CA v. Robert Durst Murder Trial Day 40 - Cross Exam of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus - Memory Expert Pt 4

With the release of The Jinx Part 2 let's take a look back at the Robert Durst Trial. LIVE TRIAL: CA v. Robert Durst Murder Trial - Murder of Friend Susan Berman
Robert Durst stands trial for the 2000 murder of friend Susan Berman. The trial began just before the pandemic in early 2020 and was halted two weeks in. The restart happened on May 17, 2021, with the same jury panel.
The defendant’s wife Kathleen McCormack Durst went missing in 1982. Evidence and testimony would show that Robert Durst killed her, the prosecutor said. The defendant allegedly told Berman it was an accident and asked her for help. She served as his alibi.
Berman, 55, was shot execution-style at her Beverly Hills home in 2000, and the prosecution suggested that it was because of what she knew about Kathleen’s death and disappearance. As defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin would have it, however, Durst is innocent. His client only came across the body, panicked, and fled, he maintained.
#RobertDurst #RobertDurstTrial
Law&Crime Network is Now on KZbinTV! Find the Addon at
tv.youtube.com...
You may already have access to the Law&Crime Network! Find out here: lawandcrime.co...
No access? That’s okay! Subscribe direct to Law&Crime here: lawandcrime.co...
Watch Us Live On Peacock Daily Free: www.peacocktv....
Click on Channels & Scroll Down to Law & Crime Network

[@VictoriaGirlBC]

The defence lawyers are so unprofessional- objecting without cause, interrupting the prosecutor with personal comments, shaking their heads. Very disrespectful behaviour inside of a courtroom. This witness has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY.

[@amanda-uj9vr]

And why does the Judge allow this??? Mind boggling

[@hellok7877]

The witness swollen head leaves no space in the room

[@jennifermariejoyce]

I think Windham is essentially doing the same thing Lewin is with this cavalcade of immoral broken toy liars, he’s allowing DeGuerin and Chesnoff enough rope to hang themselves. I don’t think I’ve ever seen attorneys who are this insecure and panicked. Also… Durst paid this woman 50k to basically burn his case to the ground. She has -1000% credibility 😊

[@brianeaton9046]

She keeps looking at the jury and smirking. What a psycho.

[@genkestrel7254]

And every time she pulls a smug expression and the judge overrules defence's objection she looks even more ridiculous

[@theheadshot45]

God he is SOOOOOO good at picking apart her bs.

[@twocents7495]

How sickening that she made a good living weaving bs

[@kk3940]

She looks like she’s about to puke or cry or both. I think she’s realizing this gravy train is over for her- who would possibly hire her as an “expert” witness if they’ve seen this?!!

[@chapster85]

This woman is awful. I'd like to see how easy it is to implant traumatic memories as she claims. If you look at the list of defendants that hire her, it's pretty alarming.

[@eviea4774]

She keeps looking at the jury with a smirk on her face! What’s with that? PROBABLY trying to get the jury on her side! 😬 PERHAPS that’s POSSIBLE!

[@marilyndresser2377]

I noticed that and found it very off-putting.. It reminded me of the smirks of Jodi Arias which were very offensive in their covert hostility and manipulation. I hope it doesn’t work.

[@daniellago9410]

She is trying to deride the excellent questions by the strong prosecution

[@VictoriaGirlBC]

I’m pretty sure the jury find her as repulsive as I do. Shyster hired gun.

[@twocents7495]

M P yes!!! repulsive! I was suffering being unable to recall specific word

[@toddsin8611]

Whoever picked this thumbnail needs a raise. Gold. 🤪

[@ezeddiev]

Reminded me of Jack "the joker" Nicolson

[@reneesajous6333]

Masterclass on cross examination from Lewin. Wow!!!

[@Kim-Berly200]

Right😁

[@maisam.1663]

This whole cross is so exhausting but can't stop watching 🖤🙈

[@ezeddiev]

Her defense testimony was just over a hour, John "the witnesses shredder" Lewin tore her to bits for over 6hrs, if i was Bob i would want a refund on her, big mistake by them getting this witness. I think every witness the defense called has been impeached except maybe one, who's testimony was also show by him to be flawed.

