Rubbish. Dr. Loftus is a world-renowned scientist and the top expert in this field. She could have spent two hours going over her CV if she'd been asked to. She is an actual living legend, Susan the Unknown.
@@Cali-Girl I disagree. Just listen to the questions and answers on direct exam. She answered very predictable hypotheticals put to her in the same way as many other psychologists familiar with the literature would have answered, no matter who the accused was. If she had done otherwise, then I'd be asking why is she doing that--bias?
she's a massive deal in the world of psychological research. You may not like her, & I don't find her testimony here relevant or even ethical to give, but her status as a respected expert is far from just in her mind
Lewin is shredding her !! I’m so mad that the trial ended suddenly. So I guess we will see more on Monday ??? I don’t think Lewin was done with her yet . This woman helped defend a lot of murderous bastards ….. Ted Bundy blew me away !!! Lewin ( to me ) has totally discredited her . Long overdue!!!!!
Professor Loftus is no fringe scientist. She is probably the most famous and celebrated scientist in this field, and respected the world around for her research. You insult and defame her by calling her a fringe scientist. What are your credentials, Zan?
Yeah !! She is so famous for helping defend Ted Bundy , Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson ….. The list goes on and on . And gets paid more money than I’ll ever see in a lifetime . Heck - she got paid 45K for this appearance alone !! People are crazy !!!! And for a memory expert , she seems to forget an awful lot haha .
@@zanpsimer7685 Lively criticism and debate among research scientists is the norm, not the exception, and help to advance the state of the research. Dr. Loftus has critics and supporters, and her experiments have been replicated and validated by many other researchers. What she said under direct examination was not at all surprising or biased. If the state wants to impeach her, contradict her testimony, let them find some equally esteemed memory expert to get up there and demonstrate how her answers to the hypothetical questions are not supported by solid research. They probably won't; we'll see. I think Durst is an awful human being who may very well be guilty and deserves great punishment, and I don't agree with every opinion of Dr. Loftus's that I've ever heard. But what she said on the stand was perfectly proper. It's up to the jury to decide whether some of the other witnesses' memories were accurate or not.
After researching this woman, I take back my comments. Im glad Lewin exposes her, although it was a waste of 2 days. Her testimony didnt hurt his case. Her comments on SRA victims is outrageous and she seems like a snake.
She lost credibility when she explained why her designation as a ‘distinguished professor’ was superior to those currently given this title at UC Irvine. Just not necessary to inflate one’s own credentials with what is subjective and not objective. If you are competent in the field, your expertise will show for itself through objective data such as your degrees, certifications, publications, and years of experience. No need to add why one’s distinguished professorship is MORE distinguished than others with the same title. Just makes one seem, ironically, less distinguished and more unsure of their own expertise in the subject matter.
Loftus is arrogance personified. No credible person working in psychology or psychiatry considers Elizabeth Loftus to be credible. She has harmed so many people who suffer from severe trauma, with her false memory beliefs. As you can see she makes a lot of money from those appalling beliefs.
@@toriesepahmd6468 Professor Loftus's research consists of ordinary experimental psychological studies of factors that influence memory of events in normal humans. Nothing to do with trauma-based disorders. Nothing to do with PTSD. Nothing to do with mood disorders. Maybe those are important for you, but they do not factor in to this kind of academic research, Dr. Sepah. Nor does she claim to invade these areas of concern. Her science is solid--no quotation marks required--and her research is solid and evidence based--again, no quotation marks required. I don't agree with all of Dr. Loftus's opinions, but she is entitled to them like anyone else. What I don't do is dismiss her research results out of hand just because of the opinions I don't agree with. Also--and I'm pretty sure you know this--the State of California pays her as a professor at UCI just as it pays all professors who work there, because it hired her and she does her job. Why do you have a problem with that?
@@chrispaul6290 thank you. I understand. Some of her studies are actually fascinating and very informative. I believe my concern perhaps is rooted in how this research is applied, namely the concern of a diagnosis emerging, ‘false memory syndrome’ which is problematic given it does not have a basis as a diagnosis. While her research itself is scientifically relevant, her choice of how she is applying it (her testimony has very often involved the testimony of those with traumatic experiences). She has in a sense, elevated the significance of her research and its application (i.e. to patients who have been traumatized) so broadly in multiple criminal cases that it raises red flags. That’s where I was coming from. I do appreciate your feedback as I always want to understand more and listening to others is an important way to do that.
I agree. That was petty. For me its her cloaking her bias under a blanket of science. She is definitely transitioned from unbiased testimony to tailoring her testimony to support who she is testifying for. Her demeanor betrays her
I feel she lost credibility when it came to light that she ONLY testifies for the defense - and even wrote books about it! You cannot be unbiased with a bias.
