Preview
Cause No. DC -15-07174
John Doe I, Individually and In the District Court
as Next Friend of John Doe II,
a Minor,
Plaintiffs,
Dallas County, Texas
The Anderson Private School,
William C. Anderson,
Individually, LeVonna C.
Anderson, Individually,
Alexander A. Anderson,
Individually, Ripley
Entertainment, Inc., and Jim
Pattison U.S.A., Inc., 44th Judicial District
Defendants.
Defendants LeVonna Anderson, William Anderson, and Alexander Anderson’s
Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons
To the Honorable Judge of said Court:
Defendants LeVonna Anderson, William Anderson, and Alexander Anderson
respectfully move that the Court exclude any expert opinions of Charlotte Sammons,
Plaintiffs’ retained testifying expert witness. Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render
expert opinions in this case, and her expert opinions are not reliable and are not based
on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, as required by Tex. R. Evid. 702.
Exhibits
Defendants rely on the following evidence in support of this Motion:
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 1
1 of 134
Exhibit A: True and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended
Response to All Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure.
Exhibit B: True and correct copy of excerpts of redacted deposition of
Charlotte Sammons taken on January 19, 2016 (vol. 1).
Exhibit C: True and correct copy of excerpts of undated Report by Charlotte
Sammons
Exhibit D: True and correct copy of excerpts of redacted deposition of
Charlotte Sammons taken on January 10, 2017 (vol. 2).
Factual Background
Plaintiffs have designated Charlotte Sammons as a testifying expert to provide
expert opinions about a number of subjects. Prior to and after the alleged incident made
the basis of this lawsuit, Ms. Sammons worked as a caregiver, tutor, or education aide
to minor John Doe II. Ms. Sammons is expected to offer expert opinions on a number of
topics, including:
children with autism and how they may differ from children without mental
disabilities, especially related to traumatic events;
a history of John Doe II before and after October 31, 2014;
whether John Doe II experienced a traumatic event on October 31, 2014
Ms. Sammons’s opinion about what that event was on October 31, 2014;
how the alleged traumatic event has affected and will affect John Doe II in the
past and future;
whether John Doe II has a tendency to be truthful and how such tendency
relates to this case;
whether John Doe II could be coached or threatened to make false allegations;
whether forensic investigators and interview s properly and appropriately
conducted interviews with John Doe II;
the extent of past and future therapeutic treatments necessary to address the
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 2
2 of 134
alleged traumatic event; and
and the reasonable and necessary cost of such past and future treatments.
See, Exhibit A attached hereto, a true and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiffs’
FifthAmended Response to All Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure.
Ms. Sammons’s lacks sufficient education, experience and expertise to testify
as an expert witness regarding the topics for which she has been designated as
a testifying expert witness.
Ms. Sammons holds a masters’ degree in educational psychology, and she claims
that she has worked with children with autism for the last 10 years. See, Ex. C attached
hereto, expert report of Charlotte Sammons, at p. 2; Ex. B, deposition of Charlotte
Sammons (vol. 1), at 9:13-19. But although she considers herself to be a therapist, she is
not certified as a counselor, speech pathologist, psychologist r in any field Ex. B at
-23; Ex. C. She has no specialized training, education, or experience in
forensic examinations or interviews. Ex. B at 13:6-22. As demonstrated by her
educational background and experience, she has no specialized training, education,
research, or experience on the subject of trauma she has no experience in identifying
trauma or treating the psychological effects of trauma. Ex. C at pp. 2-4. She has no
specialized training, education, or experience in therapeutic treatment for children with
autism or for children who have experienced trauma. Ex. C at pp. 2-4. She also has no
specialized knowledge, experience, research, or training in working with sexual abuse
victims or identifying sexual abuse perpetrators.Ex. B a t 13:23-14:17, 187:6-25.
