{"id":897,"date":"2026-08-27T16:03:31","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T16:03:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/?p=897"},"modified":"2026-08-27T16:03:32","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T16:03:32","slug":"update-dr-john-braxton-suffield-retracts-his-prior-under-oath-mmpi-2-rf-testimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/index.php\/2026\/08\/27\/update-dr-john-braxton-suffield-retracts-his-prior-under-oath-mmpi-2-rf-testimony\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Dr. John Braxton Suffield Retracts His Prior Under Oath MMPI-2-RF Testimony"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A manufactured narrative can endure for years, but no lie survives its first collision with objective reality<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an update to Dr. John Braxton Suffield On Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment of Ms. T Using MMPI-2-RF<\/a>, published December 9, 2025.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 18, 2026, under cross-examination before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> 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<\/a>, Mandel & Associates Ltd.<\/a> He was asked to confirm what he had written and what he had said under oath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Retraction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a>‘s December 30, 2011 report states, in section 2.4.8.2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I can also confirm that Ms. T’s defensiveness on another personality questionnaire, the MMPI-2-RF, rendered her protocol uninterpretable.<\/p>\nDr. John Braxton Suffield, December 30, 2011 Report<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

His 2024 sworn testimony went further, stating that Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> “was unable to get a report,” that the profile was “invalid,” and that Ms. T “was so defensive as to make interpretation impossible.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 19, 2026, confronted with the actual MMPI-2-RF report (CB133), Dr. Suffield conceded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

QUESTION:<\/strong> 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> Correct.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And moments later, more directly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> That’s a misstatement. She obviously had a report, and I had a report. It was not invalid, but it was uninterpretable.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Asked to confirm the report was not marked invalid:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

QUESTION:<\/strong> But her protocol was not marked invalid, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a>‘s three specific sworn claims from 2024 \u2014 that Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> “was unable to get a report,” that the profile was “invalid,” that Ms. T’s responses were “so defensive as to make interpretation impossible” \u2014 are now, in Dr. Suffield’s own words, “a misstatement.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New Claim, and Why the Report Itself Answers It<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This new claim can be checked directly against the document itself \u2014 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the report does not say “invalid” anywhere in it.<\/strong> A genuinely invalid MMPI-2-RF protocol is not left for the clinician to characterize \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the report does not stop at the validity scales \u2014 it goes on to interpret the substantive results.<\/strong> The report’s synopsis states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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.<\/p>\nMMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Suffield confirmed this exact language was in the report and confirmed the computer had generated it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

QUESTION:<\/strong> And so the computer did generate the report, correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DR. JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD:<\/strong> As I said, yes.<\/p>\nCross-examination of Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A document that flags one scale for caution and then proceeds to interpret every substantive scale is, definitionally, an interpreted report \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Remains On the Record<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> finally admitted under oath that Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> 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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Suffield’s Second Retraction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This MMPI-2-RF retraction did not stand alone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the very next day of cross-examination, June 19, 2026, Dr. Suffield was confronted with his own administration of a another personality instrument \u2014 the SCID-II \u2014 and his fabricated claim that Ms. T had “elements of antisocial personality disorder” — see Can Clinical Psychologists Count to Two?<\/a> — 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.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Suffield’s Manufactured Attacks On Ms. T’s Personality: Incompetence, Malice, or “Hired Gun”?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed in Dr. John Braxton Suffield On Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment of Ms. T Using MMPI-2-RF<\/a>,<\/em> 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”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n