[@jennifermariejoyce]

@@ezeddiev Do you remember which one you saw as the least impeachable? I need to rewatch.

[@ezeddiev]

@@jennifermariejoyce tom bevel, crime scene reconstruction expert , both defense and prosecution witness .

[@jennifermariejoyce]

@@ezeddiev Thanks!!

[@chandraross1506]

She is totally bias, and should be excluded as any sort of expert.

[@Sbw1976]

Yes, experts are paid by either the defense or prosecution- paid a lot, and they are questioned by both sides and it’s up to the jury to decide if they’re credible. All trials in the US work this way.

[@MV-se1ke]

Lewin has completely discredited her in my opinion

[@Sbw1976]

@@MV-se1ke I agree w you. If I were on the jury I wouldn’t take what she says as credible

[@chandraross1506]

@@MV-se1ke definitely

[@chrispaul6290]

I disagree. On direct exam, Dr. Loftus just gave an explanation of the research on memory and answered hypothetical questions from that perspective. The testimony applies to all witnesses in the trial, whether for the state or for the defense. If she were biased, she would answer differently. And by the way, there are thousands of psychologists who could give this same sort of testimony just because they are familiar with the literature. You don't have to like Dr. Loftus, or the defendant, but don't defame her.

[@bettyboop-xg6jo]

So, 3 people died much earlier than necessary. Durst was every time involved. Simple. There, fixed it for ya.

[@jennifermariejoyce]

New outfit, same old self aggrandizing hostile witness.

[@dicktipton5912]

Ma'am loftus is pure evil. What a waste of space and oxygen.

[@chriswalsh9834]

Was this trial slated to last FOREVER??

[@MV-se1ke]

Sure seems that way! At least Lewin is making Durst and all his cronies suffer on the stand with his relentless and fantastic questioning 😊

[@bordeauxhouse]

😂😂😂

[@bordeauxhouse]

@@MV-se1ke IMO Lewin asks compound and/or clumsily phrased questions. Juan Martinez in the Jodi Arias case asked phenomenal questions.

[@cetinkatirci]

He does remind me Juan Martinez… He is good prosecutor… 👍

[@VictoriaGirlBC]

Juan is my idol. The only other prosecutors that comes close is William

[@VictoriaGirlBC]

Oops. William cataldo (donna scrivo trial) and William Fitzpatrick (Stacey Castor trial) 🔥

[@genkestrel7254]

Everytime she smirks/makes a smug facial expression towards the jury when defence makes an objection, egg on her face when the judge overrules their objection

[@marcijewell2195]

Prosecutors don't have to act like a jerk with anyone if they have alot of proof. I am all for Durst being put away for the rest of his short life. I just know that jurors don't like jerks like him. Seems like he is trying too hard. His entire tone changes with prosecutors witness to defense witnesses. Why is California spending so much money on this trial???

[@maryb6672]

Ok, I’ve watched another 20 mins of this cross examination & have to admit he’s crossing the line now. Clearly this witness had excessive baggage, ready for the picking & any prosecutor worth his salt would jump @ the opportunity to shred her credibility. BUT, Lewin doesn’t seem to recognize when enough is enough.

[@ezeddiev]

He trying to spend as much of Bobby's money as he can.

[@kk3940]

You’re absolutely wrong. Jurors on this case have spoken to how well Lewin presented the case. If this sorry excuse of a Dr would quit playing games & answer his questions without deflecting and side stepping on every single one he wouldn’t be getting so exasperated with her.

[@pinkvolo]

Wouldn't a hypothetical question get a hypothetical answer based on the fact that the question is hypothetical?

[@twocents7495]

She is triggering the durst in me

[@jennifermariejoyce]

It should, but not from an evasive hostile witness.

[@DK-sh4il]

Dr. Loftus is horrible

[@lovepet4565]

Who is she smiling at all the time The jury Is not laughing w her Or at DA Lewellen Shes been impeached 100% hes the DA goat🐐

[@lexkaye1989]

Loftus is such a bad witness

[@thegardener7721]

'killed them all.' you're watching a dissection of testimony that usually skates through when individuals are presented as 'expert'.

