This “expert “ is truly despicable she teaches what ,how to rub shoulders with criminals whom she calls “unpopular”She definitely needs to see a memory expert yesterday! A paid con person in-spite of her education did she pay to get her degrees , this prosecutor is unbeatable he’s the memory expert here! Her licence should be revoked!
I think I should delete my previous comments. After checking what this case was about, I then saw WHO shes rubbed shoulders with, helped represent and been involved with. No wonder she's being cross examined. Hmmm. This lady is a strange one
Omg.. and this woman teaches our youth??? Teaches them what… it’s all about money, and protect the criminal??? Great Prosecutor. This woman defends the criminal because she is one.
Ugh, this woman is giving me hives. It’s no coincidence that horrendous criminals are drawn to her, and bribe her to manipulate the jury. Have you seen the Susan Giordano cross?
at 6-700 per hour....I would take as long as I COULD - to not remember....I think she gained some of her obvious dance moves from her experience with Michael........
and to think, she is teaching the next generation of 'un-biased' experts (fascinating given her career) - that will one day give evidence (based on her teachings) that will play a factor in determining the innocence or guilt in future court cases.
she keeps looking at the jury to see if they believe her... i hope the jury are onto it. She messed up bigtime at 55:00 "I firmly believe that many individuals were [falsely accused]" totally contradicts her previous statements about being unbias and an advocate
A truly despicable human decimated via one of the best cross examinations I’ve ever seen. Her colleagues must be so proud. What a waste of an education. Sandusky, wtf 🤬
They say here in England a Psychology Degree is 1 of the easier subjects too pass. Hence the reason for so many Psychologists. It maybe a coincidence, but, ive met numerous people who say "I'm a Psychologist". Majority of them have never worked, didnt do well in school. Some also have bizarre personalities, behaviours and they're actions are called into question quite frequently.
In cross, the witness is not permitted to argue back--so it will always come across like this when a prosecutor tries to undermine credibility. She simply is not allowed to argue back and say "non of this is discussing the memory facts of the current case."
Q: Dr. did you write a report in this case? A: (Disgusted) No! Q: Well, Dr., for the $50,000 you've been paid for this case you didn't write a report? A: I did not write a report. IF THIS WASN'T SUCH A SERIOUS TRIAL THIS CROSS EXAMINATION AND HER ANSWERS WOULD BE FOOD FOR SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.
Q: Is it fair to say that you have built a very lucrative career coming to court testifying that witness' memories are unreliable? A: (Pause....) Well my full time job as a university professor is already lucrative enough. Q: Well, you don't make $700 an hour as a university professor, do you? A: It depends on what I'm donig. REALLY? BOOYAH!!!!! HE IS SHREDDING THIS PHONY BALONEY
Could Durst’s attorneys have found a more vulnerable expert witness? Notwithstanding their doomed efforts to have a mistrial declared, they’re trying to sink him!!!!
why not get a low profile, proportionally paid expert witness, who is credible, without all the obvious history of advocacy baggage she has? She keeps looking over at the jury as if to say, I'm the greatest, smartest ever and you should be hanging on my every word and this idiot questioning my legendary status is humiliating and insulting and her face shows it. love it!
@@trivet1970 probably because any witness they got would be referring directly back to this woman’s work- she seems to be the definitive in this area. It’s probably easier for her to defend her life’s work than a lesser qualified/lesser experienced ‘expert’.
@@Truth1561 its a good point, but they wouldn't directly be associated with the folks she has which will turn the jury off (weinstein, cosby, bundy etc.)
@@trivet1970 Didn’t Cosby just get released? I’m in the UK so I don’t automatically get the details on these cases. ETA his case being overturned- might work in her favour?
The defense should have done their research with an expert who has testified so much. If they did, they'd have known how this would play out. Instead they got caught with their pants down.
Sorry if I sound dense, but ive only just come across this case. Is this the defence having a go at the doctor on the stand giving evidence? He seems too be really batting on about an article, which she clearly doesn't recall. Surely this lawyer knows, its virtually impossible too keep a tab on numerous journalists, who say or "quote", or mention they have spoken too a source, all lie or exaggerate majority of the time. So much media content is in papers, online, on radio, in books, and TV, and more often than not, the journo hasn't spoken too the right/relevant "quoted person" at all.