In addition, Ms. Sammons’s purportedly specialized knowledge relevant to children
with autism in general is in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis, a field in which she
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 3
3 of 134
is not certified or licensed. Ex. B at 14:18 16:9. She received 40 hours of Applied
Behavior Analysis training at the Center for Autism & Related Disorders (CARD) and
then worked as an Applied Behavior Analysis therapist for 5 6 months. Ex. B at 17:16
She did not complete the program because she believed Aied Behavior al
Analysis and the methodologies at CARD did not honor the whole child. Ex. B at 18:20
According to Ms. Sammons pplied ehavioral nalysis is the only behavioral
therapy for children with autism that may be covered by insurance. Ex. B at 24:5-25:5.
However, in order for her Applied Behavior Analysis services to be covered by
insurance, Ms. Sammons has to be supervised by a board certified behavior analyst
when providing such therapy. Ex. B at 49:5-50:1. In other words, her experience in the
field of Applied Behavior Analysis is limited to 40 hours of formal training, 5 6 months
of working in the field under supervision, and a number of years working alone using
the techniques she learned over 40 formal hours and 56 months of work, and which
techniques she modified based on her disagreements with the ABA methodology.
Ms. Sammons’s opinions as an expert in this case do not derive from any specialized
expertise or knowledge in any particular field of study relevant to this case. Rather, Ms
Sammons’s opinions derive solely from her anecdotal experiences with John Doe II over
the course of her work with him as a tutor and education aide. Because her opinions are
not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, any opinions that she
may offer in this case will not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine any facts in issue. Consequently, although Ms. Sammons may qualify as
fact witness on various issues, her opinions offered as expert testimony hould be
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 4
4 of 134
excluded from the evidence at the trial of this case because she is not qualified to render
expert opinions and her opinions are not reliable.
Ms. Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable because there is too great an
analytical gap between her methodology and her conclusions.
As demonstrated by her report and deposition testimony, Ms. Sammons’s expert
opinions in this case are not based on any recognized principles or scientific or
specialized testing or analysis, particularly with respect to what allegedly happened to
John Doe II on October 2014 and whether other forensic interviewers and investigators
appropriately interviewed him after the alleged incident. Rather, Ms. Sammons’s
allegedly expert opinions are merely based on her observations and past experiences
with John Doe II. As she states in her Report, she “speaks John Doe II”, and she has
played the role of “translator” for John Doe II based on her experiences with him in the
past. Ex. C at 5-6. Ms. Sammons states that John Doe II has severe expressive and
receptive language disorders, which means he has difficulty communicating with other
people and understanding what other people are trying to communicate with him. Ex.
B at 154:1 5; Ex. D at 26:24 27:8. But although Plaintiffs describe her as an ‘expert’ in
John Doe II, she is being presented to testify about issues that go beyond an
understanding of his unique behaviors and mannerisms.
A major factual issue in this case is the question whether Alexander Anderson
sexually assaulted John Doe II, as alleged by John Doe I. John Doe I was not a witness to
the alleged assault and has no personal knowledge that it actually occurred. There is no
physical evidence that any such assault occurred. Consequently, the only evidence to
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 5
5 of 134
support Plaintiffs’ theory that the assault occurred are hearsay unsworn outcry
statements recounted by individuals other than John Doe II, including the statements of
Charlotte Sammons, to whom John Doe II allegedly gave an outcry on November 4,
Any of Ms. Sammons’s opinions that derive from the alleged outcry statement to her
are unreliable due to the circumstances surrounding the alleged outcry and her
participation in such events. Ms. Sammons approached John Doe II with the express
purpose of inquiring about what had happened to him while he was on the field trip at
Ripley’s. Ex. D at 49:19-51:7. She had already concluded before her questioning that
something traumatic had happened to him on the field trip based on her conversations
with John Doe I Ex. D at 51: -13. Ms. Sammons admitted in her deposition that
she did not research proper forensic examination techniques prior to her meeting with
John Doe II, and she had never questioned a child about alleged sexual abuse prior to
her meeting with John Doe II. Ex. D at 49:2 11; Ex. B at 13:6-22. She also
admitted in her deposition that if she had known that her conversation with John Doe II
would be so important to a potential lawsuit, she would have conducted the