Haven't seen the cross yet but I am REALLY hoping the Prosecutor covers Durst's DENIAL for several years to being the writer "cadaver note" to the Police ONLY TO CONFESS he wrote the actual note before (or at the time of) this trial! Should be interesting cross ...my opinion only.
If you really want to present an expert on memory, you should put a neurologist or a neuropsychiatrist up on the stand given they both treat patients with memory deficits for a living.
Not so. The issue is not memory deficits of the witnesses for the prosecution, but rather what could have affected their memories. Professor Loftus is the best expert to call for this purpose.
@@chrispaul6290 You are coming across like an army-of-one in your defensiveness of the dear professor. And, yes, she 'is entitled' to her opinions (whether paid for or not), but that is all they are: (paid for) opinions.
@@petertreid If the state had hired Prof. Loftus to opine about memory, she'd have given the same sort of testimony, and her testimony would apply equally to witnesses for the state as for witnesses for the defense--just as is true right now. The only difference would be that a lot of these uncalled-for ad hominems and insults would magically disappear from these comments. Smearing the expert witness based upon hatred of the party that hired him or her is stupid and uncivilized, but unfortunately it is as common as fruit flies. In my opinion.
Lewin did a great cross examination. He flopped a bit with Dr. Klein (granted, he only had five minutes) but this one he did an amazing job. A very good cross of an ‘expert’. This defense with all of their capabilities should have done their homework better in identifying an ‘expert’ on memory.
I love watching the Law Crime Network , but I really can’t stand the Host , who during a break , voices her opinion about how much she thinks The prosecutor is a bully . Then expects her guests to agree with her . When John Lewin won’t get the answer he wants , he goes for the jugular. And I’m glad he does !!! This woman Loftus has a huge history of trying to help convicted murderers get off !! Ted Freakin Buddy ??? Come On !!! OJ ??? Please !!! The list goes on !!! She got paid $45 K to testify for this BD trial . I’m so glad Lewin is challenging her !!!!! And for an memory expert witness, she’s seems to forget an awful lot haha . And one more thing ….. I wish she’d stop looking over at the jury to see there approval with that smug smile . Get her John !!!!!!! And have a blessed day ❤️🙏🤠
That is actually what made me come and watch the cross. The way she is testifying reminds me a lot of the domestic violence experts in the Arias case. Twisting science into advocacy is sad
Defence complaining their client is ill and will be killed by the trial but dragging it out to make sure he IS dead by the time it ends. I’ve never heard such nonsense- what happened to presenting pure fact not hypotheses?
She obviously thinks she's the most important person in the room & has little respect for others health, she's very selfish & the judge should make her wear a mask period
Yeah, that's what counts--her appearance. Not her 50 years as a first-rate experimental psychologist who is celebrated around the world for her work. Good job on picking on Professor Loftus's looks, Schock! Great.
@@surpriseimblack I'm on the side of people who discuss an issue with something a little more germane than ridiculous comments about people's appearance. Also on the side of people who spell "whose" correctly. Okay with me if you disagree.
Great job Mr. Lewin 👏
Lewin: “The only thing I didn’t see in here is you’d been Knighted by the Queen”…..when discussing her 46 page CV. 🤣🙌🏻
She is a legend in her own mind
🤣
Rubbish. Dr. Loftus is a world-renowned scientist and the top expert in this field. She could have spent two hours going over her CV if she'd been asked to. She is an actual living legend, Susan the Unknown.
@@chrispaul6290 She may be world renowned, but she still sounds like a biased expert witness. In my opinion.
@@Cali-Girl I disagree. Just listen to the questions and answers on direct exam. She answered very predictable hypotheticals put to her in the same way as many other psychologists familiar with the literature would have answered, no matter who the accused was. If she had done otherwise, then I'd be asking why is she doing that--bias?
she's a massive deal in the world of psychological research. You may not like her, & I don't find her testimony here relevant or even ethical to give, but her status as a respected expert is far from just in her mind
Oh wow he’s tearing her to bits! The memory expert has memory problems! Excellent cross prosecutor is fab!
She has a selective memory. NOT an impartial witness! She speaks with forked tongue.
Lewin is shredding her !!
I’m so mad that the trial ended suddenly.
So I guess we will see more on Monday ???
I don’t think Lewin was done with her yet .
This woman helped defend a lot of murderous bastards …..
Ted Bundy blew me away !!!
Lewin ( to me ) has totally discredited her .
Long overdue!!!!!