@@suzintex2002 yeah, ive just researched about the case. I saw she definitely defends a certain type more so than others. No wonder the prosecution are trying too tie her in knots, and her "work & defending" has made some enemies amongst her colleagues. Ive only just had the notification for this video, I watched it before I read up on the case. Hmmm, shes a strange one, and gets mega money for being so.
wait.. the memory doctor can't remember anything?? Ben Cardall is not memory doctor but he can remember a ton of stuff! How is it that a memory doctor cannot remember much at all??
@@Truth1561 my pop is 89, he has a very clear recollection of many details including his childhood. But he's not posing as a memory doctor who, after 50 years of studying memory, should have a grip on memorizing techniques that even lay people have grasped 🙄
She’s being paid 50k to create reasonable doubt, and that is all. He was using that rapid fire questioning to push her to the point that her true beliefs would be revealed. She lost that round 😊
@@Truth1561 Have you watched her direct testimony? Her ability to say “yes” or “no” was just fine at that point. Her memory magically worked better. If I thought she really had a memory issue I would feel bad for her, I know how frustrating that is.
The point has been made- the witness clearly seeks out and enjoys participating in defense of high profile criminals of the worst sort. It is also clear her science can be used to discredit anyone. Her unwillingness to concede even major misjudgements- preferring to wordsmith around any admission. Having said that. The prosecutor is ‘beating a dead horse’. It is irritating and redundant. Let me be clear- he has negated her attempt to mitigate testimony of others. Move on and don’t get caught up in her wordsmithing games.
I really wanna see her testimony in these other cases cause she really comes off shady. She seems to have confused connecting with the jury with playing the jury. Lol she makes a face at the paltry sum she is getting paid in the case
This prosecutor is the biggest clown o them all. Can he ask one question that isnt an assumption or hypothetical or out o context. The court is so weak to allow this nonsense.
This “expert “ is truly despicable she teaches what ,how to rub shoulders with criminals whom she calls “unpopular”She definitely needs to see a memory expert yesterday! A paid con person in-spite of her education did she pay to get her degrees , this prosecutor is unbeatable he’s the memory expert here! Her licence should be revoked!
I think I should delete my previous comments. After checking what this case was about, I then saw WHO shes rubbed shoulders with, helped represent and been involved with. No wonder she's being cross examined. Hmmm. This lady is a strange one
Yep. She's definitely slimy.
Omg.. and this woman teaches our youth??? Teaches them what… it’s all about money, and protect the criminal??? Great Prosecutor. This woman defends the criminal because she is one.
Ugh, this woman is giving me hives. It’s no coincidence that horrendous criminals are drawn to her, and bribe her to manipulate the jury. Have you seen the Susan Giordano cross?
Wow, that witness backfires. She's so full of herself and yet steps into one trap after the other.
Does it seem strange to anyone else that a “memory expert” can’t remember?
I suspect she's playing the game 🤣
at 6-700 per hour....I would take as long as I COULD - to not remember....I think she gained some of her obvious dance moves from her experience with Michael........
@@suzintex2002 exactly cuz she’s getting paid clearly 46000 $ on this case ! SMH 🤦♀️
@@burnttoasttours8712 or maybe bill Cosby gave her a drink 🥃 lol jk
I think she is hopeless and comes across as a fraudster.
and to think, she is teaching the next generation of 'un-biased' experts (fascinating given her career) - that will one day give evidence (based on her teachings) that will play a factor in determining the innocence or guilt in future court cases.
sad sad
Not if John Lewin has his way.
Scary!!! to say the least
she keeps looking at the jury to see if they believe her... i hope the jury are onto it. She messed up bigtime at 55:00 "I firmly believe that many individuals were [falsely accused]" totally contradicts her previous statements about being unbias and an advocate
She looked at the jury over 200 times and I had to stop watching and just listen to this OVERPAID FRAUD 😡
Yeah, I was so mad every time she looked at the jury. Luckily they see what we see, and she made herself look very bad.
