Part 4 AIBU to keep this discussion on Amber and Jonny going?

[ENoeuf]

Just in case we run out on part 3

I'm sort of playing catch up so I'm still watching Mr Hicksville. Could anyone tell me what the original claim was over what happened and who made it? Was the trailer supposed to be trashed or something?

I get it @TiddyTidTwo 🙂

So ambers only credible witness left standing from yesterday is the hand doctor.

@LetitiaLeghorn I think this is where they were all staying in the desert, jd got angry about A being close to a female flight attendant (all on drugs) and told her to stay away from his woman and said something about how much force it takes to break a wrist etc - AH version

@LetitiaLeghorn also totally trashed the trailer and sexually abused AH.

Oh I see, sorry @ENoeuf 😁

He is also an expert in the ethics of psychiatry. He has written papers on it.
So his testimony is essentially about how Dr Speigal (the arrogant guy yesteday) violated the ethics of psychiatry

... except it seems he was polite and kind and did not do this!

Got to love a 🇬🇧 doctor, calm, collected and just talks facts

@minou123 oohhhhh that makes sense ok. Does that apply to JD doctor diagnosing AH or AH doctor diagnosing AH. Frustrating as I'm on camera and already look dodgy texting to one side 😂

Huge difference between jealousy and envy. I wish he had been allowed to continue.

Jealousy of James Franco when the jury already know he might have had good reason. It does feel like amber is losing her chance of a fair trial by some crazy witnesses and lawyers directions.

I'm now picturing him and Chris whitty, and can't decide who I'd like to hear "next slide please" more 🤣

Haha object. He is witty isn't he 😂

Yeah well Bouls they are her witnesses. Tbf they sound ok until cross examination

He's a fantastic witness! Speaks calmly, especially when compared to yesterdays dude. Also rips into yesterdays testimony.. that Dr may have screwed his own career!

Why did they make the UK dr clarify that rule again when the other pysch yesterday said clearly he was making observations and giving his opinion, not diagnosis? What is the point? It can only mislead the jury, which seems to be main tactic of JDs team-misleading

Ha ha ha 😁

No, the other 2 forensics psychiatrist actually met and assessed AH.
The ethics rule is you cannot diagnose someone unless you have met them.

So as these other 2 doctors met AH, they are not violating ethics.
Whereas Dr Speigal never met JD, so should not be diagnosising or even giving a professional opinion about him.

I think, and I don't know for certain because they have only alluded to it in court, but....

Before the trial AH team presented a motion to demand JD meet and be assessed by psychiatrist doctor.
The judge said No.

However, JD team presented a motion demanding AH meet and be assessed by psychiatrist doctor.
The judge said Yes and AH had to attend the assessments with Dr Curry and Dr Hughes.

There may seem to be an imbalance and "unfairness" of why AH has been formally assessed, but JD hasn't. But that's what the judge ruled.

Because misc AH doctor somewhat took the piss out of the ethical rules, cherry picking to suit AH. This doctor abides by all the rules. That's the difference

So this psychiatrist is spot on though on a serious note.

You can not diagnose someone without even meeting them or speaking to them. And these big personality disorders take many hours of assesments and time.

Narcissistic personality disorder is not just being a narcissist. It's completely different. Everyone is naturally a bit of a narcissist as much as we'd like to deny it, but we can all be selfish, dissmisive of others, jealous and so on. But NPD is seriously a different kettle of fish.

I have professionally supported one person who had NPD and believe me when I say they genuinely struggle to function in society. It's debilitating for the person.

The other disorder I have also had experience with is Grandiose delusions and that was an eye opener!!

I guess because Dr Spiegel was there as an expert witness and giving his "professional opinion" which isn't allowed if they haven't examined them/got their permission

@ENoeuf
I think AH has testified to two very similar occurrences when JD threatened to break the wrists of young women who were getting touchy feely with her under the influence of MDMA. She said it happened with a friend at the Hicksville Trailer Park (friend not produced as witness afaik) and then with an air hostess on a flight to Russia. I believe the air hostess is listed as a rebuttal witness for later in the week.

From my experience my gut is telling me who the narc is. I can smell it through the screen.

He was not just "giving his opinion" he was clearly stating JD had NP traits, and that he had enough of them to warrant a diagnosis.

Dr Spiegel really did come across as the most unethical psychiatrist I have ever met. You can't sit and start spouting what traits people have in your professional opinion because of text messages, media appearances and playing the role of a pirate.

He also went on to basically say he diagnosis people all the time off notes!! I think that was more shocking to me! Genuinely the guy was a quack Dr.

Oh sorry @KTheGrey I was trying to remember - it was a camp fire I was thinking of. Tricky as I'm also trying to show interest in Meeting Content 😂

According to those watching the jurors Dr speigel didn’t go down well anyway. Dr shaw probably only needs to say ignore Dr Speigel and everyone would nod and agree.