Johnny Depp's Attorney Grills Psychologist About Her Testimony
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 май 2022
- During the defamation trial on Wednesday, Johnny Depp's team began cross-examination of forensic psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes. Attorney Wayne Dennison started off his questioning by grilling Dr. Hughes about her testimony from the previous day.
#JohnnyDepp #AmberHeard
Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter! bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Watch Law&Crime Network NOW on RUclipsTV!
tv.ruclips.net/user/welcome?...
OTHER WAYS TO WATCH LAW&CRIME NETWORK IN YOUR AREA:
lawandcrime.com/where-to-watch/
READ MORE GREAT ARTICLES FROM LAW&CRIME NETWORK HERE:
lawandcrime.com
LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: / lawandcrime
Twitter: / lawcrimenetwork
Facebook: / lawandcrime
Twitch: / lawandcrimenetwork
LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS:
Coptales&Cocktails Apple Podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Law&Crime Sidebar:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK RUclips CHANNELS:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Channel B: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel C: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel D / @lawandcrimebodycam 
Развлечения
Wayne Dennison has been kind of lost in the outpouring for Camille, because Camille Vasquez was against Amber herself. Wayne single handedly demolished SEVERAL of the so called "experts" of Amber's. He was outstanding!
Agreed. Camille was a star for sure and deserves all the praise. However, Wayne and the rest of Johnny's team were top notch as well and did a fabulous job.
Agreed
WD was the MVP in whole trial
Well said. Totally agree.
Lol.. YES HE DID ..HE FINISHED THEM🤺
Big knock to her credibility was when she stated she believes she can understand the issues in a relationship by speaking to one side only.
wow
I hope the jury took notes about this serious issue she said.
Wow that is extremely contradicting. This is why relationship therapists are called relationship therapists, because they talk to all the parties. A narcissist like Amber could easily make her victim look like a narcissist. If you only listen to the victim you might think they are the issue and that the narc is an angel.
can you timestamp this
@@helenarichard couldn't agree more 🙏
Can we appreciate Wayne Dennison for actually being a professional lawyer for making the so called “ experts “ silly
The fact that she referred to the victim in a general sense as "she" and the perpetrator as "he" but then says that it's important that stereotypes aren't perpetuated blindly is classic
And when she was challenged on the point, she defended that men are often also victims of the male perpetrator. Never once acknowledging the option of a woman ever being at fault, that if a woman was abusive it was "because" of something, or something to be excused. The bias is seeping through the cracks
Gendering her argument suggested bias. That said, 90% of domestic violence victims are female & the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men.
How do American judges spend so much time on this kind of bs. No wonder your justice system sucks so much
@@DutchMolenaar ja echt he, zooitje maken ze er van
@@DutchMolenaar Yet, you're here watching
this woman had my blood boiling yesterday. unbelievable how biased she is especially for a psychologist
Exactly grubby fingers
Money talks
She is so beyond unprofessional in my opinion and needs to be taken off the stand in my opinion
Add the irritation to her looking up notes, as opposed to her memory.
@@Dreamvacationadvisor The fact she had to look up notes is for sure suspicious...
This lady has passively shown incredible bias in her testimony. She doesn't even know it because it is so engrained into her personality and her career.
I wouldnt say passively lol
For a psychologist she's very biased and suspicious imo
Wonder how much money she was offered by Amber's PR team?
I agree to a point. I think AH is just a good actress and able to convince people. A part of me want's to believe as a professional on National TV she is being truthful and honest based on information provided to her. She is basing her opinion on the "data" but sadly the "data" she was given was all based on stuff AH provided. Either that or it's shows how manipulative AH is in convicting people. The woman made her decision before this case blew up then had to stand by her opinion. I think mental health doctors have to have the assumption a person is being honest, since your doctor is the one person you are honest with...It would be interesting to hear a medical profession chime in. One thing is clear AH is a manipulator and liar.
i mean we all loved Bill Cosby until . . . bais doesn’t forgive disgusting acts. We’re just looking at the demeanour of Heard’s psychologist and Depp’s and there’s a clear difference on professional performance.
@@Yourmomazz So now you have to be a fangirl to want justice for someone who was ruined by a crazy person?
Imagine how many times she's testified in cases and ruined someone's life because of her gender violence bias
Can’t imagine her standing with attack helicopter gender
@@Pseudometrik HeLIcopTEr HeLicOptER 🚁
Shut up karen@@Pseudometrik
@E Isn't that the actual statistic, though? Men are victims of IPV by women, more than the other way around, except, men are usually the more violent ones? I remember specifically Dr. Hughes mentioning all kinds of statistics about violent IPV situations, but forgetting to mention the overall statistic.
@E Thats literally whats happening. You dont see it cuz you're biased and not looking. And if you do you look the other way because you dont want men to have any sort of support since you think it'll somehow effect women negatively. Sick
After seeing Dr. Curry’s testimony and how professional she was, how she never said anything about who she thought committed IPV (because it’s not her job to do so) and how she was just providing the facts that she had observed through the tests, I’m shocked to see how this woman is so heavily biased and hearing her say she thinks Amber is the victim when it’s not really her place to do so
agree!
Of course its her job. That is why she is here. Shes an expert witness. Her opinion matters because she is considered trained enough in the field to have an informed opinion. This is no different than asking an engineer for his opinion why a bridge collapsed. They are free to try to discredit her in cross examination, which is what they try to do. But a lawyer knows better to get into an argument with a psychologist.
Objection Hearsay..
@@sunnyram1 Hahahah you went there!
@@daxshell242 only problem is she never met or conversed with JD her diagnosis came from case files and testimony from previous people
And he bias is real as she actually has never had a case where a man was a victim of IPDV and the perpetrator was a woman
She specialises in same S3x IPDV
She says she's had hundreds of cases where she provided testimony, yet says she only has two cases a year on average where she is an expert. Those numbers don't add up.
She's obviously not telling the truth. I hope the jury members are attentive to this important issue you mentioned.
Exactly. She claims to be a psychologist for 25 years but then if she has had 2 cases per year then that would mean she's had 50 cases at most.
I'm so disgusted man
She even said “hundred(S)” which would mean at the very least 200. This lady is a liar and incredibly biased.
I dunno, she's pretty old
Shes not too bright. Obviously
I LOVE that she’s getting pulled up for her bias. She said she used the ‘she’ pronouns because she was referring to Amber.
