Part 5 AIBU to want 15 minutes fame? (depp v heard)

[ENoeuf]

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4554620-part-4-aibu-to-keep-this-discussion-on-amber-and-jonny-going

continuing our unhealthy obsession 😂

They haven’t left hughes enough time so it coming across rushed and like she’s flustered. Which isn’t helping.

This is more about her v dr curry than AH, I feel.

Can someone remind me what the PTSD thing is about? What are they trying to prove?

And round and round and round and round.

I used to work somewhere that had clients that needed forensic assessments for legal court issues (criminal court not civil). Courts would order forensic assessment. We (as the healthcare team) would have independent forensic psychiatrists do the assessment. They would be given whatever documents they requested and then do interviews with the client and whomever else they felt they needed to talk to. It wasn't biased in any way on either side and both the prosecutor and defense were given the same report. They could still interpret the reports differently but there has to be a better way in these cases to have a less biased response. You can use tests and combinations of tests and scales that you want to use or not use to make your case. Also if you have done psychological testing more than once, people know the validity scales and questions and can skew those results too. And scales like TSI - that she is using and speaking to are self report. A few are self report which doesn't have a lot of weight on their own.

Im neutral. I didn't like her gender bias initially when she testified.
I didn't warm to dr curry I think she was a bit weird about the meal rather than just being really clear. But anytime someone starts being defensive etc I get put off them.

@Midlifemusings I agree the court should appoint someone and check any prior connections to the immediate team. But that would cut down on capitalism and could reduce choice by not allowing a fair trial maybe?
But having my paid expert v your paid expert is pointless and comes down to acting/appearance/personability

Given her gender bias that only Amber can be the victim, her bias in the assessment is going to be fairly strong.

I do think Dr Hughes became Ambers therapist rather than a forensic psychologist. But as I said before the only psychologist I liked was Dr Shaw

Her tone and attitude are so confrontational for an expert witness. It is like a personl grudge with Dr Curry and how dare she say that about my personal client / friend Amber. She is really invested in Amber and as an expert witness that over familiarity is a bit strange.

Thats a good point, she hasn't mentioned Dr Shaw, or claimed anything he said was wrong

The PCL 5 is a 20 question self report measure. Absolutely not substantial enough for an actual diagnosis and no connection at all to what triggered it or how long it has been there. It takes about 5 minutes to complete.

Definitely. She's made no secret of the fact that she doesn't think men can be victims. If I was a juror, I'd completely ignore her testimony due to this.

Oh this is not good, Dr curry as preempted everything.

Bit surely that's one tool used in the context of an assessment? My son was formally diagnosed and the actual questions weren't that lengthy.

I could not be an expert witness . My anxiety is so high and I'm not being quizzed!

It sounds like the issue he was arguing was that in that initial assessment (of 11 tests - not all about PTSD), she said her diagnosis of PTSD was based on the PCL 5. She had spoken to the gold standard for diagnosing but didn't use it herself initially. The PCL Is most often used to measure changes in symptoms and filled out by patients in the waiting room before each therapy session type thing. It is also used in research because it is so quick. It is more of a screening tool or monitoring tool. Often also used to see if there is a need to assess PTSD symptoms further. It can - if someone scores quite high be used for a provisional diagnosis, for example so someone can access resources while awaiting a full assessment. The cut off is flexible as to what score would consitute PTSD because it just isn't really meant to be used that way. Without knowing what other PTSD specific tools she used in that initial assessment, it is hard to know how heavily she relied on this tool. For a forensic psychiatry assessment, it would be a weak tool. Just not really what it was intended for. and so many better PTSD tools out there.

Not sure what to think about today, so there was no claims a phone cut his finger, so what was all the business with the decorative wall phone and proving it wasn’t a bottle, metadata guy needs to go to specsavers and they rushed Dr Hughes as they left no time and cross wasn’t good for her. They must be down to minutes now.

I think AH team are doing better than I thought they would.
By my very terrible calculations I think they have roughly 30 mins left.

I imagine (I don't know it) it was used as part of the assessment. It all seems a bit google tbh with some of the cross on both sides. I imagine their expert witnesses advise them what to ask though.

Amber? Yikes. Five mins with Elaine and five hours with JD team

I really wasn't expecting them to call her back

Shes speaking truth here about the madness of weirdos on social media.

I don't think she needed to add that bit about Jonny - the weirdo stuff was really powerful.

The initial assessment though should be done though an open lens - not through a lens of lets do an assessment to try and diagnose her with PTSD. So she said she used 11 measures - as an initial, just met you assessment for a forensic assessment - that should have been very broad to get an idea of key areas of concern. Using the PCL 5 early on as part of a broad assessment to screen to see if that was something that needed further assessment makes sense. But then from that initial assessment using that tool to diagnose her doesn't. It either means she only looked for PTSD and already knew what diagnosis she wanted or she did a broader screening / initial assessment but then used the tool in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Without knowing the 11 tests she used, it is all just speculation!

Now she's on about ptsd not the impact of Waldman

I think she should stop mentioning Jonny

Ah back on? This is a mistake.....

She was smirking yesterday we all saw it!!