A truly despicable human decimated via one of the best cross examinations I’ve ever seen. Her colleagues must be so proud. What a waste of an education. Sandusky, wtf 🤬
The best witness money can buy getting shredded by prosecution 👍🤟
I thought i dispiced Alice LaViolet from Jodi Arias trial...but this Mam(Not gonna say she's a Dr) is beyond them feelings
Expert makes faces and looks at the jury, as in can you believe how ridiculous this man is
he is ridiculous
@@bonnie7732 She’s a manipulative (paid) liar, though. He’s advocating for victims and she’s discrediting victims. It’s horrendous.
@@jennifermariejoyce
hmm 🤔 @bonnie. You took the time to look up his past cases?
I thought not 💭
@@bonnie7732You are ridiculous.
She's a University Professor, with 40 years of Court experience, in her field, and he is Owning-Her. Proof that Psychology is bunkum.
She is ground zero for the "eye witnesses are not reliable" movement. She is one of the goto "experts" if you know your client is guilty.
@@Flexo1358 Universities actively seek out and promote professors who publish frequently. It's an integral component to their marketing plan.
They say here in England a Psychology Degree is 1 of the easier subjects too pass. Hence the reason for so many Psychologists. It maybe a coincidence, but, ive met numerous people who say "I'm a Psychologist". Majority of them have never worked, didnt do well in school. Some also have bizarre personalities, behaviours and they're actions are called into question quite frequently.
In cross, the witness is not permitted to argue back--so it will always come across like this when a prosecutor tries to undermine credibility. She simply is not allowed to argue back and say "non of this is discussing the memory facts of the current case."
That dude talking to her did not come to play !
$700- an hour? I want that job.
Hey! All you have to do is get on the stand, under oath, and discredit victims of violent crimes. Sounds fun!
padding her retirement fund for her senior housing in the highly expensive area she plans on living.
Q: Dr. did you write a report in this case? A: (Disgusted) No! Q: Well, Dr., for the $50,000 you've been paid for this case you didn't write a report? A: I did not write a report. IF THIS WASN'T SUCH A SERIOUS TRIAL THIS CROSS EXAMINATION AND HER ANSWERS WOULD BE FOOD FOR SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.
Why does she look like Dana Carvey in the movie Waynes world?
lol I think it's the glasses and the hair.
@@GrannyGooseOnTH-cam yes
Yes. I actually thought she was a man
She looks mo
@@TheDealMaster stop😂😂
Q: Is it fair to say that you have built a very lucrative career coming to court testifying that witness' memories are unreliable? A: (Pause....) Well my full time job as a university professor is already lucrative enough. Q: Well, you don't make $700 an hour as a university professor, do you? A: It depends on what I'm donig. REALLY? BOOYAH!!!!! HE IS SHREDDING THIS PHONY BALONEY
Could Durst’s attorneys have found a more vulnerable expert witness? Notwithstanding their doomed efforts to have a mistrial declared, they’re trying to sink him!!!!
why not get a low profile, proportionally paid expert witness, who is credible, without all the obvious history of advocacy baggage she has? She keeps looking over at the jury as if to say, I'm the greatest, smartest ever and you should be hanging on my every word and this idiot questioning my legendary status is humiliating and insulting and her face shows it. love it!
@@trivet1970 probably because any witness they got would be referring directly back to this woman’s work- she seems to be the definitive in this area. It’s probably easier for her to defend her life’s work than a lesser qualified/lesser experienced ‘expert’.
@@Truth1561 its a good point, but they wouldn't directly be associated with the folks she has which will turn the jury off (weinstein, cosby, bundy etc.)
@@trivet1970 Didn’t Cosby just get released? I’m in the UK so I don’t automatically get the details on these cases.
ETA his case being overturned- might work in her favour?
@@Truth1561 Cosby was released on a technicality.
Great post.
Going forward, when approached to work for a defendant, the very first thing this woman will ask is whether Prosecutor John Lewin is on the case.
Priceless. I imagine this is the most uncomfortable cross examination she’s experienced in her hundreds of courtroom appearances.
The defense should have done their research with an expert who has testified so much. If they did, they'd have known how this would play out. Instead they got caught with their pants down.
She has faced Mr Lewin before, but she didn't remember.