Yah this is brutal! But not undeserved
I just love when the defense pulls out the fringe scientists.
Professor Loftus is no fringe scientist. She is probably the most famous and celebrated scientist in this field, and respected the world around for her research. You insult and defame her by calling her a fringe scientist. What are your credentials, Zan?
Yeah !!
She is so famous for helping defend Ted Bundy , Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson …..
The list goes on and on .
And gets paid more money than I’ll ever see in a lifetime .
Heck - she got paid 45K for this appearance alone !!
People are crazy !!!!
And for a memory expert , she seems to forget an awful lot haha .
@@chrispaul6290 who needs credentials when so many credentialed scientists call her work crap? Do some research.
@@tubes5150 all true 😂😂😂
@@zanpsimer7685 Lively criticism and debate among research scientists is the norm, not the exception, and help to advance the state of the research. Dr. Loftus has critics and supporters, and her experiments have been replicated and validated by many other researchers. What she said under direct examination was not at all surprising or biased. If the state wants to impeach her, contradict her testimony, let them find some equally esteemed memory expert to get up there and demonstrate how her answers to the hypothetical questions are not supported by solid research. They probably won't; we'll see.
I think Durst is an awful human being who may very well be guilty and deserves great punishment, and I don't agree with every opinion of Dr. Loftus's that I've ever heard. But what she said on the stand was perfectly proper. It's up to the jury to decide whether some of the other witnesses' memories were accurate or not.
After researching this woman, I take back my comments. Im glad Lewin exposes her, although it was a waste of 2 days. Her testimony didnt hurt his case. Her comments on SRA victims is outrageous and she seems like a snake.
You have the courage of your convictions.
1:03:28 Just love where Lewin is going here, didn't see it coming and he owned Loftus. Well played! Such a phenomenal prosecutor.
Thumbnail looks like 🤔
Dana Carvey 'The church lady' lol
YEEES!!!
Well isn’t that special 👩
She lost credibility when she explained why her designation as a ‘distinguished professor’ was superior to those currently given this title at UC Irvine. Just not necessary to inflate one’s own credentials with what is subjective and not objective. If you are competent in the field, your expertise will show for itself through objective data such as your degrees, certifications, publications, and years of experience. No need to add why one’s distinguished professorship is MORE distinguished than others with the same title. Just makes one seem, ironically, less distinguished and more unsure of their own expertise in the subject matter.
Loftus is arrogance personified. No credible person working in psychology or psychiatry considers Elizabeth Loftus to be credible. She has harmed so many people who suffer from severe trauma, with her false memory beliefs. As you can see she makes a lot of money from those appalling beliefs.
@@toriesepahmd6468 Professor Loftus's research consists of ordinary experimental psychological studies of factors that influence memory of events in normal humans. Nothing to do with trauma-based disorders. Nothing to do with PTSD. Nothing to do with mood disorders. Maybe those are important for you, but they do not factor in to this kind of academic research, Dr. Sepah. Nor does she claim to invade these areas of concern. Her science is solid--no quotation marks required--and her research is solid and evidence based--again, no quotation marks required.
I don't agree with all of Dr. Loftus's opinions, but she is entitled to them like anyone else. What I don't do is dismiss her research results out of hand just because of the opinions I don't agree with.
Also--and I'm pretty sure you know this--the State of California pays her as a professor at UCI just as it pays all professors who work there, because it hired her and she does her job. Why do you have a problem with that?
@@chrispaul6290 thank you. I understand. Some of her studies are actually fascinating and very informative. I believe my concern perhaps is rooted in how this research is applied, namely the concern of a diagnosis emerging, ‘false memory syndrome’ which is problematic given it does not have a basis as a diagnosis. While her research itself is scientifically relevant, her choice of how she is applying it (her testimony has very often involved the testimony of those with traumatic experiences). She has in a sense, elevated the significance of her research and its application (i.e. to patients who have been traumatized) so broadly in multiple criminal cases that it raises red flags. That’s where I was coming from. I do appreciate your feedback as I always want to understand more and listening to others is an important way to do that.
I agree. That was petty. For me its her cloaking her bias under a blanket of science. She is definitely transitioned from unbiased testimony to tailoring her testimony to support who she is testifying for. Her demeanor betrays her
I feel she lost credibility when it came to light that she ONLY testifies for the defense - and even wrote books about it! You cannot be unbiased with a bias.
Feel so bad for the jury. What a load of ‘who shot John’ as Judge Judy would say!
The good doctor looks like Dana Carvey's twin sister.
Hahahaha
Lewin “ Who do you think killed Susan “ ???