However, when asked the definitions of different types of violence (where gender bias wouldn’t be appropriate) she said ‘she’ (victim) and ‘he’ (perpetrator). It’s amazing how everyone testifying on Johnny Depp’s side is so likeable yet everyone on Amber Heard’s team is so unlikeable.
Birds of same feather flock together
The pronouns she used are very telling of her bias. The questions asked by grandma were general in nature and referring to ipv. This woman added her personal bias to get responses and then lied on cross when she was called out on it. What else could she say?
@Lorena Treichler they kinda addressed it but Heard’s lawyers were much more aggressive with the interruptions. I’m wondering if it’s a strategy by JD’s team to let AH talk and tie her own metaphorical noose?
@AkaiYoru echo chambers lead us unfairly to stick to those we have already decided are in the right. Big Depp fan, no time for Amber, but these comments sections just read like a high school tabloid editorial on confirmation bias in action.
possibly. For the first time in my 32 years of life this is the first time I’ve seen people, en masse, noticing and addressing this bias. Whilst the comments may read like a middle school tabloid piece, it’s a significant shift in public perception.
Additionally, there is speculation over AH’s truthfulness due to the incriminating evidence that has been put forth (even by her own legal team).
Sadly, there is a bias. You may not like how it’s being articulated but its a positive change for the better.
Dennison is a legend. He helped this case more than anyone can think.
Yes I agree 👍
It is NOT the job of a psychologist to determine whether or not something happened, nor are they trained to do so, this is insane
Well it's not entirely true psychology is about diagnose and treating mentally issues but you're right on the speculating events that haven't happened. Speaking as a psych major and a former child who had a psychological
It actually is the job of certain psychologists, we frequently ask for psychological reports on whether a witness' testimony is based on real actions. Granted, I work in a different country, so your law system might work differently but it's part of a psychologists expertise nontheless. Not saying her report is correct, just stating this.
💯
Happy to say Dr. Curry taught me that ✨
What’s insane is that Depp was advised NOT to take this to court. And there he is. 🤦🏻♀️ Violent, misogynistic, a drunk, druggie, likes to sue people, is suing Amber not because she was abusive to him. But because he claims he lost the Disney role due to her op-Ed. Impossible. Her op-Ed came out two months after he lost that gig. Idiotic.
Everyone testifies the same: she is aggressive, he is calm. If Johnny doesn't win this case, I will lose faith in people!
go away BOT
and the system
And another bot/spam comment
It’s more about the system in general
Yeah usually he's laughing and smirking...but he seem to be concerned over her testimony
So she sounds like she testifies on behalf of a person who SELF-IDENTIFIES as the victim, not what is stated or presented in doctor/nurse notes, evidence or any investigations; …..ok good to know how low the bar is set.
Yesss, exactly
1000%
I agree with this. The cross-examination is kind of unnecessary because you know this before going in. But I understand they have to have a cross-examination. I feel like the questions he asked didn't really do anything because she's just going on what a h told her
I think she probably mostly testifies in trials where a woman has murdered her husband & wants to try to play victim. She seems very experienced in justifying away any violence from a woman towards a man - but she says that's not true, cause she's defended a man who claimed his husband was abusive. Great proof huh (sarcasm)
Yes very well put 💯
The fact that she cannot name a heterosexual relationship were the man is a victim of domestic violence done by a female is quite eye opening. She is incredibly bias on who victims are; even though she is stating that a male can be a victim, yet her actions tell you otherwise. As someone who is studying an MA in psychology this is very concerning and also discouraging from her part.
she is saying that man can only be victims when the abuser is a man and women are only abusers when the victim is another woman
@@seven3601 exactly. not to mention that in this 9 minute clip she contradicted herself countless times
Just because she doesn’t personally have experience testifying for a male victim of domestic violence, doesn’t mean she’s denying the reality that men can be victims of violence from their female partners
@@cara_rima she isn’t denying it, but she isn’t seeing it either
Excellent point. I agree 100%.
Wayne Dennison always get his points across so intelligently. 👏
The fact that she is a psychologist is alarming.
Not just any Psychologist, but one of the leading Psychologist at the APA.
I knew by the final year of University I have wasted my time and money pursuing a psych degree when I noticed how people like her are in charge.
When facts that come up that do not side with their opinions, they never get recognised.
When dubious results with bad methodology that is convenient to their side comes up, it's celebrated as a great find.
Ridiculous.
Statistically, like addiction specialists, 75% of people who work in the field of mental health do so as a result of their own unresolved mental problems.
More like a feminist psychologist 🤷
@@Sunny25611 you nailed it. I speak from experience
I wouldn’t trust her to analyze my dead dog, let alone a person
How can she "determine" someone is a victim without any other evidence aside from the so called victims statements? Sounds like bs to me.
Because she believes only men are perpetrators of domestic violence.
That's why I really appreciated Dr.Curry's testimony about how she couldn't determine if an event happened or not, and that it's not her job. As a psychologist, she provided her unbiased report of Amber Heard AND Johnny Depp on behalf of JD's legal team, without trying to prove one or the other's victimhood; she didn't have to because the facts speak for themselves.
It is, as the attorney said this “witness” is a professional witness FOR HIRE. AKA SHE WAS PAID OFF
@X2 JoelMK 33 yeah, i don't think she's a bad person, maybe she was trying to be honest using the information that was provided by Amber and got tricked by her into thinking she's the victim
It's what you do when you've pre-determined someone's guilt.
This attorney is too clever. He knew the way he phrased ‘you make thousands of money from testimonies’ was only gonna make her say no and that her main work is clinical and behind the scenes. And then he’s got something to say.
I thought as well, nice strategy to let her admit that she has not many cases in court, hehehe
Youre right I didnt even catch that! I was assuming he was asking her this so if she says yes, he’d point out the inconsistency of testifying on behalf of a man (in the deposition she said no and now she says yes) thereby reducing her credibility since shes supposed to be an expert. But he fully just got her to say she isnt an expert witness. That question was fully trapping her either way
It’s a strategy used by cross examiners to try and get the jury to believe she has been paid for her testimony, when in fact she was only paid for her time spent researching and writing her expert report.
It’s a tactic! Cross examinations are supposed to make the person on the stand look as far from an expert as possible.
