster B personality traits. I missed that when I was watching the trial
Wait time stamp ohhh gooodness
@@tulip5210 exactly the dialogue in my mind
You really hit on a lot of the major points I've been observing during this. It's fascinating to see the influence of human behavior and the effects of popular culture. I go through this a lot and at times find myself reflecting on the evolution of the mental health field. Glad that you've covered these points.
The idea that pure intuition and years of first person experience is enough to diagnose someone from afar would undoubtedly be very appealing to anyone's ego. That's why it's dangerous and shouldn't be done. It's not about ourselves and our self efficacy, it's about the people who could be mistakenly diagnosed with something they don't have
And that psychiatrist definitely had an ego!!
@@tomatoberry it certainly feels like it 😕
Wats the difference between these videos n Hughes/spiegels?
@@Chalee711 Mostly they talk like they have a level of certainty in what they claim they really can't afford having. You can hold onto your own theory about the course of events and it's ok, but you gotta remember it is just a start: if you aren't just anybody but represent a profession, and you don't have enough data to PROVE your theory it is very unprofessional to treat your personal beliefs as FACTS.
@@decrepitgirl but u kno, ppl take his words from these videos n believe its the truth. i mean he says hes not diagnosing, also unbias. why would he need to say unbias if hes not giving a diagnosis? cause its just a made up scenario
Thank you, Dr Honda. To be honest, I didn’t understand fully some of your commentaries with Dr Curry and Dr Hudges (when they first were on the stand) until I listened to Dr Spiegel and the Goldwater Ruling. Thank you for your professionalism and your insight. Thank you for educating us on the nuisances of your profession and diagnoses. Thank you.
This is one of very few sane voice in the past weeks, shame if it gets attacked too.. but thank you for keeping me sane!
This was one of my favourite videos of yours. It was insightful, entertaining and I learned so much.
Thanks for your spiel at the end. I also feel like ‘internet speak’ and everyone diagnosing everyone they don’t like as a narcissist is becoming far too common amongst people who present themselves as professional therapists, psychologists, etc. I don’t care for the ‘pop culturification’ of this medical science.
The co-opting of scientific language to apply to "vibes" is exasperating say the least. Psychology has replaced astrology now, "oh, they're such a narc with some BPD traits" is the new "oh, they're such an Aries with a Cap moon". And, unfortunately, you need to go no further than a scroll through this comments section. Oh, the irony!
You did a great job on this guy I don't know if I could have been so kind to him. It says a lot about you.
The moment we've all been waiting for ladies and gentlemen.
Thanks so much for putting in all the time and work you are commenting on this trial. I’m learning SO much and your unbiased take is informative and refreshing.
I love your coverage and thoughts about this case. You very fair, honest, and unbiased and is kinda refreshing compared to what I’ve seen that some people are very rude in their opinions. I just hope that with this case but JD and AH move on and grow from this and heal from their past trauma both from this relationship. I also hope that we start believing victims, all victims regardless of gender, when they find the strength to come out and share their experience with DV and SA. I think that the MeToo movement should be something that welcomes everyone of all sexes and gender
Depp’s side brings in another clinician to rebut Spiegel’s testimony and that Dr explains very clearly how forensic psychologists are meant to handle these situations. It basically comes down to being very clear about your limitations and being clear that you can’t say anything with ‘scientific certainty’. And Spiegel said several times that his opinions were made with scientific certainty!
The rebuttal doc was really good explaining all the ethical mistakes made by Hughes and Spiegel.
P.s anybody who thinks you’re diagnosing from afar are clearly not listening clearly enough! You’ve always been very clear about not being able to diagnose anyone unless you’ve been treating them one on one.
I'm a fan of Dr. Curry too.
Your reaction to the Willie Wonka questions was priceless.
I love that you try to be as fair as possible to people and try to give an explanation of what could be going on with them.
It seems to me that there were two methodologies used by the two legal teams
Amber Heard's lawyers looked for experts with the most years of experience and the most qualifications to look the best - of course many of us view those experts to have been unethical in their testimonies
Johnny Depp's lawyers chose to find professional experts that would come across that way, professional in mannerisms and presentation. Skilled and knowledgeable. Personable, likeable. They chose experts like movie roles because not only were they looking for the best in their respective fields, they were looking for people that would appeal to a wider audience - which was also important to the task at hand. They thought outside of the box.
Or Heard’s team couldn’t find anyone truly professional who’d be willing to testify in line with their agenda. No wonder….
Interesting theory!
Yes! I noticed this from early on - AH's team goes for flash in place of substance. Like the child prodigy who, if you listened, was on the wrong side of every shift in tech in his career and really sunk to giving testimony on something unrelated to his actual specialty. And they tried to make hya out of Hughes being chair of a committee of her professional org. Those people aren't voted in because everyone in their field thinks they're the best. It's a thankless unpaid job to do that stuff that takes you away from the real work, so the people who do it are either truly selfless or narcissists who want the petty power and credential more than they care about the work. I can guess which one Hughes is...
Totally agree. AH's experts and team kept going on about how they had "X years experience" and being "board certified" as if these things trumped the sheer unprofessionalism, fudged demonstratives and unethical testimonies they gave.
For whatever it's worth, I've never thought you have diagnosed anyone you comment on. I actually wish you would because I would trust what you even just said you thought, but you always are very careful. It's crystal clear that you don't/won't and I respect that.
I feel like this guy, as well as Dr. Hughes did a LOT of damage to the mental health sector. How can we expect anything our therapists say to be true when they cant even agree with eachother? on POLICIES/RULES/FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS???
They were paid to simply lie. He was caught on a hot mic saying he would lie. The first part one could argue rely but the last part was definitely lie since rely doesn't fit in that particular sentence.
@@jennifercarter9047 Whoa. Source?
@@k.d.2589 lol, just look it up. I know it was being deleted as soon as it got posted but I'm sure u can find it if you try.
I think it was over on Twitter though.
@@k.d.2589 I want to say a few sources coveting the JD trial also made a video about it the day he took the stand. I found the actual video of him saying it to hear it all to get a full context since some were saying rely. The first time it's possible he said rely but the second time he definitely said lie since the is the only word that would fit in with what he the rest of what he said.
@@jennifercarter9047 Hm I looked it up and listened to the audio multiple times. I couldn't make out what he was saying, so I'm not going to form any conclusions. Anything more would be speculation, and in this case bias would make it way too easy to jump to conclusions.
I’m an attorney as well and I honestly have no idea how any other attorney could think Amber’s team did a good job. Their experts were all awful, they failed to paint any sort of coherent narrative to the jury, and allowed Depp’s team to completely bulldoze them. Elaine very obviously was not well versed in very simple evidentiary rules to the point it was comical at times. Whether these blunders were due to incompetence or having a client that was running the show, I don’t know. But they absolutely did not do a good job. Totally disagree with Attorney Craig. Lol.
1:27 I know I've been confrontational before but in all reality
no. You haven't diagnosed anyone on anything I've watched you
talk about. It's okay to say "This or that person looks to have these
traits" without going in to a full on diagnosis or forming an official
medical position on it. And I still come back to see what you have to
say on things because I find it educational :)
I am a health coach and long time clinician as an OT. There are a lot of unethical coaches and then there are many who are responsible, professional and ethical. You can still be held accountable even without a license, but it is nice to not be dictated by insurance companies. The coaching framework when done correctly is powerful but not to be confused with a diagnostician. Knowing when to refer out is important for any clinical problems.
I look forward to you ‘reacting’ to Dr Richard Shaw in the JD v AH case. I felt he was an excellent expert witness.