I'm not sure if anyone here has read this case:
State of Idaho v. Kelly Parkinson (1996)
128 Idaho 29
(If anyone wants the entire copy and can't get on Lexis or Westlaw, just email me.)
Anyway, Dr. Marcel Chappuis was an expert witness in this case. A twelve-year-old girl accused the defendant (her aunt's husband) of sexual abuse. The good 'ole Doc wanted to testify for the defense. The court excluded his testimony, but here are some relevant portions as to what would have testified:
"We first address the offer of testimony by Dr. Chappuis that, in his opinion, Parkinson did not fit the psychological profile of sex offenders. Dr. Chappuis based his opinion on the results of an evaluation format which included the Minnesota Multiphasic Psychological Inventory (M.M.P.I.), a suicide risk assessment instrument and clinical interviews. The substance of Dr. Chappuis's testimony can be fairly characterized as follows: (1) the M.M.P.I., a generally accepted and widely used personality test, was administered [*35] [**653] to Parkinson; (2) a clinical interview was conducted with Parkinson; and (3) as a result of that test and interview, Dr. Chappuis was of the opinion that Parkinson did not fit the profile of a sexual offender. We conclude that there was no showing of the reliability of Dr. Chappuis's [***13] assessment technique sufficient to meet standards for admission of the testimony under I.R.E. 702. Although Dr. Chappuis testified that the M.M.P.I. is a standard and accepted psychological test, he presented no testimony from which it could be determined that the sex offender profile which Dr. Chappuis drew from that test, other tests, and clinical interviews had scientific validity or was reliable for the purpose for which it was offered in this case. For example, Dr. Chappuis did not: describe the personality or psychological characteristics that made up the profile; describe the methodology by which the profile was derived; state whether or how the technique had been tested; describe the profile's level of accuracy in distinguishing between offenders and non-offenders; or state whether the profile and the assessment technique utilized by Dr. Chappuis had attracted widespread acceptance within the psychological community. While we do not hold that evidence on each one of these points is essential to an adequate foundation for evidence of this type, the absence of evidence on any of these considerations prevents a conclusion that the proffered testimony would "assist the trier [***14] of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" as required for admission under I.R.E. 702."
So basically, the Doc wanted to say, "Well gee, Your Honor, he's just not that kind of guy." (Defendant: "Your check is in the mail, Doc.")
Also:
"In an offer of proof, Dr. Chappuis was asked by defense counsel for his opinion "as to the general incidence of fabrications with regard to sexual allegations made by minors." Dr. Chappuis responded that in approximately twenty-five to thirty percent of the cases his office was involved in, the allegations were false. This opinion on the statistical incidence of false accusations of sexual abuse was based only on anecdotal information derived from Dr. Chappuis's personal experience as a therapist in Sandy, Utah, and as consultant to the Utah court system. Any potential inference of scientific reliability is belied by the very narrow information base and the lack of any scientific methodology underlying this estimate. Most importantly, Dr. Chappuis stated that he based his determination of which allegations were "false" upon the outcome of court proceedings against the accused perpetrator. [***16] "I assume if someone is acquitted or found innocent, then they are innocent," he said. The unreliability of Dr. Chappuis's estimate is patent. As the Idaho Supreme Court stated in State v. Schwartzmiller, 107 Idaho 89, 92, 685 P.2d 830, 833 (1984), HN6Go to the description of this Headnote."A not guilty verdict, standing by itself, can never be taken to establish that the charges brought were based on false allegations, since one may not be convicted of a crime unless a jury finds [*36] [**654] beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.""
So he's saying that if you can't prove it in court, then you're lying!
Parents, this is who your child confides in if they are being held at Tranquility Bay! Someone who assumes that they are lying if they say they were sexually abused and cannot prove it. And how could you really prove it at Tranquility Bay?
My opinion about Dr. Marcel Chappuis: He will never bite the hand that feeds him. The bulk of his income is from his "work" at WWASP facilities. He'll use his convenient "they're all liars" theory whenever it will earn him a buck or two.