questioning differently. Ex. D at 53:12-54:4. Ms. Sammons also admitted in her
deposition that she made no efforts to determine alternate causes for the statements he
made to her, either at the time he made his initial outcry or when he made later
statements about Alex Anderson or comments that she interpreted to be references to
Alex Anderson. Ex. D at 57:14 -80:8. In addition, as
shown by her report, she discounted the direct statements made by John Doe II in actual
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 6
6 of 134
forensic interviews based on her view that he was questioned improperly. Ex. C at 24
Ms. Sammons admitted in her deposition that visual cues are necessary to elicit
correct responses from John Doe II Ex. D at 37:9-38:8. But to know whether a response
from him is right or wrong requires the questioner to know what response is
appropriate before the question is even asked. Or put another way, Ms. Sammons
admitted and acknowledged that he could be led to a correct answer based on the
method of questioning. Ex. D at 40:2-41:14. She further admitted that his answers may
be right or wrong depending on his attention level. Ex. D at 60:17 -32:4. But
the only way to really know whether his answers are accurate is to know the answer or
intended range of answers before the question, and to use the form of the question to
elicit t correct answer.
As a result, in questioning John Doe II during the alleged outcry meeting, Ms.
Sammons had to necessarily assume a conclusion before she began questioning;
otherwise, there was no way for her to know the meaning any of his answers. In
addition, she supplied him with information in the forms of the questions, all of which
were perjorative toward Alex Anderson Ex. C at pp. 9-10. When he supplied answers
that did not support the predetermined conclusion of sexual assault, Ms. Sammons
asked him follow up questions that did support that conclusion. And when he
responded to questions that supported an allegation of sexual assault, she provided
positive reinforcement to him and concluded the interview. Ex. C at p. 10.
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 7
7 of 134
One additional key component to Ms. Sammons’s methodology that renders her
opinions unreliable is her subjective concern for John Doe II and her role as his
advocate. In her deposition, Ms. Sammons admitted that her memory of events
surrounding the days after October 31, 2014 are now “jumbled” because she was very
emotional during that time; “this was very close to home.” Ex. B at 216:4 -12.
Ms. Sammons admitted that she herself was a child victim of sexual abuse. Ex. B at
22. Ms. Sammons also admitted that she is not aware of or familiar with the
ethical rules for behavioral analysts and psychologists that prohibit therapists from also
acting as investigators. Ex. D at 24:24-25:9 Consequently, Ms. Sammons’s ‘expert’
opinions cannot be reliable as evidence to assist the trier of fact.
Arguments and Authorities
Charlotte Sammons is not qualified to give expert opinions on the topics about
which she has been designated to provide expert testimony.
The party offering an expert witness’s testimony bears the burden to prove the
witness is qualified to give such opinions under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of
Evidence. Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 151-52 (Tex. 1996). Under the plain language
The ethics codes for Behavior Analysts and Psychologists prohibit such therapists from maintaining
multiple relationships with their clients. See, http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ (psychologists) and
http://bacb.com/wp content/uploads/2016/03/160321 compliance code english.pdf (behavioral analysts). The
ethics codes would therefore prohibit, for example, a therapist from assuming the role as both a therapist
and an investigator. Admittedly Ms. Sammons is not certified as either a psychologist or behavior
analyst, but the point is that experts in these fields are ethically prohibited from maintaining multiple
relationships with their clients that would impact their objectivity and effectiveness, and Ms. Sammons
has demonstrated that she does maintain multiple relationships with John Doe II (tutor, yoga instructor,
sound healer, school aide, abuse investigator, etc) but does not maintain objectivity. Ex. B at 38:23 40:12,
164:7 12; Ex. C at 3
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 8
8 of 134
of the rule, the expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education in such a manner that his testimony will help the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in iss . Tex. R. Evid. 702. “That a witness has
knowledge, skill, expertise or training does not necessarily mean that the witness can
assist the trier fact. Expert testimony assists the trier fact when the expert’s
knowledge and experience on a relevant issue are beyond that of the average juror and
the testimony helps the trier fact understand the evidence or determine a fact issue.“
In re Bohannon, 388 S.W.3d 296, 304 (Tex. 2012). Trial courts must ensure that those who
purport to be experts truly have expertise concerning the actual subject about which
they are offering an opinion. Id. at 305.
