2 Burst results for "Spector Martha Stewart"
Jury Duty: The Trial of Robert Durst
"spector martha stewart" Discussed on Jury Duty: The Trial of Robert Durst
"In order to understand her position. Let me out a little more. If i believe it. Defend is innocent. If i believe his innocence with all my heart and soul that i probably can't help but become an advocate of sorts. Is that something you agree with that. That's something that sounds like something i might have said. Yes so ma'am is not true. Despite what you've said that you're neutral and unbiased that you favor the defense side of in my experience in criminal cases. I have testified on behalf of defense. The defense typically in civil cases it can be either side. But that's because it's usually the prosecution that has a a witness who's got a memory issue in the people vs. Jackson loft admitted that she almost always testifies on behalf of the defense again. Charles bagley reads deputy. Da lewin and alexis. Not bartolo reads. Dr loftus you said you've testified. Roughly in one hundred criminal cases one time for the prosecution right correct. Would you agree. Then man that you're at least you're history has been almost exclusively on the defense side in terms of court testimony yes to reinforces inference. That loftus is biased. Lewin asked her about one of her books entitled witness for the defense separate. That's the title of one of my books. Yes you would agree that. Dr newsday portion in that book where that exact quote than i just said where you say i'd never met a prosecutor who's happy to see me in the courtroom is out right. I just don't recall that or or the context in which i'm on instead of one thousand nine hundred ninety one when that book was published. So i'm going to read it out loud for you. The prosecutor was tall and thin with a long straight knows. That's the bottom of page one. Forty seven top. One forty eight sideburns. That look like they were trimmed with a ruler and fingernails neatly clipped in chinese. If they've been buffed good morning said smile definitely forced. I'd never met a prosecutor was happy to see me in the courtroom. That's what you wrote correct. I well that was in that book from nineteen ninety-one a description of something that happened in one of the trials that i was involved in this so as an unbiased simply scientists wanting to get to the truth why on earth would a prosecutor quote never met. A prophecy was happy to see me in the courtroom. What did you mean by that. What i may have meant. It was nine hundred ninety one so this is just a speculation. Is that typically. I am called live with defense and in a criminal case and so Probably prosecutors are not that happy when i come into the courtroom to testify behalf. The defense which i think is true of you lou and asked loftus about another common element in the trials. Where she has previously testified. So i want to ask. Mr chose nov spent a whole lot of time. Going over your cv. There's going to be no awards for any organizations associated with metoo movement. Is that correct. Well well see none so far right no not so far you've been met with protests around the country for individuals from the me too movement who have a problem with some of the things you've said in some of the rapist and child molesters that you testified or correct certainly people have Been distressed with some of the unpopular people whose cases i may have consulted on or actually testified in. It has distressed. Some people lewin then questioned or motivation for testifying on behalf of another notorious. Defendant disgraced film. Mogul harvey weinstein. Some students or someone got upset that i would dare to testify for someone who's unpopular right. Dare to test for some unpopular world. A whole lot of money correct. It was not a whole lot of money. I agreed to Provide expert testimony for the defense I was away from my office for four days. And i agreed to a fee of fourteen thousand dollars in ma'am no one four she to take that case correct forced to now later liu and went through some of the other defendants on whose behalf. She's worked starting with a particularly notorious client from early in her career. Let's talk about your past client list. Who's ted bundy ted. Bundy was tried for an aggravated kidnapping in the mid-nineteenth. Seventy s Before anybody knew. He was the ted bundy and i was an expert witness in that trial nineteen seventies in utah. So it's your position with my question very carefully that at the time of that trial. Dr there was no discussion of ted bundy. Being a serial killer with with victims in washington at the time at the time ted bundy was the first year law student at the university of utah law school. It was accused of this Attempted kidnapping lou and then went through more of dr loftus. His past clients whose jerry sandusky. He's accused of molesting students in conjunction with the penn state scandal with accused or convicted of dozens of counts of molestation and the he was. He was convicted. Yes you worked on. His case primarily was working on behalf of the penn state administrators who were accused of knowing. And maybe not reporting things that they may or may not have known and then after their case was resolved. I did consult on the sandusky case. I asked you a very simple question. Did you represent jerry sandusky. The answer would be yes consulted on the case. Yes bill cosby. I consulted on that case to harvey weinstein. I actually testified in the weinstein trial. Did anybody force you. Dr take those cases. Nobody forced me no up in taking these cases. Did you make any determination or not to what the charges against these men were true that that is not my role. That's the jury's role to take in all the information and make that decision lewin tried to drill down on loftus his motivation for testifying in these cases the individuals that i just named ted bundy. Hillside strangler timothy mcveigh oj. Simpson the menendez brothers. Michael jackson phil. Spector martha stewart. Jerry sandusky bill cosby harvey weinstein. Do actually leave that. The individuals that i just named were victims of either false memories bad identification your areas of study. It's not my position to judge whether they're guilty or not but there were memory issues in those cases running and you were happy to take the check correct. I actually didn't get paid in all those cases. So let me ask it the clients that i just named was it your quest for fame desire for money or both neither.
