"That's not speculation" Proceeds to say it again, literally starts with the word 'if', realizes she messed up, tries to fix it, nothing comes to mind, by this point she has been awkwardly quiet for more than 5 seconds, she needs to physically lean on something, 'Damn, this is beyond repair at this point' realization, gives up.
Even worse, there was such an easy solution. Ask Dr. Curry if she had ever testified negatively toward someone who hired her. Which is a sleazy question in the first place, but not against any rules of the court. It wouldn't mean that Dr. Curry never had a negative opinion about a client, only that she didn't testify about it. Since no attorney would use a witness who undermined their case, the only answer Dr. Curry could give was no, she had never testified negatively about a client. It automatically implies a pattern of bias, which would imply bias in this case. Even if no bias existed, now or ever. Elaine had a chance to blow a hole in Dr. Curry's testimony, but was too inept to use it.
"That's not speculation" is not legal grounds. I never understood Elaine saying, "I disagree!" Nor did I understand when Rottenborn would audibly scoff like a teenage girl.
Still speculation. The witness is not a lawyer and can't speculate what a lawyer would do with her evidence, whether it be negative or positive for the client. The right question would be: "Have you ever testified negatively toward someone who hired you?" The witness doesn't need to speculate about her own actions, and the answer could be used to suggest a history of bias.
How can a lawyer in a court of law who just ascribed their personal opinion about why a witness is there providing testimony, be surprised when the objection of speculation is raised? It's onviously speculative on the attorneys part and to suggest it isn't is just plain wrong. For me this displays a significant level of incompetence.
"please can we hurry this along, we don't want to waste the courts time. I'm going to talk over you to make sure we don't waste time" proceeds to spend 30 seconds repeatedly trying to think of a question
She wouldn’t put her OWN expert on the stand if that expert said Amber was a liar so this is a fruitless line of questioning and proves she has nothing else.
Unfortunately for Elaine, it ended up looking incompetant - and scummy - so even if she got answers out of Dr Curry, people would still be focused on the aggressive, underhanded stumbles rather than "Oh no, Dr Curry obviously brainwashed Amber Heard using chemical-covered muffins". I'm not a lawyer, and I understand it was a high-pressure environment where everyone knew the world was watching, and that it's probably not X or Y lawyers field of expertise - but it's still entertaining to look back on these epic fails from time-to-time. Dr Curry is awesome.
@connord999 Karen (Elaine) said to the judge "It Goes To Bias Your Honour" then the judge said "I Sustain The Objection, Next Question" then Karen (Elaine) said "Okay Alright"
The moment in this trial that best sums up just how useless she was, has to be when she was questioning Amber and Depp’s team continually had to object due to hearsay. They had to do it so many times that eventually her lawyer paused like she does here, and can then be heard muttering “I’m trying” under her breath. A overwhelming sign of utter desperation.
Man I used to think you had to be smart to become a lawyer. Honestly, I could argue better than Elaine. Ok I might not know "the law" but how hard can it be to learn if these numbnuts passed the bar?
What she was trying to get at would be the bias of the expert witness because she's being paid to be favorable. Most experts charge the same regardless of whether they're actually used in trial. That's the point of a retainer. You pay them for their work even if that work isn't usable to you or isn't in your favor
The same case can also be made for every expert that Heard's team brought to the stand, they wouldn't have been there if they weren't in favor of Amber. However the nature of the question begged for a speculated answer, because it contained a hypothetical component.
How is that not speculation... Also that wasn't the only time she talked back to the judge. She does it again during the cross examination when camille objects to all her BS for valid reasons and gets those objections sustained
@@Pinkles666 I do sympathize with AH legal team . They literally had nothing to work with. But it was obvious to everyone they have nasty characters too .
@@merykhan97well they should not have taken the case to try get 15mins in the spotlight. A 2year old can tell there all lying through there teeth. The only thing I’d say was true is that amber turd didn’t tell her legal the truth from the start, regardless they all make me physically sick to my stomach #justiceformen #justbecsuseyouhaveavaginadosentmeanyourtellingthetruth
I mean Elaine's point is she wouldn't have been called in as a witness by Depp's team if her evaluations weren't favourable, which may be true, but it is neither ground for accusing her of being corrupt (Which Elaine pretty much did), nor is it completely true, if her evaluation was favourable to Heard, then her team would have called for the witness.
Exactly and with the little thing called disclosure Amber Turd’s team would be privy to her findings and could subpoena her into testifying for them. They were just looking for excuses because their client was a reprehensible piece of shit.
Look, I know this is an old clip and the world has moved on from this trial, but Holy shit, I was NOT expecting that ending. Oh my God! I haven't been caught off guard and laughed my ass off that hard in months. I don't know why it struck me so hard, but my funny bone was annihilated. Well done!!! I tip my hat.
She was rude and ridiculous throughout the trial, but to be fair, interrupting the witness on cross is totally fine if they aren't answering your question or going on a tangent or a number of other reasons. Whenever it's an unjustified interruption opposing counsel can object to have the witness give their full answer. There was at least one occasion of that in the trial, but I don't remember which one it was.
@@kayjay7585 Agreed, it pissed me off too but she's within her rights. I think we are just already primed to think Elaine is confused or has nothing (sorry to be blunt, but....)
@@kayjay7585 but asking every opponent witness the same ridiculous question "you are here because of 15 minutes of fame" and arguing with the judge, not turning on her microphone even after probably 100 times said by the judge "Ms. Bredehoft you have to turn your microphone on" and giving 2 horrible interviews just the day after she and her liar client lost the trial. these are some reasons which made Karen (Elaine) look ridiculous, she was as rude, aggressive and disrespectful to the court proceedings just like her malicious liar client
@@vanessak69 she took a liar as her client though I'm not blaming her for that because that's her job but saying pointless things in the court like "those officers were not DV specialists" and then the judge saying her "get your facts straight Ms. Bredehoft" and arguing with the judge for no reason even after the judge sustained the same objection 3 times, these are some reasons why the whole world hate her
@@Roy3.16 My late father was a lawyer and if I heard one lecture 1000 times, it was that everyone is entitled to representation. Were Elaine and her team far away from a slam dunk (and maybe thought it would pan out differently given what happened in the UK?) Yes. Did they have an unsympathetic client? No comment. Were they also hopelessly and utterly outlawyered by Johnny's team? Also yes. She tried her best to do the job she was hired for and that is how our system should work, but it ended up making it clear her team kind of had nothing.
I LOVE thé girl Im thé audience behind the lady in red! Her reaction is so funny! I seriously can’t imagine an attorney performing any worse than this moonbat! Amber must’ve had a Groupon for their firm.
@@thomascavanaugh5458 she is actually a very good attorney, it's just Depp's team are on another level and shut her down a lot. I'm sure a lot of other lawyers would find it very hard to beat Elaine
@@miorioff Elaine rarely goes to court which is why she is horrible at trial. Her normal strategy is to wear down the opposing team prior to trial. Didn’t work in this case. Depp wanted a trial.
@@rideordis810 Correct - her case record shows she's an excellent pre-trial attorney; her performance for Heard in the court shows she is a very, very, very poor trial attorney. I accept Heard's case was flimsy but even so, bloody hell she was poor.
@@rideordis810 oh my god, that would make so much sense. It’s clear she’s used to dealing with impressionable people, her equals (lawyers) at most. So, when bombarded by counters from competent professionals and presenting her case to a judge she can’t simply scare off, she’s completely off her game.