Oh really!? As a normal person I didn’t notice this tactics lol
@@LadyGagacy424 that is why you are a normal person and he was chosen to be best lawyer in 2022 and guess what it is not his first time to be picked as the best lawyer. Read his resume, so impressive. Wayne Dennison came off stutter at times, slow talking that gives the witness into thinking of they are safe now. And BAM, they made a mistake, then he corners them, finding holes in their testimonies, make them look like idiots and burns them down slowly. It’s like playing chess. He took down all the so called “experts” in Heard’s team. He is brilliant.
She already made up her mind that AH is the victim even before evaluating. What an unprofessional psychologist. Good job the Depp's lawyers!
it isn’t the job of a psychologist to decide whether something happened or not, i think she’s an absolute shitshow of a psych but in that field you do have to take patient’s words at face value and believe them for what they are.
This psychologist lied about being an expert witness and continues to lie. Extremely biased
That's exactly what I thought she has nothing classed as evidence only spread hearsay, lies and lines that Amber already said against Johnny.
For a psychologist she's very passive aggressive and lost credibility simply being biased praising Amber none stop with again blatant lies while under oath I might add.
She Talked to amber for maybe 3 days. Totally biased and regurgitating what amber told her and now is trying to make it factual
She denied being an expert witness when Depp's lawyer worded it as such lol
"she was victim of intimate partner violence." this sentence undermines her credibility because she has never witnessed it and only heard stories from amber but said it out loud in court.
She should be forced to make a career change to house keeper or something.
@Mac-Attack If you aren’t a witness you can’t make conclusions like that. Rather assumptions.
@Mac-Attack I am sorry but I must intervene. A psychologist never is a fact finder. You indeed evaluate and assess symptomatologies that corrolate a certain type of pathology or affect, but the discourse of your patient never can be considered as a proof or an absolute truth (although it might be your patient's truth, thus they firmly believe it).
In this example, despite the evaluations, it is highly unprofessional to insure and affirm that she is a victim, especially when you haven't ever conducted an examination on the perpetrator (even if the evaluations might lead to such hypothesis, you cannot confirm it).
@@yolo7051 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
@Mac-Attack The other doctor explained that at most you can say probable or possible.
She did rather well of discrediting herself through ALL of her testimony. She’s hostile and spends far too much time speaking to the jury. She’s entirely unlikeable in every way.
@Mac-Attack she is incredibly biased in her testimony and as mentioned above this isn’t her first rodeo as she is very focused on the jury as she teaches this stuff on how to act in court. Her professionalism is nonexistent. Amber is a liar.
@Mac-Attack it’s call being professional and unbiased when it comes to providing any sort of psychology service. Anyone that has studied anything remotely psychology related would know that. Plus i didn’t read anything having to do with gender in the persons comment, You’re the instigator and sexist for even making it about gender in the first place 😂😂💀
Yea, she kept looking at the jury way too much.....it was a little troubling.
@Mac-Attack found the beta male.
@Mac-Attack l why are you bringing gender into this. There is no reason that the original comment was sexist in any way. It just said that she was hostile and spent too much time speaking to the jury. In other words she didn't answer the questions directly and decided to repeat things that where already stated as though they would have an effect on anything else she was saying and when she was answering questions they were stated in an aggressive manner. That's it. That alone is just a reason why someone can state she is unlikable unlike your mental gymnastics of some one saying that they don't like her as in being sexist.
I like how patient the lawyer is, allowing her to answer the questions regardless of the relevance of her answers. Unlike Amber's lawyers cutting people off
Yes, not objecting for hearsay to his own questions 🤣😂🤣
It’s probably his strategy, show the jury that not only that he has nothing to hide but that he has enough proof to win without tricking people.
@@andrefilipe6757 exactly. Let them make fools of themselves on their own
what do you mean. during Ambers testimony anytime a question was asked depps lawyers objected and nearly every time the judge shut them down. Both sides are doing it lol.
@@smallbonesrs both sides are utilizing a similar strategy in that regard. Due to this being a domestic violence case, the key to winning the jury is to show that one side is more emotionally unstable than the other. The lawyers intentionally try and frustrate the opposing witnesses because when they do snap it’ll show they jury that they’re prone to frustration and outbursts. They’re not being bad lawyers by incorporating this tactic, it’s just that one side is clearly better than the other.
It's scary this psychologist is actually trying or thinking she's trying to help people, but is in fact, hurting people! Disgraceful! Sad!
She definitely got paid by amber
paid off. Probably has a history "working" together if you can call it that.
As someone who has done a lot of therapy, and I'm currently being treated, yeah... this woman is not qualified. I shiver at the thought of how many lives she has destroyed
and she makes over 6 figures a year...
corupion is everywhere, its not so surprising
Dude she is horrible. She is incredibly biased. I REALLY REALLY HOPE THAT JURY CAN SEE THIS
super bias
Any person with half a brain and no bias could see her bs from a mile away
@@alejandroantoniogarciagarc2764 super duper bias
It's a good thing no one listens to dumbasses on the internet screaming everything is bias when it isn't confirming their extremely over the top uninformed bias. Lol.
Mega bias
Mr Wayne Dennison is also one of the best lawyer in this trial kudos to all Team Johnny We claim that you will win this 🙏🏻 🏴☠️
The thing is, even in therapy, spotting a narcissist takes time. They sell their story to the therapist just like they sell it to themselves. It can take a while for a therapist to spot their game.
Not really, there are telltale signs right from the start that a person can recognize.
And yet dr. Curry got it right in the span of 2 days
@@villedocvalle that depends on hiw the client presents itself. I am a therapist and I have worked with them. Sometimes is not that easy to spot.
@@Ranch_doritos that's because a forensic psychologist is doing test not therapy. If you are doing client examination and using different methods of analysis then you can spot it. If you are sitting in a simple psychotherapeutic space it's not that straight forwards.
100% only very experienced therapists can see through FAKE SELF , which Amber created. Of she isnt very good she didnt see through thus she was so biased in her evaluation
Every man this therapist has contributed sending to prison needs to get a recheck/revaluation and a retrial if the case seems suspiscious. Just imagine how many innocent people she couldve sent to jail.
Exactly. She gives off a man hating vibe.