@@ezeddiev haha. Probably blocked the traumatic event.
@@zanpsimer7685 lol
Sorry if I sound dense, but ive only just come across this case. Is this the defence having a go at the doctor on the stand giving evidence? He seems too be really batting on about an article, which she clearly doesn't recall. Surely this lawyer knows, its virtually impossible too keep a tab on numerous journalists, who say or "quote", or mention they have spoken too a source, all lie or exaggerate majority of the time. So much media content is in papers, online, on radio, in books, and TV, and more often than not, the journo hasn't spoken too the right/relevant "quoted person" at all.
She works for the Defense. This is the Prosecutor going after her. She gets paid big bucks for her testimony.
@@suzintex2002 yeah, ive just researched about the case. I saw she definitely defends a certain type more so than others. No wonder the prosecution are trying too tie her in knots, and her "work & defending" has made some enemies amongst her colleagues. Ive only just had the notification for this video, I watched it before I read up on the case. Hmmm, shes a strange one, and gets mega money for being so.
She make $700 an hour testifying and people are aghast. I just paid my orthopedic surgeon $4000 for 1/2 a day of testimony in my lawsuit.
She has issues being called Ma'am instead of Doctor she likes to feel she is better than others and wants to be addressed by her title.
It is sexist for her to be called Ma'am when she is there are as-- and is-- a doctor. A man would be called doctor, why shouldn't she be?
Prince Andrew to employ Ghislaine Maxwell’s failed ‘False Memory Syndrome’ Defence & CIA Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus - Fiona Barnett
Mercenary.Gun for Hire. Sellout.
wait.. the memory doctor can't remember anything?? Ben Cardall is not memory doctor but he can remember a ton of stuff! How is it that a memory doctor cannot remember much at all??
She’s 76. She’s had a very long career- I’m not surprised she can’t remember every quote, article book etc.
@@Truth1561 my pop is 89, he has a very clear recollection of many details including his childhood. But he's not posing as a memory doctor who, after 50 years of studying memory, should have a grip on memorizing techniques that even lay people have grasped 🙄
she's ( supposedly ) an expert on how memory works, not a expert at remembering things, its quite different.
She’s being paid 50k to create reasonable doubt, and that is all. He was using that rapid fire questioning to push her to the point that her true beliefs would be revealed. She lost that round 😊
@@Truth1561 Have you watched her direct testimony? Her ability to say “yes” or “no” was just fine at that point. Her memory magically worked better. If I thought she really had a memory issue I would feel bad for her, I know how frustrating that is.
16:12
This woman is gross
The point has been made- the witness clearly seeks out and enjoys participating in defense of high profile criminals of the worst sort. It is also clear her science can be used to discredit anyone. Her unwillingness to concede even major misjudgements- preferring to wordsmith around any admission. Having said that. The prosecutor is ‘beating a dead horse’. It is irritating and redundant. Let me be clear- he has negated her attempt to mitigate testimony of others. Move on and don’t get caught up in her wordsmithing games.
He needs to discredit her. So the more ammo the better.
Agree yet I'm enjoying Lewin ripping on her.
Loftus is a horrible witness
I really wanna see her testimony in these other cases cause she really comes off shady. She seems to have confused connecting with the jury with playing the jury. Lol she makes a face at the paltry sum she is getting paid in the case
OMG 😀
Money money money...
So she’s an expert in memory but can’t remember anything???
she's ( supposedly ) an expert on how memory works, not a expert at remembering things, its quite different.
Imagine if she is used on the Tom Girardi Case 😬
A memory expert who can’t remember …
EXPERT
Durst was a man dressed as a woman, wearing a a wig, And this expert.....
😂🤣😂 she can't stand being called MA'AM. Clearly bias.
100% especially how she says it when she was reading her previous court statements.
1st :)
Nobody cares
@@Moseyblu1 You care :) That's all that matters 🤙
This prosecutor is the biggest clown o them all. Can he ask one question that isnt an assumption or hypothetical or out o context. The court is so weak to allow this nonsense.
The “hypotheticals” are mostly things that actually happened ie Susan Berman telling people she helped cover a murder etc. I think you’re the 🤡 here