[@suzanneschmidt3755]

Lewin forgot in his hypothetical that it was him that asked all of those witnesses to relay that memory to him. He is the factor that was left out and would be the reason for a qualifier.

[@jennifermariejoyce]

Since it’s a hypothetical, it’s limited to what he presents. She’s being so evasive, and vague he had no choice but to close all possible loopholes, in order to compel a direct answer.

[@neverlydarlin6315]

Lewin knows this case I side out, forward and back in Spanish. Still, he’s annoying AF. Durst is a goner.

[@joliz1234]

A circus

[@marilyndresser2377]

Especially if he gets off….

[@lovepet4565]

Its actually very satisfying And these are very experienced and the lawyers youd want if you needed one

[@MV-se1ke]

Basically… typical of a California trial 😂

[@piapill2565]

Agree, this trial has become a circus. I believe it has BECOME a circus based majorly on the Judge and how he "runs" his court room (resists sidebars, demands no speaking objections, yet allows the Attornies (both Defense & Prosecution) to make snide comments, and even makes disparaging & demeaning comments in FRONT OF THE JURY which he consistently states he doesn't want arguing or other shananaghans to happen in front of the jury yet the Judge is actually doing this behavior HIMSELF and in allowing some snide or demeaning remarks (even said in jest or in poor taste that has happened from Attornies on the the Defense & Prosecution teams), then creates this circus behavior and a free for all attitude! He lost control of this courtroom when he ALLOWED both sides to continue to make snide, unprofessional, and "jesting" remarks whether they be said in jest, to break the tension in the courtroom, demeaning the other side (or lawyer) as an "undercutting, ribbing or joking" remark, or their poor attempt to make a joke at someone else's expense. Either way, each party is left with the ability to nudge that "line" of cutting remarks (including the Judge's own actions and remarks) that literally NO ONE understands the boundaries based on the previous behavior, statements, banter, jesting, jokes, questions, objections, interruptions, etc the Judge HAS ALLOWED and even done himself in front of this jury that has set the tone, tenor, and circus like environment of a trial that seems to have run amok! This trial is serious and the charges levied against the Defendant are very serious in nature, quite disturbing (special feature/charge of murder of a WITNESS to avoid prosecution etc), and the consequences and potential fallout from this trial could potentially lead to the additional charges out of New York for the disappearance of Durst's wife!!! Again, in my opinion, this Judge has done a severe discredit to the reputation to the CA judicial system where he resides and could negatively impact the impression of what the Judge's roles are in maintaining proper and professional judicial courtroom decorum! This Judge's antics, comments, snide & demeaning & condescending remarks said to the Lawyers in front of the jury (something he has repeatedly stated that the Lawyers are PROHIBITED TO DO yet he feels he is FREE TO DO THIS SAME EXACT BEHAVIOR) is a travesty and an embarassment to the ovetall intent and objective of our judicial system! My opinion only but this Judge has put his own personal stamp of "leading by example" (or lack thereof)l in creating, supporting, sustaining, encouraging, and sadly PARTICIPATING in this mud-slinging, undisciplined, circus of a trial that has manifested itself and grown from the start of this trial! I am most positive the Lawyers are very skilled in their craft but their ability to have essentially a scattershot free for all at the whim of this Judge has done a disservice to the pursuit of justice in this case. Both sides (Defense & Prosecutor teams) have displayed questionable, unprofessional, and inappropriate conduct, comments, and posturing efforts throughout this trial; but in my opinion, the Judge HIMSELF is "guilty" of this conduct as well which has DIRECTLY led to this undisciplined and sometimes childish behavior for the world at large to see on KZbin. All in all, a discredit to the CA judicial proceedings overall and to all involved personally all because the Judge CAN not or WILL not consistently have proper and professional decorum be maintained in the courtroom! I am not sure if the intensity, immature, and undisciplined behavior is a result of the stress of the pandemic but for most everyone to purposefully decide they were EXEMPT from maintaining professional and proper decorum in the courtroom and in front of the jury really has caused this situation to fester and boil over with further undisciplined and unprofessional behavior, comments, complaints, and snide remarks to degrade down even further as this trial comes to the end! So sad and disturbing all at the same time.... Again, my opinion only.