Plaintiffs have designated Charlotte Sammons to provide expert opinions on a
number of topics and issues, andthese issues can be categorized as follows:
Qualities and characteristics of autistic children generally;
John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means when he
makes statements and communicates verbally.
The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her interview
with him on November 4, 2014.
The meaning of John Doe II’s actions and statements during forensic
examinations, and the reliability of the statements he made during the
forensic examinations in light of the examination techniques used.
How trauma affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 and how his
behaviors prove he suffered a traumatic event on October 31, 2014.
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 9
9 of 134
John Doe II’s potential to be coached to make false allegations and his
tendencies regarding truthfulness.
The therapeutic treatment John Doe II has undergone and will continue to
undergo as a result of the traumatic event he allegedly suffered on October
31, 2014, and the cost of such past and future treatments.
See, Exhibit A at p. 31-32. As explained herein, Sammons is not qualified by her
knowledge, training, or experience to render expert opinions in these areas.
Qualities and characteristics of autistic children in general
Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render expert opinions about autistic children in
general. While she states in her report that she has “worked in homes, and in private
and public schools, supporting children with Autism and learning differences” for the
past 10 years, she has limited educational training or background related to children
with autism. She admits that she took one psychology class that tangentially discussed
autism during her master’s program, she received 40 hours of training in Applied
Behavior Analysis at The Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), and she
worked about 5 6 months at CARD but did not complete the program Ex. B at 10:14-20,
-18:8. Clearly she does not have any specialized training or education in
working with children with autism. She also has no specialized training or education in
working with children with autism who have undergone traumatic experiences or
abuse.
Furthermore, even if it is true that Ms. Sammons has worked with many children
with autism during her career, such experience does not render an expert in children
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
10 of 134
with autism such that her testimony could assist the trier of fact. There is no indication
in her report or in her deposition testimony that Ms. Sammons regards herself as an
expert in autism and children with autism; even in her report, she relies on an autistic
woman’s anecdotal accounts of her personal experiences to explain John Doe II’s
thought processes. Ex. C at 6 7 (references to Temple Grandin).
John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means
when he makes statements and communicates verbally.
Based on the substance of Ms. Sammons’s report, it appears that Plaintiffs intend to
offer Ms. Sammons as an expert on John Doe II,in order to provide the jury with an
expert opinion about what his mannerisms, behavior, and communications mean
generally and to “translate” John Doe II’s statements, behaviors, and conduct pertaining
to the alleged assault at issue. Rule 702 does not allow such expert testimony.
First, if a therapist or mental health professional is offered as an expert witness to
provide testimony about the meaning behind a patient’s conduct or words, such
testimony should be based on the therapist or mental health professional’s knowledge,
training, education and experience apart from their experiences with the patient at issue.
Otherwise, any opinions that stem from the interactions with the patient alone are no
different, or more ‘expert,’ than the lay opinions of parents or family friends who
encounter the individual. In this case, i Ms. Sammons is being offered as an expert on
the meaning behind John Doe II’s conduct and statements, her opinions must derive
from her experiences with other autistic children under similar circumstances. Ms.
Sammons, however, does not have those experiences
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
11 of 134
Second, because Ms. Sammons is not an expert in speech pathology, she cannot
provide expert opinions to “translate” what John Doe II must have meant when he
made statements to her or to others regarding the alleged events on October 31, 2014 or
when he made comments generally about Alexander Anderson. Ms. Sammons herself
has no training, experience, education, or specialized knowledge with respect to the
speech and language disorders from which John Doe II may suffer other than her own
experiences with him personally. Ex. B at 21:16-23.