@@VersionBest That's EXACTLY what I thought
I think u are nuts
That's a good point
She is definitely an activist
this women is craz,she says that u can judge a relationship completly by just hearing one person
This was and is the main question in this cross-examination! ! Unfortunately JD‘s lawyer was not so good prepared and looked weak. This was painful - although he is right! Dawn was even laughing about him stuttering. On the whole, though, I think his "human" way of reasoning, albeit a bit more confused and not as machine-like as AH Lawyers, is better understood by the jury. I hope so!! Because it's really not just about the brilliance of argument, but about the truth! In earlier times this was called sophism. Brilliant rhetoric without redonancy in reality. And this should really have nothing to do with the truth. Go Johnny Go !!!
According to her we are better at assessing their relationship since we talked neither yet heard and read a lot😂😂
@@fallenglider3488 you are missing the point that as an expert witness, you are held to a higher standard. This woman by all appearances, falls well short.
@@bate01071 no you got me wrong i also say that same thing, she supposed to be an ecpert witness so she must see the case from every posible angle yet she fails to do that , in that case anyone who literaly follows amber heard and JD who is a psychiatrist cas assess the relationship, so what she said is in my opinion very biast and fairly nonsensical
@@fallenglider3488 sorry, I didn’t mean to get your perspective wrong. Thanks for the correction!
I think everyone wanted a “harsher” grilling out of sheer spite but honestly this was the most serious grilling they could possibly give because all they have to do is let her reveal her incompetence and she does so enthusiastically 😂
If she’s a self proclaimed “expert” she doesn’t need to be so defensive. Also every response from her sounds whiny ….🤡
@Mac-Attack if you wanna talk about being sexist talk about how sexist her own testimony was 😳
@Mac-Attack It has nothing to do with being sexist. You automatically assuming is sexist is what becomes it alarming
Having parents that are psychologist and a sister that is a therapist for children, I know how psychologists act. She is so unprofessional and way too attached to Amber Heard. She seems aggressive and totally unprepared. She constantly looks for confirmation because she herself doesn't believe what she is saying. Even my parents where cringing at her testimony yesterday.
You have a very distorted view she is not agressive at all or nervous she doesn't need to be forced to answer in such a way that pleases your opinion and if you don't like it theno we'll
@@four-x-trading5606 so basically what AH lawyers where doing to Depps witnesses
I thought she was defensive but she was very prepared and confident in her answers, she isn’t as likeable as Dr Curry, but she’s been a Psychologist for over 20 years, she’s doing something right. There is not a certain way a Psychologist should act , that’s completely ridiculous and naive of you .
I agree . She was passive agressive. Her facial expression is saying a lot too.
@@charliecharlie2288 it's not about acting some type of way, it's about being professional. She seems to be very attached to Amber, which is not normal. Dr. Curry was way more professional in her testimony. Maybe it's a cultural thing but here in Germany she would have been stopped with the way she answered some questions. Besides, why did nobody else has notes and she did? Why was she even allowed to read them? Totally inaccapable.
The other psychologist, Dr. Curry, stated clearly (and accurately) that it is NOT a psychologist's scope of practice to determine if IPV is occurring. This is incredibly unprofessional and she is making assumptions.
i genuinely could not believe her storytelling and gossip. it was not professional expertise. it genuinely sounded as if she were gossiping to a friend about rumors surrounding the case. i could not believe how long they let her draw out that ridiculous storytelling.
Not even presumptions... her testimony would have some credibility if she had also listened to JD
She seems so sloppy and offhand compared to Dr Curry who radiated such skill, knowledge and mastery of her profession as well as comimg across as neither biased, hostile or judgmental which this other woman most cerainly was.
Big diff between a diagnostic Psychologist (as Depps witness)
Vs a psychologist & any other kind of therapist.
@@michealnelsonauthor The difference doesn't make them investigators.
This lawyer deserves a medal.
Imagine how much of a damage did someone like her who is a " PROFESSIONAL" must have done throughout her career !
on the plus side, it's men she hates and would really do damage to, and she's unlikely to have treated many from the sounds of it.
Like R. Kelly
This woman boiled my blood .. very unprofessional , extremely aggressive and biased !!!
And her evidence is all based on what AH said.
She's politely answering their questions. Sorry that most victims are female so men can't pretend to be equally traumatised.
How was she any more aggressive than the lawyer? Or some of the other witnesses?
Is it just me.. or did she start out sounding like she knew what the internet had been saying about her from yesterday. So today she changed her position. To begin with. But then sloooowly her bias creeped back in. It’s very very clear she believes amber just purely from her word alone.
I think she saw her 1.0 rating so is being careful today but can't hold back from being bais at times.
presumably Amber & team would have told her how unlikeable she had come across & asked her to try to come across as nicer, but a leopard can't change it's spots. It can try to paint new ones on, but they come off with the slightest amount of sweat
She doesn't believe Amber. She's being paid handsomely to say that she believes Amber. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this world can be bought.
As she is a witness on the stand Is she allowed to track the case on the internet? Shouldn't her testimony be stricken like Depp's witness?
@@niqbal no she’s not allowed to do that. I just pointed out that it sounded like she’s very aware of peoples reaction to her testimony. There are probably ways to sneak around the internet ;)
She's like that teacher who unknowingly does a lot of wrongs to a child and plunges into cognitively dissonant hubris after getting caught.
Only I'd say knowingly
Love how respectful the Lawyer is. When Depp was being cross examinated, they always seem to cut him off and not allow him to complete sentences.
This woman have used her hand to bury herself. She just admitted that she's never testified about a man being a victim of Intimate domestic violence perpetrated by a woman. In fact, she has never treated an case like that in all her clinical practices.
I came here to say the exact same thing. She specifically said, "I have seen man against woman, man against man, and even woman against woman." Leaving out woman against man is huge in showing her bias.
The lawyer didn't ask that!! Jeez almighty.
The lawyer asked if she ever testified on the behalf of a man. She said "yes".
The lawyer asked if she remembered the last time she testified by a man and she replied that the last she testified for a "man" was a man who was wrongly convicted and experienced violence in prison.
She won't answer to questions that weren't asked and she described the last case she testified for a man
" Woman have used her hand" 💀💀 "treated an case" 💀💀
But you're right!
JD’s lawyer is calm and let’s the witness speak unlike Heard’s lawyers, who are rude, arrogant, a lot of ego.