[@reawakening56]

Scientists use qualifiers! Stop it! That aside, he's showing her bias...

[@jennifermariejoyce]

Yes, scientists use qualifiers when appropriate. When the facts of a hypothetical are stated to be true, she should be answering hypothetically, which means a qualifier isn’t necessary. She used qualifiers with almost 100% of his questions, whereas when responding to the defense, the percentage was FAR lower. He did expose her bias, and he exposed the fact that she selectively reviewed evidence. Both of which go to her (lack of) credibility.

[@deborabowlin8950]

she is a liar

[@susiefoxy8130]

Dont know how her testimony helps anyone...things, including studies and opinions change over time...shes an expert from years ago...which imo is irrelevant. A cardiac surgeon from 30 years ago has experiences from then not now..a newer cardiac surgeon has more relevant information now with newer opinions and practices as an example!

[@sydludwig1826]

Her testimony is important to point out how memories can be skewed over time. So perhaps many witnesses have been tainted by the press reporting things and possibly planting things in people's head. I know this on a personal level how memories of my children have been completely inaccurate. My college student son did a report about false memories, and so many people witnessing the same event have completely different memories of it.

[@susiefoxy8130]

@@sydludwig1826 thanks for explaining

[@Truth1561]

Her theories regarding altered memory are actually pretty recent and certainly considered very relevant in the psych academic world.

[@sydludwig1826]

@susie foxy . You're very welcome, my dear. :)

[@hellok7877]

@@susiefoxy8130 😂😂😂

[@carmenhahn1194]

This lawyer so obnoxious

[@jegpad]

This lawyer is effective

[@kk3940]

No, this witness is so obnoxious.

[@suzanneschmidt3755]

2 days of Lewins hypotheticals. Exhausting.

[@psyskeptic9979]

The prosecutor is desperately trying to undermine credibility without talking about the central facts of the case. This is rhetoric from the solipsitic school or argument, not truth seeking. Dr Loftus is lovely.

[@kk3940]

Yes exactly! Lewin’s strategy is brilliant- he has absolutely destroyed “DR” Loftus’ credibility & he hasn’t even got to the central facts of the case yet. If she can’t give unbiased & ethical answers for these very basic questions how on earth can she be trusted to do so when the questions ARE central facts related to this case?!!! I bet money Mr Chesnoff will not hire this “DOCTOR” as an expert witness a third time!😂

[@toriesepahmd6468]

Just my opinion, Lewin was not as effective today. If you act like a bully, it suggests you are bluffing. I was not the least bit impressed with his cross and I’m not a fan of Loftus in general. But somehow he managed to make her look more reasonable than himself. At times, he was so inappropriate and full of hubris that it made this difficult to watch. One has to wonder how he makes the jury feel. Why be a bully if you have a good case? Just act professional. Confidence isn’t exuded by shouting and being judgmental. More and more I think he risks turning off the jury by acting pejorative. It is simply not impressive to act like a know-it-all when you dont really know it all. He doesn’t even understand how science is reported-qualifiers are absolutely necessary and used. Anyone who makes a definitive declaration in a study or something based on a study, is ridiculed. It makes one wonder, has Lewin actually read a full scientific study before or did he just base everything he knows on the ‘the new york’ sorry, ‘New Yorker’ article. (Someone on his team should point out that these two ARE VERY DIFFERENT periodicals. Many people all around the US subscribe to the New YorkER, unlike New York Magazine which is the equivalent of our Los Angeles magazine.).

[@jegpad]

Who paid you to write that - Bugs Bunny?

[@kk3940]

@Torie Sepah Mr Lewin had 200 pages of cross prepared for this “expert” and had a direct quote, legal case or study to refer to every time this witness tried to deliberately mislead, lie or be vague in general- which let’s face it was 95% of the time her lips were moving. Mr Lewin confused 2 very similar sounding periodicals New York/New Yorker & repeated the mistake because that is what was typed throughout the 200 pages of meticulous preparation he needed to read from at times. He destroyed every aspect of her credibility in BIG ways & you’re going to accuse him of being unprofessional & of not understanding terminology he’s using over something so fickle?? The jury was actually very impressed with Lewin- not so much with many of the defense witnesses though. There was a pathologist on the jury who has given interviews. This cross is so hard to watch because this woman is an absolutely vile expert witness, her testimony was disgusting & it’s written all over her face that she has never been cross examined by an attorney as brilliant & thorough as Lewin. That’s on her, not him.