The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her
interview with him on November 4, 2014, the meaning of John Doe II’s
actions and statements during forensic examinations and the reliability
of the statements he made during the forensic examinations in light of
the examination techniques used.
Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render opinions about the meaning of any of John
Doe II’s statements and behaviors during her interview with him on November 4, 2014
or during the other interviews by forensic examiners. Ms. Sammons was not qualified
to conduct a forensic interview when she questioned John Doe II,and she had never
conducted an interview to identify suspected sexual abuse prior to that interview. Ex. B
at 13:6-14:17; Ex. D at 49:2 -11. She is likewise not qualified to question the
examination techniques utilized by the investigators who interviewed John Doe II
during official investigations into the abuse allegations.
In addition, because she had no training or experience in how to conduct such an
interview, she also had no training or experience in how to interpret the answers to the
questions that she chose to ask during the interview. Ex. B at 187:6-25. Ms. Sammons
was not trained in discussing suspected sexual abuse with potential victims; she is
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
12 of 134
therefore not qualified to offer expert opinions about how John Doe II’s responses to her
questions or other conduct should be interpreted in comparison to other child sexual
abuse victims. Even if Ms. Sammons has more knowledge than the interviewers about
interacting with John Doe II or children with autism generally, she has no knowledge,
training, education or experience that relates specifically to sexual abuse victims or
trauma victims. Consequently, she cannot offer any expert opinions about whether the
techniques and interview strategies utilized by her or the forensic interviewers were
proper or appropriate.
How trauma affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 and how his
behavior prove he suffered a traumatic event on October 31, 2014.
Ms. Sammons is also not qualified to provide expert opinions on how trauma
allegedly affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 or how his continued behavior after
October 31, 2014 support her ‘expert’ opinion that he was sexually abused by Alex
Anderson at Ripley’s. Ms. Sammons has no training or education in trauma, post
traumatic stress disorder, or treating child victims of sexual abuse. Ms. Sammons is not
a psychological or psychiatric therapist; she is not a social worker; she is not an abuse
counselor. Rather, Ms. Sammons provides educational support for children with
learning differences. Her training is in mindfulness and wellness practices, along with
educational interventions. Ex. C at 3-4. But she has no knowledge, education, or training
in evaluating children who have suffered trauma, other than her own personal
experiences as a victim of abuse. Consequently, she cannot offer expert opinions about
how the suspected abuse that allegedly occurred on October 31, 2014 affected John Doe
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
13 of 134
II, and she also cannot offer expert opinions about how John Doe II’s behaviors after
October 31, 2014 are consistent with the behaviors of child abuse victims in general.
John Doe II’s potential to be coached to make false allegations and his
tendencies regarding truthfulness.
Ms. Sammons cannot provide expert testimony on his potential to be coached to
make false allegations because she is not an expert in speech pathology or autistic
children. Her training and experience are in education and movement, not speech. Ex. B
at 21:16-23. In addition, all of her opinions derive solely from her interactions with John
Doe II, as opposed to from experience, education, or training with other similarly
situated children. Consequently, she is not qualified to give expert testimony on John
Doe II’s potential to be coached.
The therapeutic treatment John Doe II has undergone and will continue
to undergo as a result of the traumatic event he allegedly suffered on
October 31, 2014, and the cost of such past and future treatments.
Ms. Sammons is not qualified to offer expert opinions about the past and future
therapeutic treatment John Doe II will undergo to deal with the alleged assault, and she
is also not qualified to offer expert opinions about the cost of such past and future
therapeutic treatments. After the incident, John Doe II was taken to another therapist for
play therapy and neurological reintegration. Ex. D at 45:1-10. He has not been
diagnosed with PTSD, and in light of her lack of credentials, she is not qualified to
diagnose him with PTSD. Ex. D at 96:6-21.