I liked how calmly the lawyer managed to bring out the facts and hope the jury sees and understands the real fact.
he should have been more aggressive in my opinion
Depp's team have nothing to hide. This doctor is a liar.
This psychologist isn’t very likeable but she answered questions very sensibly and concisely here and the lawyer did most definitely interrupt and cut her off and had some very pathetic baseless questioning tactics at times. Just because amber is nasty doesn’t mean all her witnesses are as bad and not not all jds lawyers are perfect
He cut her off several times and stuttered and tripped over his words and raises his voice/stresses his particular question more than once. Sounded entirely similar to that guy everyone was making fun of last week. The problem is everyone has (hidden) bias now since Johnny aced his cross examination. Amber Heard is certainly no victim. But Johnny Depp is certainly not this patron saint. He's just willing to tell the truth.
The courtroom is no place for politeness. Lawyers are fighting for their clients. It's eat or be eaten. The best man does not necessarily win. It all depends on how good a case they have and how good they are at presenting it while at same time discrediting the other side as much as possible. This case could go either way as you do not know what the jury is thinking.
To me one of the best lawyers… excellent job Wayne Dennison
He was incredible. I'd take him as my lawyer any day.
WTF??? She’s diagnosed their relationship without even talking to the other party??? Clearly, this doctor is biased… Soooo one sided… Even the dictionary defines relationship as an emotional or other connection between people: In this case, it’s JD and Amber. She should’ve listened to both sides first, not Amber alone. 👎👎👎
She didn't "diagnose their relationship."
This isn't couples therapy.... But yeah it was pretty one sided instead of trying to find the root of the problem.... Also extremely biased for someone who apparently isn't even their client in the first place.
@@GroovyFeminist no but she addressed and spoke to the situation with less evidence than is needed to provide a conclusive verdict. She testified as if she had a conclusive verdict.
@@GroovyFeminist and why she even in the stand😂🤣
I think the lawyer was trying to draw attention to some important facts, and lead to these conclusions: mainly that she was selective in forming her opinion and therefore unreliable:
Her opinion is mostly formed through Amber’s words, and others’ notes where she discards notes and materials she does not agree with and keeps what she agrees with.
She did not conduct the PTSD test appropriately by leaving many boxes blank.
She formed her opinion about JD without meeting him, and relied on « Hearsay ».
She tested Amber’s childhood trauma too which is irrelevant for this case.
P.s. saying this based on the whole cross examination, not this clip.
It seems as if you didn't listen to her responses. The left out boxes were superfluous and redundant. Every single one they went over was either clarified semantically or wasn't meant to be filled in the first place. For a psychiatric evaluation of Amber, she doesn't have to meet the supposed abuser. Because it affects her mental state and not his. She doesn't investigate it. That's the job of other people. So in this context, every forensic psychiatrist makes his conclusions based on hear-say. The testing of childhood trauma is important for a complete assessment. It's crucial even because it shows you the baseline. If Amber was histrionic with regards to PTSD, it would be likely that she'd also exaggerate her childhood trauma. This, however, didn't happen apparently. If you don't ask, you won't find out. Nothing in her testimony qualifies as her being grilled in my perception. And I'm neither a fanboy of Johnny or Amber. I have no bias in the case. I'm just curious about it from a forensic point of view. So I'm surprised by the public bias with regards to this witness. Without knowing her background, just looking at her testimony.
Hi. Being a MD myself i can say this is wrong. As a doctor you listen to the patient and what they say. But from the medical knowledge and experience you can easily tell whats real and not. You listen and assess continiously to see if what the patient is saying is true or based in any real diagnosis.
Hummmm a lier, ignore facts she doesn't agree with... Hummmm the definition for that would be a 'crazy leftist feminazy'.. 😂😂😂
@@RRSDollar I think far right conservative is more appropriate.
@@Ukd96 being a doctor myself ... No doctor can ever tell whether what patient telling is true or not ... Yes, you should believe them, but that doesn't mean you can testify that what your patient telling is true or not ...
She’s playing semantic games. Plus, not once that I could see did she refer to female violence against men. All of her examples of men as the victim were perpetrated by other men.
That's not true! She also mentioned female on female IPV! And obviously women cannot commit IPV against a male partner. We all know that is as made up as this psychologist's expertise.
I love how it sounds like she can't comprehend the idea of a WOMEN being a perpetrator TO A MEN. It's either man to woman, man to man or woman to woman
This woman i swear is scary Anyone going to her for help,please stop. She's creepy.
Noro albo I agree with you . No one should go to her get your money back. Biased and wrong. Take her off the stand. It's wrong. Support for Johnny always
@Eva fr
She is doing her job here, scummy people hire her to do exactly what she did here, skirt around the wording and details to paint the picture that the lawyers want.
I agreed. I feel uncomfortable just looking at her.
I just left a terrible therapist and my first thought when seeing this therapist, Mrs Hughes, was, "this is why people are scared of going to therapy".
Simple: yesterday she said stuff that she cannot know, because she was not there.
What she said was basically exactly what amber heard told her. That's not evidence of anything.
And further, if she testifies that Amber told her X that Johnny said, that's HEARSAY.
Exactly, she can only give a testimony if she actually evaluated Johnny Depp and found him to show tendancies. Anything else is hearsay.
She is doing fraud!!!
@@Tardis1217 People were saying that Amber's lawyers probably gave her a script to follow. This most likely is the exact reason why they would do that, so they can edit the wording into a form where they can't say it's hearsay.
@@Tardis1217 the definition of Hearsay
Lol the notion that you can asses a relationship between two people by only interviewing one of the two and using paperwork to get a gist about the other person is beyond ludicrous. This lady is a professional witness and testimony coach for hire.
Given that this woman may likely have helped convict innocent men to prison for similar cases as this, I think all her cases need to be investigated in depth.
Agreed! She is a poor excuse for a “therapist/ phycologist”…
Like others, I myself was initially underwhelmed but what transpired here is quite calculated.