Jury Duty: The Trial of Robert Durst
"spector martha stewart" Discussed on Jury Duty: The Trial of Robert Durst
"People forget shorts things at allegedly happened even develop false memories ted bundy hillside strangler timothy mcveigh. Oj simpson the menendez brothers. Michael jackson phil. Spector martha stewart. Jerry sandusky bill cosby harvey weinstein. Do you actually leave at the individuals. That i just need victims of either false memories or bad identification. If false information is incorporated into question the person adopted into their memory. Absolutely yes so. Dr loftus have you and i met for welcome back to season. Two of jury duty the trial of robert durst. I'm your host carryanne. solis. I'm joined by my co host brittany bookbinder tomorrow. We will release episode covering the third day of robert durst testimony today. We focus on the defenses. Only other live witness. Dr elizabeth loftus is a memory expert with an extensive resume both in terms of her professional accomplishments as well as the number of high profile criminal cases in which she has testified as an expert witness. She is generally called to cast doubt on the memories of witnesses. Why was dr loftus called to testify in this case. And why did the defense team choose her. As the opening act for robert durst himself in this episode will speculate on the possible reasons behind calling loftus and examine how effective that strategy has proven to be. We'll also explore the subtext of deputy. Da john lewis extensive cross examination of this witness. That's coming up after the break. Want the high stakes stuff. The believe the hype stuff criminally. Good emotional roller coaster can't believe what you're seeing stuff you know the good stuff. Amc plus has it all obsessed with the walking dead dive deeper than ever with the walking dead origins narrated by the cast before the new season. Premiers on august. Fifteenth to be chilled. The core set sail with the north water. A thrilling arctic. Drama starring jack o'connell and colin farrell plus uncover gripping true crime content ad free and on demand expect the epoch with amc plus sign up today at amc plus dot com mc plus only the good stuff during their opening. The defense team offered this context for loftus testimony. She is prepared to testify this out the workings of you in the memory effects of suggestion on memory mechanism creating false memories and the characteristics of false memories and review materials. In this case moreover she would identify some suggested activities. That occurred in this case. Such as leading questions with people are being interviewed outside research including media including the jigs. She will testify trial regarding her studies. You memories can be changed by things that people are told by other people in other words. She's gonna talk about how ideas and suggestions other post event. Information had modify people's memories people. Forget the story. Things at allegedly happened or even develop false memories and reese can be contaminated misinformation from leading questions media reports and other witnesses. False recollections. While sam reese to be expressed with a great deal emotion and the belief that they're true as time passes in memory is getting weaker. Weaker you become even more vulnerable. Host yvette. fish as we've reported robert durst long-held version of events that he was not in los angeles at the time of berman's murder and that he did not write. The so-called cadaver note changed shortly before this trial began. He now admits that he was in los angeles and did in fact write the cadaver note however since his narrative is uncorroborated by any other witnesses. The jury had to wait for durst testimony which is expected to continue into next week to learn his complete story for the night that burma was murdered. Aside from presenting the jury with dirt zone words. It appears that the defense team strategy is to cast doubt on the deluge of evidence presented by the prosecution that points to dir skilled thus the defense called an expert witness whose role in this trial seems to be to impugn the memories of those who have testified to the damning statements made by both the defendant and the victim in this case on tuesday august third. Dr elizabeth lofter's took the stand and sad for close to seven hours over four different days on direct examination. Defense attorney david. Czeslaw asked loftus about her extensive curriculum vitae including her list of honorary degrees czeslaw. Then got to the heart of his examination. His questions seemed to take direct. Aim at the prosecution. In this case. Six to eight people are interrogated by the search person and they say the same thing that's still indicate a false memory. It can if if so six eight people are subjected to the same. Maybe problematic Interviewing or post amount suggestion some kind of suggestive information name. They might all end up believing something. That isn't accurate. It's important to note that the defense and prosecution cannot refer to specific witnesses or testimony when questioning this memory expert witness but chestnuts line of questioning begs the question. Who are the six to eight people that he is referencing. The defense team's narrative suggests that chasnoff is taking aim at the memories of a handful of susan berman's close friends who testified about information they had regarding susan's involvement in the alleged cover-up of kathy durst. Death czeslaw continued. If false information is incorporated into a question in the person adopted into their memory absolutely. Yes you explain how that works well. That's the kind of thing that we've actually done. In some of my experiments we incorporate false information into a question and we look to see what people do with that suggestive questions. So you show people say a simulated accident where a car goes through a yield sign before the accident and ask a leading question like did another car past the red car. When it was at the intersection with a stop sign that can cause many people to now believe in remember they saw a stop sign instead of yields time. That's just one experimental example of how a question that has embedded in some misinformation can be adopted by people. Both the question and answer appear to insinuate that the prosecution might have implanted false memories in witnesses by asking leading questions but who specifically among susan's friends is chestnut referencing. Could it be nick shaven. Nick you also mentioned that susan said to you that bob had confided in her to more easily set up an alibi. Do you remember telling the police. That is yes amused fourteen years now. We're not saying whether this is necessarily true or not. We're trying to figure out what susan told you that. Somehow she helped with an alibi and early. Yeah yeah yeah. I would say about tasks and again. It's not that year saying you believe to.