Ms. Sammons testified that she offers therapy in the form of helping John Doe II
manage his emotions, which was a role she played even before the alleged October 31,
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
14 of 134
2014 incident. Ex. D at 91:20-95:22. But her training, knowledge, experience and
education is not in therapeutic treatments for victims of sexual abuse. She is therefore
not qualified to offer opinions about what types of therapy are necessary, what types of
therapy would help him, or how much such therapeutic treatments would cost.
Charlotte Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable and are therefore not
admissible.
In addition to being qualified to render expert opinions, an expert must also offer
opinions that are relevant and reliable. In assessing the reliability of an expert’s
opinions, the court must look at the expert’s theory or technique while taking into
account several factors, including: (1) the extent to which the theory has been or can be
tested; (2) the extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of
the expert; (3) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or publication;
(4) the technique’s potential rate of error; (5) whether the underlying theory or
technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community;
and (6) the non judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique. In re
Bohannon, 388 S.W.3d at 305. In no case may expert testimony be admitted when “there
is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion offered.” Id.,
citing Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d at 727.
Ms. Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable and therefore should not be
admitted into evidence as expert testimony.
John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means
when he makes statements and communicates verbally.
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
15 of 134
Ms. Sammons considers herself to be an expert in John Doe II, claiming that she
“speaks [John Doe II],” and she often acts as his translator around other people. . C at
5-6. But Ms. Sammons will not be able to assist the trier fact even if the Court were to
find that her personal experiences with John Doe II over the course of many years
somehow makes her an expert in the meaning behind his conduct and statements. This
is because, over the course of all of her years of treating John Doe II, she has never
before been confronted with the suspicion that he was sexually abused. Due to her lack
of training and experience with other child sexual abuse victims, she cannot consider
his mannerisms, statements and conducts objectively, but rather must look for
differences in his patterns of behavior that she then assumes to be related to the
suspected sexual abuse. This methodology, however, is not reliable.
In her deposition, Ms. Sammons admitted that John Doe II says things that are not
true. Ex. D at 66:10 67:12. She admitted that John Doe II’s accuracy rate in response to
questions depends on how questions are asked of him and what cues are given to him
with the questions. Ex. D at 36:24 -21. But effectively create cues to assist in
answering the questions presented, the questioner necessarily has to know either the
correct answer or the desired answer; otherwise, the questioner has no frame of
reference as to whether the answer supplied is accurate. In other words, because John
Doe II’s accuracy rate in answering questions depends in part on how the question is
asked, there is a degree of manipulation that occurs when John Doe II is questioned. As
a result, Ms. Sammons’s interpretations of John Doe II’s conduct, mannerisms, and
verbal communications are in part skewed by her own expectations of how he should
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
16 of 134
be reacting and responding to any questions she formulates. Because such opinions rely
heavily on her own subjective interpretation, her opinions are not reliable and should
not be admissible as expert opinions.
hen interpreting John Doe II’s unsolicited mannerisms and statements, Ms.
Sammons’s interpretations are dependent on her knowledge of outside information
about John Doe II. For example, in her report on page 22, she described how John Doe II
was talking about Alex and the Anderson School on March 25, 2015 and he said he
wanted to send “microbots to get Alex.” Ms. Sammons then interpreted the statement to
be a reference to a movie called “Bay Max.” Her interpretation of the comment
incorporates her knowledge that John Doe II had recently watched a movie with
microbots.
An another point in her report, on page 21, Ms. Sammons describes drawings of
pictures resembling large snakes and contends that his artwork had never had violence
or snakes before October 31, 2014. Ms. Sammons offers no explanation for why John
Doe II may have drawn snakes other than the implication that his drawings were
phallic in nature and thus related to the alleged assault. But her conclusion
demonstrates the problem with her methodology; when she has knowledge of a
connection between his statements and some actual related event (such as a movie or
TV show), she makes the connection, and when she has no such knowledge, she can
interpret the behavior or comment as being related solely to Alex Anderson and the
unsubstantiated events on October 31, 2014. It is just as likely that he saw actual snakes
or images of actual snakes on TV or in a movie or even at Ripley’s Believe It or Not! on
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page
17 of 134
October 31, 2014, but instead of considering the alternatives, Ms. Sammons concludes
that all behavior for which she has no other explanation is related to Alex Anderson or
the Anderson School or the alleged assault. Such speculation and assumptions cannot
form the basis of a reliable expert opinion.