For those who believe she got off easy because she wasnt grilled the way we would have anticipated; Perhaps this is intentional. AHs team is quite agressive in their approach particularly in their attempts to discredit a witness, so JDs team is in direct opposition, and may even be relying on their calm demeanor to symbolize their truth. (i.e “I dont have to be argumentative, I just need to state the facts, and the jury will come to my conclusion on their own… aka liars tell on themselves” (e.g Dr. Hughes accused Dr. Curry of not administering or coding her testing properly, while she herself completely disregarded prompts in the areas that are designated for a response. the jury will have no choice but to take pause when ascertaining whether that statement is true or credible)
JDs team never relies on theatrics, or bullying, and remain professional. He’s discredited her “expert opinion” by creating reasonable doubt that its possible she reached a PTSD diagnosis by not properly administering the test (did not repeat questions verbatim, did not administer seperate CAPS-5 evaluation for childhood trauma seperate from JD relationship), declined to interview the medical professionals whose diagnosis she did not agree with, showed extreme bias by almost exclusively using pronouns she/her in reference to victims and he/him in reference to abusers, revealed inconsistencies in her claims that she predominantly sees patients in her clinical practice rather than forensic psychology, and often caters her services to battered women and the court officers who represent them, and much more! All of this while staying composed and accepting her responses with “ok.”
However, people who are feigning are the most concerned with pushing their narrative and disallowing any and everything that may devastate their case. AHs team often do this by interrupting witnesses, objecting to as much of their testimony as possible, and demanding control (e.g “No” you cant explain as they did with Dr. Curry, when she wanted to elaborate.) AHs team are specifically looking for you to respond with the answer they’re anticipating and if you dont will rephrase the question(s) several times in an attempt to confuse and/or cause the witness to misspeak on record. JDs team allowed Dr. Hughs to dig her own grave at length during yesterdays testimony, and then simply let her either back pedal or fail to justify her shortcomings.
Job done ✅ But yes, it would have been really satisfying for the public to see Dr. Hughes be “embarrased” for her poor display of “expertise” & professionalism
Best comment!
Great comment. 👌
Underrated
This is by far the best explanation in the comments.
alot of typing
I could only imagine how many innocent people she sent to jail. She is only in it for the money, not to really help victims of domestic violence. TRAGIC
maybe the info she's saying was provided by Amber Heard, and you know that Amber is a manipulator so maybe she tricked her into making her think she's the victim of the situation
I don't think she's sent anyone to jail, she's not even convincing with her lies
@@oreopop9009 hopefully she never sent anyone to jail
All her cases defend against male abuser's,never ever female abuser's that's automatic bias against male's. She threw the male to male case as a hail mary pass to try to save her gender leaning credentials for drowning!!
Even so, as a psychologist as herself she should know if she is being manipulated or lied to. If she Doesn't see that she is being tricked and she completely trusts her clients to their word then she shouldn't be a psychologist because that's being bias.
I’m curious how so many psychologists didn’t give them the testimony they wanted that they had to call this one.
Good catch.
Same goes for Dr. Curry hired by Depp's legal team.
@@Sarablueunicorn No, it doesn't. You didn't understand that this is was the point, in the first place.
Dr. Curry is one of the most well put togather individuals I have seen for a while here, and compare that to Heard's Psychologist, who constantly keeps lying (badly), exposing her bias, implicating herself and "her own side"... Shows us, Johnny had plenty of options for testimonials and he picked the best person for the job. While Heard had to go with only the one disengeneous hack that was willing to take the risk and lie for her, & god knows why she's doing it...
No good psychologist would ever testify this one siddedly for Heard, especially in good conscience.
Why is it even allowed, that she already passed a judgement on this case and boldly tells everyone that only Amber can be the victim. It is not her job, she is not the jury nor judge. This woman is so outrageous. And her evil glance gives me goosebumps tbh.
This is the most gender biased and unprofessional witness psychologist I've ever seen. She can't help being biased. She's only testified in cases of female victims. The few male victim cases that she has testified for have been in male against male partners. She oozes bias and extreme narrow-mindedness. It's quite shocking.
probably knows nothing, doesn't care, and is just in it for money
You’re learn(mg about PAID WITNESSES FOR HIRE
It's very telling that AH went to a bunch of shady layers to defend her who in turn have a shady psychologist on their 'payroll'. They're all birds of a feather. Totally unlikable.
@@niqbal It's what justice has become, namely trying to deceive jurors and confuse them.
I personally don't think JDs lawyer needed to do a whole lot because this witness pretty much buried herself without his help.
@@AbhilashNair confident on spewing bias OPINION and not diagnosis. She is a psychologist and should have an equal opinion instead of trying to prove something she was 'told' about. There was no even evidences on all the claims lmao.
At the redirect, her basis for her opinions which were notes from AH therapists were all objected because of heresay and the judge sustained the objection hence her opinions will lack foundation as the source for her opinion of PTSD were almost all from hearsay. Watch it and Elaine is not to happy about it haha
@@AbhilashNair im pretty sure they have plans for it. it just boils my blood that whenever HARD EVIDENCE is presented and witnesses are trying to give their testimonies.. they always get interrupted by AH's lawyers like they are trying to prevent the truth to come out further more even though their argument is nothing but baseless bs.
What i noticed a lot is the complete lack of interruption she had while talking. Depp’s lawyer let her fully say her answers while AH’s seem to struggle in that aspect
She is so defensive in her answers that JD’s attorney is asking! Why so hostile when asking abt how often she’s defended MALE victims in court??
The biggest knock in her credibility for Me was when,Without being asked anything of the sort She mentioned Depp supposedly having issues with performance! That was just uncalled for and tacky
Should be hearsay,.
I respect Johnny’s lawyer a lot. That man was under some heavy pressure, his hands were shaking but he managed to be respectful and carried this on his back like a gentleman. My respect sir
In just this subject, she already changed her story/testimony so many times. She added, she subtracted, she paused, calculate and eliminate. Geez, she shouldn't be a therapist, she should have been a Math teacher. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
She's as evasive in answering questions as Amber is
I yelled at the tv when he went off on her😂 i was so happy
I started cackling when he came right out with the gender bias and my daughter jumped 😂😂😂
@@mcrmygirl26 me too!! My mom with me an she told me to relax 😂
For a psychologist, this woman is a shame. She seems aggressive and tries to intimidate JD's lawyer with her contradicting words. She said she is not bias but clearly, her statement says otherwise.
I think she just wanted the questions to stop, and get out of there, she had crap !! her answers clearly said she was full of crap! to easy for the lawyer! he asked ... "is this green?" then she answered.."well at one time I studied colors" that´s why he said , "ok", that was total KAREN destruction.
