Indeed she an important witness but as a psycholigist her opinion is not very significant to a case of defamation, i think the TMZ guy is the most important as he explained that he got the video without AH smirks and all the information to dispatch the paparazi and even which side to capture. so AH allegedly wanted to damage JD and promote her ambasador for HCL Other important Witness is Waldman, because he has just to say two words "what i published in Twitter was asked by JD" and the case is close, but he keeps his mouth shut.
The dinner thing was even weaker. The legal team met her at Depp's house to interview her. The meeting went on for hours, and at one point Johnny Depp ordered food delivered to the house.
Elaine was at the UK trial and tried to re-enact that trial at the one in the US, but what Elaine forgets is the fact that it was Depp V The Sun, not Depp V Amber. The sun is a newspaper and doesn't have the same strict rules as a private person. Newspapers get off with a lot more than you or I would.
Dr curry is the kind of woman girls need to look up to and aspire to be. This is the true definition of a modern woman. I see so much of my sister in her. Just an unbreakable spirit.
I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK, and how long the time frame is for the appeal on this case may be. I'm not sure with the UK, the time limit is either 6 or 12 months to appeal after the hearing. I know that AH has opened up a can of angry worms with the way the laws work in Australia. Especially if she looses this case. She may be facing charges for Battery Domestic Violence, and that can happen with out having JH pressing charges, as Domestic violence in the way she had inflicted on JH, is up there with Attempted Murder and Murder, which are serious charges. I believe there is a 10 year window on which the Police in the state where the event took place, can act on these charges.
I would say, JD's witnesses are very professional and abviously not just so called "paid" witnesses. They're telling the truth which is why they're confident answering questions.
Reading her firm's website Elaine Bredehoft is a partner and apparently one of the top ten lawyers in Washington DC. Trouble is when your client lies to you from the get go, and runs the narrative from the start, it must be difficult to form any sort of case.
Honestly I feel like the lawyers may not be as bad as they appear, just they were equally as lied too until it was to late and are just trying to do their best with someone so manipulative being their client. Like with all the evidence shown it feels like they have no idea how to win such a 1 sided case
@@jewels3846 Except now, after the case is done, she is making the rounds on tv. Perpetuating the lies, the nonsense and the demonstration what a piss poor lawyer she is.
Elaine is a horrendous trial lawyer. This very video even demonstrates that and Legal Queen even brings it up. She keeps on asking questions she has not clue about. She is trying to "gotcha" on something that actually means fuck all and that is only this witness. Not to mention how she allows the witness to decide the pace and what and how to talk. Compare that to Johnny Depps whole legal team who had no problem controlling the witnesses. Not to mention how they act in court, as you saw in this video, one example being when Dr. Curry asked if she could elaborate on what her testimony actually meant and she responded with "No". That is an instant minus point from the jury, without a doubt. That is giving off the image of you trying to suppress the truth and the facts. Same thing can be said about the constant objection that Amber Heards team did throughout the whole trial. Elaine is as said, horrible trial lawyer. But don't take my word for it, just google about it or even check out all the lawtube reactions of the trial and you'll see how all these experts is absolutely horrified of Elaines performance. PS. Lets not even go into the whole post-trial bullshit she has been doing in media... Gotta get that 15 min fame I guess ds.
If she thinks that the Doctor is only there because she gave a favorable report then wouldn't also apply to Heard's witnesses as well? The implication being that they're being disingenuous and prejudiced.
It happens every time. An attorney with a weak case will often resort to asking an expert witness what their fee is as if THEY are not getting paid themselves. Happened a few times in this trial.
The objection that you didn't hear was a compound objection, the judge does repeat after he said. Also Amber's team almost always say "is that right?" or "have I read that right?" regarding a question they ask and if they have read any text based evidence
I loved watching your reaction and commentary, I felt the same way watching Elaine (Amber's defense attorney). I especially laughed out loud when she misread a statement and had to be corrected by the witness.
After you pointed out several do's and don't way of questioning by the lawyers, I'm sceptical of her (Elaine) capability or may be the made up stories from the beginning by AH turns out too complicated........
Another excellent breakdown and explanation. I wholly agree AH’ team did not know their case. They were inept and made themselves look I’ll prepared for a trial of this magnitude. I enjoyed your straight forward analysis of proceedings and what the aim of cross examination is about
There's an American lawyer who also said what you're saying of Elaine's line of questioning: 'Never, ever ask a question you don't know the answer to.' Apparently, Elaine is not a trial lawyer and has very limited court experience. She does mostly settlement from what I hear, and it shows. She's acting like an overly aggressive TV lawyer.