[@bordeauxhouse]

The witness is right; the prosecutors questions are soooo convoluted, not just today but during the entire trial.

[@korad5574]

He is such a jerk

[@TheDonHeron]

24:02

[@jxhnAntxn]

Lewin comes off more like wanting the spotlight than fighting for victims. He is a tad petty here.

[@kk3940]

I disagree. So did the jury.

[@routeirish2503]

DA JAG OFF!! What a joke!!!! LMAO

[@DK-sh4il]

ha don't be jealous lol Lewin is thee man and his team is fantastic! Only ones to have the know how to make Durst accountable and got a GUILTY verdict. Well down DDA Lewin

[@DK-sh4il]

a memory expert that has bad memory and no conclusive determinations, only possibilities. smdh AND ...funny.... every time Lewin says doctor, she looks scared lol

[@lovepet4565]

You know, as someone that really respects the elderly Seeing RD So frail And 90 years old looking , it is just a sad Unhappy tragic ending to a man And mostly those hes killed in cold blood

[@jeanlynch16]

He’s only 78

[@sydludwig1826]

The point is that he looks 90 years old.

[@toriesepahmd6468]

@@jeanlynch16 i think he is 72

[@Hobopower84]

@@toriesepahmd6468 He turned 78 in April.

[@toriesepahmd6468]

@@Hobopower84 thank you…geez, he is nearing 80 yo. Wow.

[@toriesepahmd6468]

Re comments about looking toward the jury. She appears to have a cranial nerve 6 palsy on the left. (Her left eye rotates fully medially but not laterally). Whether she is conscious of it or not, her left peripheral visual field will be limited unless she rotates her head to the left. My guess is that she has grown accustomed to turning her head toward the left to accommodate for lower peripheral vision on the left 2/2 to the LR6 palsy. She didn’t mention this when asked by Lewin why looked toward the jury, but this is understandable 1. She may not be fully aware of it as the movement is likely automatic at this point 2. I am not sure that she would want to disclose any medical issues to Lewin. I would not want to as he would likely utilize it in an inappropriate way because that is just how seems to lawyer-throws the kitchen sink when a dishrag is sufficient.

[@kimmykimmycocopop1394]

Thanks for mentioning that. I have the same issue, possibly. Who do I see for that?

[@toriesepahmd6468]

@@kimmykimmycocopop1394 a neurologist would be the best person to begin with or an opthomologist. But I’d recommend a neurologist to identify the etiology (what is causing the peripheral nerve palsy?). The neurologist can do a full visual field examination as well and consider whether imaging and other diagnostic tests would be helpful. I hope that helps!

[@chrispaul6290]

Most interesting, Dr. Sepah. I just thought she was addressing the jury the same way as many experts (and all government witnesses) do. But there is something going on with her eyes, too . . . .

[@christinebodhitreeexotics356]

I had assumed Grave's Disease due to thyroid dysfunction, but this also makes sense. She rolls her eyes fairly well though, lol.🙈🙉🙊

[@kk3940]

@@Hunter.888 Exactly! He wouldn’t have to throw the kitchen sink if throwing the dishrag at this “DOCTOR” worked! I wonder how many colleagues will sit beside her at lunch after this testimony.

[@twelch8367]

He ripped her good now it seems personal.

[@mr.niceguy4919]

The badgering being done by this atty only shows either 1) he's not very good at his job or 2) he's not very good at his job. If you have to be sarcastic, to invent scenarios over and over, be condescending, be a jerk who thinks he knows it all...you're not very good at your job.

[@VictoriaGirlBC]

What trial are you watching, Lewin is an excellent prosecutor. He’s very thorough and exposes these biased hired guns for what they are. 🔥❤️

[@amanda-uj9vr]

@@VictoriaGirlBC And you should watch the other 3 videos (part 1-3)

[@jegpad]

Go badger!

[@kk3940]

@Mr Nice Guy 😂He’s not very good at his job. Seriously? You know he has literally never lost a case right?