Loftus - “ I don’t know …… maybe SATIN “!?!?!?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Haven't seen the cross yet but I am REALLY hoping the Prosecutor covers Durst's DENIAL for several years to being the writer "cadaver note" to the Police ONLY TO CONFESS he wrote the actual note before (or at the time of) this trial! Should be interesting cross ...my opinion only.
Prosecutor Lewin is ripping her apart !!!
Love it !!!
If you really want to present an expert on memory, you should put a neurologist or a neuropsychiatrist up on the stand given they both treat patients with memory deficits for a living.
Not so. The issue is not memory deficits of the witnesses for the prosecution, but rather what could have affected their memories. Professor Loftus is the best expert to call for this purpose.
@torri sepac, I totally agree!
@@chrispaul6290 You are coming across like an army-of-one in your defensiveness of the dear professor. And, yes, she 'is entitled' to her opinions (whether paid for or not), but that is all they are: (paid for) opinions.
@@petertreid If the state had hired Prof. Loftus to opine about memory, she'd have given the same sort of testimony, and her testimony would apply equally to witnesses for the state as for witnesses for the defense--just as is true right now. The only difference would be that a lot of these uncalled-for ad hominems and insults would magically disappear from these comments. Smearing the expert witness based upon hatred of the party that hired him or her is stupid and uncivilized, but unfortunately it is as common as fruit flies. In my opinion.
address her as doctor, please lol give me a break. Ma'am is respectful.
She does not comes across well. Unlikely to get much more $700/hr court work after this performance 😬
Lewin did a great cross examination. He flopped a bit with Dr. Klein (granted, he only had five minutes) but this one he did an amazing job. A very good cross of an ‘expert’. This defense with all of their capabilities should have done their homework better in identifying an ‘expert’ on memory.
I love watching the Law Crime Network , but I really can’t stand the Host , who during a break , voices her opinion about how much she thinks The prosecutor is a bully .
Then expects her guests to agree with her .
When John Lewin won’t get the answer he wants , he goes for the jugular.
And I’m glad he does !!!
This woman Loftus has a huge history of trying to help convicted murderers get off !!
Ted Freakin Buddy ???
Come On !!!
OJ ???
Please !!!
The list goes on !!!
She got paid $45 K to testify for this BD trial .
I’m so glad Lewin is challenging her !!!!!
And for an memory expert witness, she’s seems to forget an awful lot haha .
And one more thing ….. I wish she’d stop looking over at the jury to see there approval with that smug smile .
Get her John !!!!!!!
And have a blessed day ❤️🙏🤠
That is actually what made me come and watch the cross. The way she is testifying reminds me a lot of the domestic violence experts in the Arias case. Twisting science into advocacy is sad
All I've heard from this durst trial the whole time is senseless chatter
Defence complaining their client is ill and will be killed by the trial but dragging it out to make sure he IS dead by the time it ends. I’ve never heard such nonsense- what happened to presenting pure fact not hypotheses?
Is this so simple diagram of her explains everything??? It is so pity!
the worst witness of the trial, Klein is a close second
Ope, Dr Liar is on the hot seat.🤣🤣🤣
If sour milk would be a person.. ye get....
Ok did he do it
Yes he did
Who cares? This trial is a joke.
@@jackattack_8 I'm sure the friends & families of the victims do, hopefully you don't have one of your loved ones murdered.
Grow up.
@@ezeddiev
What's "murmured"...???
Grow up, indeed...
@@jackattack_8 sorry for a spelling mistake, if you don't know what i meant it just shows your maturity doesn't it?
Anyone else getting strong Dana Carvey from Waynes World vibes?
She looks like she should wear a mask as much as possible.
Oh this poor jury I feel so sorry for them it's no wonder they call a mistrial all the time because this stuff is boring the jury to death
Yeah, the prosecutor is shooting himself in both feet for hours on end. Ridic.
I like her
I’m with you sis, she’s sharp as a tack at 70 years old.
Really? She comes across as smug and superior to me
She obviously thinks she's the most important person in the room & has little respect for others health, she's very selfish & the judge should make her wear a mask period
Ugh this memory stuff is boring.
She looks like Michael Jackson..
Very scary..
Yeah, that's what counts--her appearance. Not her 50 years as a first-rate experimental psychologist who is celebrated around the world for her work.
Good job on picking on Professor Loftus's looks, Schock! Great.
@@chrispaul6290 Lol who's side are you on..?
@@surpriseimblack I'm on the side of people who discuss an issue with something a little more germane than ridiculous comments about people's appearance. Also on the side of people who spell "whose" correctly. Okay with me if you disagree.