This thing about the last statement...when Dr. Curry was hired, her report went to the court. If she found for Amber in her tests...that evidence would still be there. She still would have been called. It was a stupid question.
What you may not be aware of is that in the US, Dr. Curry wasn't simply prepped by Depp's legal team, she would have also been available for Amber's team to depose and ask question of so every question the idiot attorney is asking could have been asked and answered prior to this happening in the court. It would appear that the idiot didn't bother to depose the Dr. prior to the trial... to me that was negligence on her part for not doing the proper prep.
Uh actually Dr Curry was deposed. They even speak about it in this vid with Elaine reading a transcript from said deposition (see "... I was just retained" and go backwards). What Elaine was getting at was trying to make Curry seemed biased in favor of Depp in front of the jury, therefore making her less credible to what her findings were regardless of wether that was the truth or not. Doesn't matter if Curry did the right thing, it all falls on wether or not the jury doubts her.
Watching from the US. Tried to go to your channel after seeing the video. A notice: says the channel is not available in my country. Odd. How’d the video get in my feed then?
@TheLegalQueen Omg! Your reaction is so amazing. And so educational from a professional point of view. You have done only 2 video on this trial. Could You please do the whole cross examination or even the whole trial videos in entirety? please. I would love to watch it.
I've just randomly come across your videos, I find you extremely eloquent and articulate and very much enjoyed your analysis of this portion of the case. I am a little biased as everything you said I've said myself 😁 can you react to the crazy doctors testimony please that was hilarious. He's amber heards witness!
*_WOOOOOW !!! Please make more videos analyzing the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp Trail !! This video is very good and it's easy to understand your explanations._*
Could you please also analyse Dr. Spiegel, the hashtag guy, Dr. Hughs, Elaine's rebuttal after the cross from Camille?!?!? That would be not only interesting but hilarious! 😜😂🤣🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Right though? About the UK court failing, at least in this instance, I mean. Significantly more relevant evidence has been put in front of the decision makers in the US court. I know there's something to be said for judicial efficiency, but I think there's even more to be said for judicial efficacy. The UK proceedings seem pretty shameful juxtaposed against what we're seeing playing out in the US. I know its not an apples to apples comparison (I realize the parties and the occurrences from which each of the UK/US claims arise are not the same). And I'm not even saying that one or the other party will win in the US case. But it seems like there's a better chance for truth and justice to prevail.
I didn't think anyone here came across as attacking or criticizing the creator/youtuber herself. But if I did, I can assure you it was unintentional. No disrespect to The Legal Queen.
whaaat, when I click on your channel it says "this channel not available in your country.".. I'm in the us.. but I can see your videos on recommended, dang wish I could subscribe!!
It must have been very difficult and frustrating for the defence team. They built their case on lies told them by Amber Heard. On the stand, she changed her stories, and contradicted precious evidence and testimony given by her or her team. She didn't take her take advise from her legal team and was observed not being nice to her attorneys.
Now that this case has happened I’m really questioning just how the hell he lost the British case. And now we know for a fact that we know she’s lying about everything, will she get in trouble for lying under oath and could the case be dropped as a mistrial do to said lying
The issue was mostly that he wasnt suing Amber but The Sun. And with public figures the burden is that ignorance/negligence generally isnt enough for defamation. There usually needs to be some level of malice that is proveable. The Sun had no reason/proof not to believe AH at the time. Plus since AH hadnt testified anywhere else about it, its hard to prove perjury. However I would be interested if they need or at least try to review that case with the fact that her testimonies in America prove perjury now.
Oh that's easy. Corrupt judge. He dismissed all audio evidence, a bunch of physical evidence, witnesses that were negative to Heard and the Sun, decided actually impossible claims were credible, Amber Heard's depositions and prior statements were kept from Johnny's council in pre-trial, and my favorite part, his son was employed by the same corporation that owned the defendant company in the case. He made up his mind before it ever started.