The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her
interview with him on November 4, 2014.
s explained above, Ms. Sammons’s methodology in forming her opinions about the
meaning of John Doe II’s statements and mannerisms is based on her independent
knowledge of him. She knows if what he says is accurate because she knows the answer
to her questions before she asks them. Or she understands his statements and
mannerisms because she has additional independent information about him specifically
that informs her understanding.
But with respect to exactly what happened to John Doe II on October 31, 201 Ms.
Sammons had no independent knowledge prior to discussing it with him except the
information provided to her by John Doe I, who wa
Preview
Cause No. DC -15-07174 John Doe I, Individually and In the District Court as Next Friend of John Doe II, a Minor, Plaintiffs, Dallas County, Texas The Anderson Private School, William C. Anderson, Individually, LeVonna C. Anderson, Individually, Alexander A. Anderson, Individually, Ripley Entertainment, Inc., and Jim Pattison U.S.A., Inc., 44th Judicial District Defendants. Defendants LeVonna Anderson, William Anderson, and Alexander Anderson’s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons To the Honorable Judge of said Court: Defendants LeVonna Anderson, William Anderson, and Alexander Anderson respectfully move that the Court exclude any expert opinions of Charlotte Sammons, Plaintiffs’ retained testifying expert witness. Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render expert opinions in this case, and her expert opinions are not reliable and are not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, as required by Tex. R. Evid. 702. Exhibits Defendants rely on the following evidence in support of this Motion: Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 1 1 of 134 Exhibit A: True and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Response to All Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure. Exhibit B: True and correct copy of excerpts of redacted deposition of Charlotte Sammons taken on January 19, 2016 (vol. 1). Exhibit C: True and correct copy of excerpts of undated Report by Charlotte Sammons Exhibit D: True and correct copy of excerpts of redacted deposition of Charlotte Sammons taken on January 10, 2017 (vol. 2). Factual Background Plaintiffs have designated Charlotte Sammons as a testifying expert to provide expert opinions about a number of subjects. Prior to and after the alleged incident made the basis of this lawsuit, Ms. Sammons worked as a caregiver, tutor, or education aide to minor John Doe II. Ms. Sammons is expected to offer expert opinions on a number of topics, including: children with autism and how they may differ from children without mental disabilities, especially related to traumatic events; a history of John Doe II before and after October 31, 2014; whether John Doe II experienced a traumatic event on October 31, 2014 Ms. Sammons’s opinion about what that event was on October 31, 2014; how the alleged traumatic event has affected and will affect John Doe II in the past and future; whether John Doe II has a tendency to be truthful and how such tendency relates to this case; whether John Doe II could be coached or threatened to make false allegations; whether forensic investigators and interview s properly and appropriately conducted interviews with John Doe II; the extent of past and future therapeutic treatments necessary to address the Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 2 2 of 134 alleged traumatic event; and and the reasonable and necessary cost of such past and future treatments. See, Exhibit A attached hereto, a true and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiffs’ FifthAmended Response to All Defendants’ Requests for Disclosure. Ms. Sammons’s lacks sufficient education, experience and expertise to testify as an expert witness regarding the topics for which she has been designated as a testifying expert witness. Ms. Sammons holds a masters’ degree in educational psychology, and she claims that she has worked with children with autism for the last 10 years. See, Ex. C attached hereto, expert report of Charlotte Sammons, at p. 2; Ex. B, deposition of Charlotte Sammons (vol. 1), at 9:13-19. But although she considers herself to be a therapist, she is not certified as a counselor, speech pathologist, psychologist r in any field Ex. B at -23; Ex. C. She has no specialized training, education, or experience in forensic examinations or interviews. Ex. B at 13:6-22. As demonstrated by her educational background and experience, she has no specialized training, education, research, or experience on the subject of trauma she has no experience in identifying trauma or treating the psychological effects of trauma. Ex. C