A manufactured narrative can endure for years, but no lie survives its first collision with objective reality
By Dr. Bob Uttl
This is an update to Dr. John Braxton Suffield On Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment of Ms. T Using MMPI-2-RF, published December 9, 2025.
On June 18, 2026, under cross-examination before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Dr. John Braxton Suffield was taken back to his December 30, 2011 report and his 2024 sworn testimony regarding Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF results, administered by Dr. Mary Westcott, Mandel & Associates Ltd. He was asked to confirm what he had written and what he had said under oath.
The Retraction
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s December 30, 2011 report states, in section 2.4.8.2:
I can also confirm that Ms. T’s defensiveness on another personality questionnaire, the MMPI-2-RF, rendered her protocol uninterpretable.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, December 30, 2011 Report
His 2024 sworn testimony went further, stating that Dr. Mary Westcott “was unable to get a report,” that the profile was “invalid,” and that Ms. T “was so defensive as to make interpretation impossible.”
On June 19, 2026, confronted with the actual MMPI-2-RF report (CB133), Dr. Suffield conceded:
QUESTION: So you also stated in your direct [examination] that Dr. Westcott gave the MMPI, but it was invalid. So she was unable to get a report, unquote. And now you are testifying that you, in fact, were able, or they were able to get reports, both Dr. Westcott and Dr. MK, correct?
DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: Correct.
Cross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield
And moments later, more directly:
DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: That’s a misstatement. She obviously had a report, and I had a report. It was not invalid, but it was uninterpretable.
Cross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield
Asked to confirm the report was not marked invalid:
QUESTION: But her protocol was not marked invalid, correct?
DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: Correct. It was valid and interpretable. Sorry, not interpretable. Or by such interpretation that it was uninterpretable. So, to clarify in a few words, valid but uninterpretable.
Cross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s three specific sworn claims from 2024 — that Dr. Mary Westcott “was unable to get a report,” that the profile was “invalid,” that Ms. T’s responses were “so defensive as to make interpretation impossible” — are now, in Dr. Suffield’s own words, “a misstatement.”
The New Claim, and Why the Report Itself Answers It
Having conceded that a report existed and was not marked invalid, Dr. Suffield offered a new, narrower position: that the report was nonetheless “uninterpretable,” in the sense of being technically valid but clinically unhelpful.
This new claim can be checked directly against the document itself — the same MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report Dr. Suffield disclosed on April 1, 2025 and confirmed, on the stand, that he had reviewed. Two features of that report are dispositive:
First, the report does not say “invalid” anywhere in it. A genuinely invalid MMPI-2-RF protocol is not left for the clinician to characterize — the software itself prints that finding. Dr. Suffield agreed with this general principle earlier in the same exchange, describing how “the computer algorithm will not print a report” and will instead flag the profile as invalid when validity scale thresholds are crossed. No such flag appears anywhere in Ms. T’s report.
Second, the report does not stop at the validity scales — it goes on to interpret the substantive results. The report’s synopsis states:
Scores on the MMPI-2-RF validity scales raise concerns about the possible impact of under-reporting on the validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, there is no indication of somatic or cognitive complaints, or of emotional, thought, behavioral, or interpersonal dysfunction.
MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report
Dr. Suffield confirmed this exact language was in the report and confirmed the computer had generated it:
QUESTION: And so the computer did generate the report, correct?
DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: As I said, yes.
Cross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield
A document that flags one scale for caution and then proceeds to interpret every substantive scale is, definitionally, an interpreted report — not an “uninterpretable” one. “Uninterpretable,” as a technical term, describes a report the software declines to produce a clinical reading from. This report was produced, and a clinical reading was included in it.
What Remains On the Record
Dr. John Braxton Suffield finally admitted under oath that Dr. Mary Westcott was able to print the report, that he Dr. Suffield had that report in his possession since 2011, that the report was not marked “invalid”, that it printed interpretation, and that the interpretation was that the profile was entirely normal. Dr. Suffield labeled his extensive false under oath testimony about this report as “a misstatement.”
Dr. Suffield’s Second Retraction
This MMPI-2-RF retraction did not stand alone.
On the very next day of cross-examination, June 19, 2026, Dr. Suffield was confronted with his own administration of a another personality instrument — the SCID-II — and his fabricated claim that Ms. T had “elements of antisocial personality disorder” — see Can Clinical Psychologists Count to Two? — for details. There, too, Dr. Suffield ultimately conceded, in his own words, that he never diagnosed Ms. T with any personality disorder or any mental disorder at all, and that what he had found was that Ms. T had “…a very normal and natural kind of personality traits, not a disorder.”
Dr. Suffield’s Manufactured Attacks On Ms. T’s Personality: Incompetence, Malice, or “Hired Gun”?
Two personality instruments, administered by two different psychologists years apart, both used to attack Ms. T’s personality for 15 years. Both, when finally tested directly against the underlying data on cross-examination, produced the same result in Dr. Suffield’s own words: normal.
As discussed in Dr. John Braxton Suffield On Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment of Ms. T Using MMPI-2-RF, there are three possible explanations for Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s conduct: (1) Professional Incompetence, (2) Malice or Intent to Harm, (3) Dr. Suffield as a “Hired Gun”.
- Professional Incompetence: To hold an unredacted, valid report in one’s own file for 15 years while testifying under oath that “no report existed” and that it was “invalid” would require a level of professional negligence incompatible with forensic practice.
- Malice or Intent to Harm: Possessing the report since 2011 and deliberately mischaracterizing it as not existing and invalid to support an employer’s defense demonstrates intentional bad faith.
- The “Hired Gun” Role: Dr. Suffield’s conduct extended far beyond standard expert testimony. He actively aligned himself with SD5’s litigation posture—even stepping outside his role as an independent expert to recruit outside professionals (Dr. Elisabeth Sherman and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone) to submit ex parte letters supporting the District’s position.
The Financial Conflict of Interest
In another stunning under oath revelation, Dr. John Braxton Suffield testified that
- He had been carrying and working on this SD5 file for over a decade
- He had not been paid a single cent to date
- He did not know whether or how much he would ultimately be paid
While SD5 counsel subsequently stipulated on the record that Dr. Suffield would eventually receive payment, this fee arrangement raises fundamental legal questions regarding expert objectivity and independence.
Under Canadian law (White Burgess), an expert witness owes an overriding duty to provide impartial, objective opinion evidence to the trier of fact. An expert who works unpaid for 15 years on a contentious file—whose ultimate financial recovery remains unbilled and contingent on post-hearing arrangements—holds a direct stakeholder interest in the proceedings.
When an expert witness abdicates independence to act as a litigation advocate, their opinion evidence loses all evidentiary value and must be assigned zero weight.