I think: Because Amber wasn't a party in the UK case, the evidence she gave to the Sun wasn't questioned - the Sun believed it to be true and so did the judge. And remember, most of the world believed that evidence right up until a few weeks ago when it was directly examined and torn apart in the US case. Also, the statement that JD was a wife beater only had to be substantially true - so as long as it could be shown that he probably hit her most of the 14 times, then the statement was true and the Sun was correct. Amber wasn't on trial in any way, so the fact that she hit or beat or abused or provoked or mentally tortured her husband regularly wasn't relevant to that case. But it seems that JD's legal team learned from the UK case to go after AH herself and not the newspaper that the article was published in. That way, she couldn't hide.
Elaine Bredehoft is so frustrating, how she hasn’t been fired I will never know, she has made so many errors and hasn’t prepared well at all. Even basics about names she continually gets wrong. #teamjohnny
Youre not supposed to lie to your lawyer, so they can best serve your interest. Blatantly amber cant keep any of her lies consistent which is making her team look so ill prepped & incompetent.
@@m0nk3yl0v3r Aside from the obvious lies, Elaine can’t even get witnesses names correct who are on the stand opposite her, even when corrected, she still gives them a different name, or even basic facts correct….Amica cream for one…it’s Arnica….the list goes on 🙄
@@m0nk3yl0v3r That don’t matter. A good lawyer would be able to keep some form of control over her client. Elaine through this entire case has been awful, from mocking the plaintiff’s voice, never turning her mic on, arguing with the judge infront of the jury. She’s a terrible lawyer.
😂😂😂😂 I think all the lies Amber has told. Has made it so difficult for her team to defend her. Maybe they are used to lying this hard. All they see is $$$$$$$$$
I really enjoy your commentary… I would LOVE for you to watch Elaine’s interviews on morning tv this morning… I think we all agree (I think?) that Elaine was subpar.
I feel like Amber's lawyer was trying to discredit the witness as an expert by casting aspersions upon her because she "had dinner and drinks with Johnny Depp" to make it seem as though the psychologist was biased... as if she went on a one-on-one date with Johnny Depp and so she agreed to say whatever Johnny Depp/his legal team wanted her to say negatively about Amber... they were trying really really hard to make it seem like it was some sort of quid pro quo... I remember that there was also something about the psychologist bringing something like donuts to a meeting, but it was her husband who showed up with the donuts for his wife, and she decided to share her donuts with those at the meeting... but Amber's lawyers were trying to make it seem like she was trying to seduce Johnny Depp with donuts or something... it was weird.
You should watch Amber's lawyer Mr. Rottenborn object to his own question. As well as Amber's attorney Elaine (same attorney in this segment), say she's trying and then just gives up completely. It is bizarre. Also, the TMZ guy that testifies is fantastic.
i think some the evidences that are now being shown in the viriginia courts were not accepted. furthermore there was extreme bias as the judge had some connections to the sun which Johnny was suing. And as per the judge, he believed amber because she donated the 7m settlement to charity. well turns out, she didn't
An extract of article in the Guardian 25 nov 2020 "Depp, 57, brought legal action over a column by the newspaper’s executive editor, Dan Wootton, (The Sun)which referred to “overwhelming evidence” that he had attacked his ex-wife Amber Heard, 34, during their relationship. In the initial ruling, earlier this month, Mr Justice Nicol dismissed Depp’s claim, saying NGN(The Sun) had proved what was in the article to be “substantially true”.He wasn't allowed to appeal and 'Judge Nicol determined that The Sun had successfully argued that it was reasonable for the paper to refer to Depp as a "wife-beater". Pathetic, or what?
My take on this was that either EB was trying to imply that Dr Curry had been essentailly on a date with JD, or that because she may have had a drink, that her judgement may have been impaired. Either way, it was underhand and even though I was initially watching this trial with no fixed opinion, it alienated me as a viewer.
Fantastic reaction! It's as enjoyable as it is enlightening to watch another country's legal expert weigh in on this case. On a side note...I was interested in looking into her other legal reactions & tried to access her RU-vid channel. Upon doing so, however, I was met with a message stating that "this channel is not available in [my] country" (I'm in the US). This is the first time I've ever been prevented from accessing a channel by RU-vid when videos from that channel were specifically recommended to me by RU-vid's algorithm. Strange to say the least. Does anyone know the reason for this? TIA
Today is 2022_0605 sunday; I stumbled upon this video (probably due to youtube algorithms, whatever) and thoroughly enjoy the assessments from the "mum", great job, and I encountered the same message you did i.e. "... channel not available .. in US"; so just to get around this, I set my VPN to U.K. (united kingdom), and "voila", I got access to the channel. Thought it might be helpful. Cheers.