She can't even answer his questions correctly, and then she gets aggressive when he "wrongfully assumes" something that isn't correct, that's how you know she's full of it! I applaud Johnny's lawyers! Especially since he's not being disrespectful at all, he's asking reasonable questions and she's the one being aggressive because they're asking honest questions! 👏👏👏👏👏👏
The lawyer fails to ask a very simple question and it frustrates me: "In your experience, have you ever found evidence of IPV where a male is a victim and a female is a perpetrator?"
She keeps dodging the question by bringing in homosexual couples, male on male violence in jails and whatnot. How is she where she is in her field is beyond me.
And commenters in RUclips saw through those dodges, which most probably mean the jurors also did. Which means that the cross-examiner did his job.
@@ptyxis2308 - Well alot of us on these types of videos are on Johnny's side and are viewing AH's team and witnesses with a bit more bias than the jury would. Tbh her testimony only proves she's not an expert witness to the courts, but it didn't really discredit her professional background in forensic psychology. However, I'm hoping her bias is much more scathingly clear when compared to Dr. Curry. Although, I'm not certain how much her bias matters, when considering the point of this trial is to determine if Amber's defamation injured Johnny's career.
Wouldnt that question be leading? Not a lawyer or an expert but so far JD's team has been very professional with the questions asked and tried to stay away (as much as they can) from clear objections. Maybe that is the reason 🤷
@@YourMajesty143 I think i should have expounded better. Two possibilities: (1) She already admitted the fact during her deposition and in which case, depps' lawyer can simply restate the same in his closing. Bringing it up in cross will only give the other party the opportunity to rebut the same in redirect. (2) It was not part of her deposition and in which case, depps' lawyers do not really know the answer to that question. In general, lawyers will not ask questions that they do not know the answer to in open court. In such instances it would be better to simply "beat around the bush" and give the jury the impression that the witness is dodging the question. I do trial practice but not in the US so I could be wrong as to the procedures but I presume they are more or less the same.
@@ele7186 you're supposed to lead the witness in cross-examination...
She's refusing to acknowledge that men can be the victims of IPV from women. She has an agenda with her testimony. Her agenda is either to help Amber (which makes her disingenuous as an expert witness) or she's a misandrist (which presents the same issue).
If you'll note Dr Curry's testimony, she was not using double speak like this hack is.
Her ethics are definitely going to be brought into question (which seems to be what Johnny's team is setting up for).
I hate her just as much as you do, but she literally says in the video that men can be victims too
@@PhilGerb93 only after being asked an inescapable question tho, her testimony yesterday.. very biased to say the least
@@benny7899 no, she said it without even being asked, 0:53
@@PhilGerb93 yes she does & then she gives an example of a male/male relationship where the man was the victim to divert away from a male/female relationship, where she straight out refuses to say a man can be a victim of a woman. Listen closely, she really does refuse to respond to the male/female relationship, male victim question!
I think this woman is most experienced in defending women who have murdered their husbands from everything she said & what she lectures on. Cases where the police don't believe it's self defence & have pressed charges, this is the "expert witness" that gets called in to try to make the violence from the woman seem reasonable in the circumstances
this Psychologist is a true Karen ... long live the queen Dr.Curry
Dr Karen Hearsay
This is a great example as to why you should always get a second opinion no matter how distinguished anyone’s background is. There will often be biases otherwise.
This psychologist clearly working for the AH lawyers as stated. Meaning she is being paid to be biased. Corrupt is the word to explain her. She sure do know how to argue herself out. The only problem on JDs lawyer side of questioning is that when he nails it with his question, he should let her just answer YES or NO. Just like how Ambers side does so well. Too bad he lets her continue on with her outrageous explanation. If she only answer YES or NO it would have been more catastrophic for her.
This started so strong and ended up being a disappointment. She got off easy and continued on with her lies and hearsay tales
He did enough to prove she is biased and not professional, job done.
Dude what more you wanted him to do lol
Depp's attorney got embarrassed.
@@vaxan5126 Can't do much with a losing case.
@@vaxan5126 discount her credibility in a manner easily followed and understood by the jury. The cross exam derailed several times where she got the last word and all the lawyer replied was ”ok.” and carried on with the next point. In my opinion she handled herself very well due to the small amount of pressure she received and was able to counter the majority of what he said. The jury may see her as believable because of it.
Imagine earning a doctorate's degree and having an extensively successful career and then you get tricked into believing an aggressor's story thus discrediting the entirety of your work... Lady, you're cooked.
She will understand then what happened to Johnny Depp, adored by millions and almost destroyed by a liar
No she’s not
She has done this before and she will do it again
@@kimuires unless she loses. It's too public. She has egg in her face.
"have you ever testified for a man in IPV against a woman?" Would've probably made her shiver
I feel sorry for every male she have in her family.
this woman seems really sexist. She seems unable to admit that women can be abusers. Women are always the victim and that is really problematic.
Agree. That ideology alone is so damaging to society, can't believe she's truly enforcing it
Right
I was thinking the same, she might have some issues of her own.
She has never testified in a case where a FEMALE was (in her view) the abuser. "Yes, I have testified on behalf of men many times, against men." Maybe her statistics reveal her evaluation process. She begins with an assumption that women are never the abuser and fills in the blanks to reach that outcome. Did Heard's team shake the entire psychologist community until she fell out?
Just saw this clip. Do they go into the topic of female abusers in heterosexual relationships? Because, what she said here sounded like, yes, men can be victims if they're homosexual...
She had the cheek to say at one stage "I know I am right" which won't go down well with the jury I bet.
Well done Mr. Dennison👋👋👋. Impressive work by Ben Chew and his team!
Someone who is being questioned who is easily defensive, reactive and combative is a great indication of their obvious bias... I'm sure she's under a lot of pressure, but my goodness, I can't imagine working with her, much less asking her to testify her opinion in such an important court case. She seems like the type to tell people what they should do about their attitude, or problems, but avoids looking at her own.
She comes across as incredibly biased, she’s completely unwilling to talk or admit to female on male violence, the only time she says she encounters it is male on male or female on female. She’s trying to perpetuate the myth that female on male doesn’t occur. Surely the line of questioning to take would have been that as she openly admits she hasn’t ever testified or reported on female on male violence (from her own admission) then she is completely unsuitable for this case as female on male violence in this case is firmly established, and is not by her own admission her area of expertise or something she has experience in.