I'm in the U.S., and the same thing happened to me, although if I click on my subscriptions and scroll down and click on The Legal Queen, I can see her videos that way. It's weird, I've never had this problem before, other than on the Olympic channel, or some other international sports channels. 🤔
If she does claim bankruptcy the court WILL take everything of value of hers and sell it in order to pay Johnny as much as they can get from what they take and sell off of hers, there's no way around it, if he pursues it that is what will happen and the court has closed the bankruptcy loophole for people doing this. Her best course of action is to just walk away, stay hidden and quiet and just hope all he does is walk away, carries on with his life and doesn't pursue her for the money, but I wouldn't after all she, the director, his assistant and Disney put him through, next I would be going after the director, his assistant and Disney for going along with his firing without any proof or any hearing to get his side because if they would have heard him out chances are things may have not this far rather adding to everything so it did get to this point, adding fuel to her fire. He should sue Disney for all the lost revenue he would have made them and him in future movies being that he's already announced that he would never work for Disney no matter what they offered, He should settle for no less than 3/4 of a BILLION minimum if not for ALL rights to the Disney franchise, OWN DISNEY!!!!!!!!
I tried finding more of your videos but YT said I was not allowed to see your channel’s homepage. I enjoyed your reaction and sad I can’t see other videos.
This channel is not available in my country so I can't view the video archive. That's unfortunate because I enjoyed the 2 videos that popped up in the youtube recommendations area.
Dr. Curry and Camille are the True Heroes 👍 👌 🙌 Johnny Depp has the best of the best legal defense they are outstanding 👏 👌 🙌 Johnny Depp has hid life back because of his defense team No matter what the jury says!!!!!
Compound objections relate to the question being improperly multi-faceted. If sustained, the attorney will split the questions...which sometimes present the opportunity for another valid objection based on relevance ect. Attorneys sometimes attempt to attach an improper question to a proper one.
I enjoy your input and explanations of whats being said and it appears that AH team doesnt have any genuine questions to ask other than questions trying to make the witness look bias and not creditworthy . Is that true.
That's one thing I've been saying since the verdict. That divorce agreement should be nul and void. It was done under blackmail .. 'You give me what I want or else' ... well the 'or else' didn't work so that agreement IMO, is not worth anything that it's written on. He should not have to pay a single penny and he should keep his house, penthouses, cars, island, and anything else he owned before she got in the picture because as far as I'm concerned she only owned a few things and a beat up '68 Mustang, that Johnny paid to get overhauled on the TV show Overhaulin with the mega talented Chip Foose. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AP3iXlwzNoo.html BTW, the little terrier dog Boo, was Johnny's mother's dog so why in the blazing he!! should she be asking for that too. She had it in him from the beginning and I'm afraid for Johnny as in one of her love letters, she wrote that they were joined 'at the hips' so. anyone who says that really mean 'if I can't have you, no one else will'. So what does that mean?
I think that Elaine isn’t really a court lawyer but perhaps one that do deposition in the office. She wanted her 15 min of fame 😂. Dr Curry spotted very well AH and AH lawyers really didn’t know how to do it. Especially if they heard the entire audios which isn’t hard to find.
According to dr. Shannon Curry herself, she was so nervous before taking the stand. So much as she almost had a panick attack. . She, as you say, seem very confident... We now know she wasnt that at all. That speaks to how professional she is !!! Btw: After she was finished she was on the floor, curled up like a baby.. Her own words... Thank you for your take on this. I would choose you as my lawyer if I ever would need one :)
She's old and with old age should come experience and wisdom..she should've known better to accept client like her..to me..it's all about money and fame and with that reason..I have no sympathy for her..at all..she deserves what's coming to her.
@@arshatarifin7442 she's a litigator, not used to a lot of trials. I do feel bad for her, you bring in money for your entire firm, she was delivered a golden goose. Plus amber is very charming when she wants to be, I'm guessing she sold them on her lies and the poor buggers are finding most of this out as they went. She is just doing her job
@@freebirddee2620 I certainly wouldn't take any clients, based on my knowledge and experience, that would jeopardise my ethical principles..this principles would apply to any job, not just lawyers but one wouldn't care if greediness comes into play..and that's how I see her.