This is where I think the lawyer failed. She was never asked directly about "female on male violence". When she said she advocated for male victims she would mention boys that were victims of adults or men who are in relationships with other men. Why didn't the lawyer ask her directly if she had ever been hired to evaluate a male victim of violence by a female?
@@claytoncourtney1309 You've got a point...
@@xXJokerAtWorkXx he didn’t have to; he let her dig her own grave. The point was well established that she’s unsuitable to testify on male victim of female violence. The jury will pick up on that just like y’all did. He stayed calm and didn’t become aggressive like ah team. I feel his calm demeanor will also win points with the jury. Seeing that everyone hates ah team because of their aggressive demeanor
It's a point for closing. He doesn't need to put it to her and he runs the risk of her having an answer. Part of being a good cross examiner is learning when to stop. It is so tempting to ask one question too many but that can undermine the whole process. He doesn't need to ask it - they will just close on that very point to the jury though
@@josie2263 thanks, that makes sense and I hope you’re right
This woman gives me the creeps. She has a very hostile and negative energy. Nothing like Dr. Curry.
I agree.
There is some really negative energy around the entertainment industry. It isn't everyone, but you see in places like the Met Gala, the music awards (AMA), and Disney. Yes, Disney. This is my opinion only. Things that give me the heebie jeebies. Where I don't see it: any actor or musician who has been in recovery, and not at the Oscars for the most part.
@@pyrovania I know exactly what you mean and I feel it too. You are right, it isn't everyone in Hollywood. But a lot of the Hollywood elite give off that weird energy vibe. Yeah, the Met Gala, and lots of music videos or music performances, and Disney, etc. give off weird energy vibes. Weird symbolism in lots of stuff too.
Maybe you just think Curry is prettier or her testimony is more useful to the man in the case?
@@angelavolkov1126 🥔
One of the clever way of JD’s attorney to lure the witness is by poking her on paycheck.
She says that she works on “hundreds and hundreds of cases” and twist it to “twice a year” when regarded to expert witness as her main source of income.
'cases' for a psychologist is in reference to their daily workload. It does not mean court cases.
“Dr.” Hughes should have all her licenses revoked and should be removed from any positions of power or influence in relation to DV. Her gender bias, pre-suppositions and general attitude are abysmal, particularly for someone of her “profession”. 😡
I can’t believe how a psychologist to be biased in all aspect Of her answers. She should not have a client.
They both seemed bias to me. I don’t understand why the lawyers of each party get to hand pick a psychologist to testify for them- of course they are going to be bias. How coincidental that the psychologist hired by Johnnys team says amber is the abuser and the psychologist hired by ambers team says Johnny is the abuser. Why not bring on psychology experts that aren’t from either team?
@@beepbeep9043 but u can tell this one has bias whilst dr curry didn’t have any biases
She will lose her license soon....after this performance, people will dig into her past work and question everything. Her career is gone either way because of all the bad reviews
She gives me "I dislike men because they never give me attention" vibes
I hope this trial gets her name know to everyone so people know NOT to go to her. Especially men. She is awful. I have never seen such a lack of professionalism from someone claiming to be an expert. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong!! How many men has she let down because they were men? How many men has she wronged and worked against because they were men? Every trial she has ever been a part of should be reviewed if a man was involved, and I mean ALL OF THEM. She is vile. Disgusting. She fits right in with Ambers team. Attorneys that look lost all the time, PR people that break the rules repeatedly, and a psychologist that doesn't even seem to know how to accurately asses someone. Seems if they have a vagina they are right, that's all it takes. She is getting paid a lot and I hope it's worth ruining her career, so many people would not go to her now, I wish it was everyone.
Why she say that she was helping male patient all the time.
Stop hating ppl cause they on Amber team.
It’s quite obvious she doesn’t like men
It’s terrifying that a woman who has a big part in the psychology scene is incredibly biased towards women, scary stuff.
"I believe she is the victim in this case". And how do you exactly know, especially when you never treated either of them?
Dr Curry was far beyond more trustworthy and professional. There’s nothing to take seriously here because of her bias she immediately displayed.
When he called her a professional witness😂😂 What a classy way to say that she's not a psychologist
This counsel is real good. Excellent cross-examination.
She was being outed as being biased against males in IPV cases. Even though she did defend some males in IPV, the victim and the perpetrator in those cases were males. Therefore, she shows bias in her research. The jury will realize this.
Sure hope so!
She has never represented a male who was the victim of another female. Very telling….
Holy crap. mY nAmE iS KYlE TOo!!!
@@liquidjackson7172 they're hard to find
@@almamater489 no they aren’t. Super common. Check the stats
She is one of the most unprofessional professionals I have ever met. Idk if it’s just me but I feel like she’s been flip flopping with her answers a lot
Yeah she's probably been flip flopping throughout her whole career
The best grilling is done at medium heat. This is glorious.
Dr. Hughes did very well on the stand and held her own. She wasn't intimated by all by Johnny Crackheads team!
She's using psychology by looking directly at the jury rather than at who is asking the questions. You see her trying to persuade them as per her agenda.
She can’t trick the jury
@@okonkwo.ify18 I hope so
@@Ji-zt7ny Lawyers do study psychology too.
@@okonkwo.ify18 but the jury do not comprise of legally trained lawyers, they are ordinary layperson like you and me (assuming that you aren’t a legal practitioner)
Dr Curry did that too though and y’all were singing her praises for addressing the jury. I agree she was great and Amber seems like a liar but please, as someone said it, the amount of confirmation bias going on around Johnny’s supporter base is alarming.
I do not understand why the attorney did not ask her How many MEN have you defended AGAINST a WOMAN?
Her testimony is shocking for me. How a professional person can come to a final conclusion by only assessing and listening to one side of the story ..There is a story where a man who lost his eye in a fight went to the court to complain about what his neighbour had done to him, when the judge saw the man he got angry and said why he damaged your eye in a violent way.The judge asked for his neighbour to come to court immediately but when the judge met the alleged attacker he was shocked because the alleged attacker had both eyes damaged in the fight as well as a broken skull, hip and spine
Johnny has a solid group of lawyer's. They know how to paint a clear picture and connect the dots for the jury