at pp. 2-4. She has no specialized training, education, or experience in therapeutic treatment for children with autism or for children who have experienced trauma. Ex. C at pp. 2-4. She also has no specialized knowledge, experience, research, or training in working with sexual abuse victims or identifying sexual abuse perpetrators.Ex. B a t 13:23-14:17, 187:6-25. In addition, Ms. Sammons’s purportedly specialized knowledge relevant to children with autism in general is in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis, a field in which she Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 3 3 of 134 is not certified or licensed. Ex. B at 14:18 16:9. She received 40 hours of Applied Behavior Analysis training at the Center for Autism & Related Disorders (CARD) and then worked as an Applied Behavior Analysis therapist for 5 6 months. Ex. B at 17:16 She did not complete the program because she believed Aied Behavior al Analysis and the methodologies at CARD did not honor the whole child. Ex. B at 18:20 According to Ms. Sammons pplied ehavioral nalysis is the only behavioral therapy for children with autism that may be covered by insurance. Ex. B at 24:5-25:5. However, in order for her Applied Behavior Analysis services to be covered by insurance, Ms. Sammons has to be supervised by a board certified behavior analyst when providing such therapy. Ex. B at 49:5-50:1. In other words, her experience in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis is limited to 40 hours of formal training, 5 6 months of working in the field under supervision, and a number of years working alone using the techniques she learned over 40 formal hours and 56 months of work, and which techniques she modified based on her disagreements with the ABA methodology. Ms. Sammons’s opinions as an expert in this case do not derive from any specialized expertise or knowledge in any particular field of study relevant to this case. Rather, Ms Sammons’s opinions derive solely from her anecdotal experiences with John Doe II over the course of her work with him as a tutor and education aide. Because her opinions are not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, any opinions that she may offer in this case will not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine any facts in issue. Consequently, although Ms. Sammons may qualify as fact witness on various issues, her opinions offered as expert testimony hould be Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 4 4 of 134 excluded from the evidence at the trial of this case because she is not qualified to render expert opinions and her opinions are not reliable. Ms. Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable because there is too great an analytical gap between her methodology and her conclusions. As demonstrated by her report and deposition testimony, Ms. Sammons’s expert opinions in this case are not based on any recognized principles or scientific or specialized testing or analysis, particularly with respect to what allegedly happened to John Doe II on October 2014 and whether other forensic interviewers and investigators appropriately interviewed him after the alleged incident. Rather, Ms. Sammons’s allegedly expert opinions are merely based on her observations and past experiences with John Doe II. As she states in her Report, she “speaks John Doe II”, and she has played the role of “translator” for John Doe II based on her experiences with him in the past. Ex. C at 5-6. Ms. Sammons states that John Doe II has severe expressive and receptive language disorders, which means he has difficulty communicating with other people and understanding what other people are trying to communicate with him. Ex. B at 154:1 5; Ex. D at 26:24 27:8. But although Plaintiffs describe her as an ‘expert’ in John Doe II, she is being presented to testify about issues that go beyond an understanding of his unique behaviors and mannerisms. A major factual issue in this case is the question whether Alexander Anderson sexually assaulted John Doe II, as alleged by John Doe I. John Doe I was not a witness to the alleged assault and has no personal knowledge that it actually occurred. There is no physical evidence that any such assault occurred. Consequently, the only evidence to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 5 5 of 134 support Plaintiffs’ theory that the assault occurred are hearsay unsworn outcry statements recounted by individuals other than John Doe II, including the statements of Charlotte Sammons, to whom John Doe II allegedly gave an outcry on November 4, Any of Ms. Sammons’s opinions that derive from the alleged outcry statement to her are unreliable due to the circumstances surrounding the alleged outcry and her participation in such events. Ms. Sammons approached John Doe II with the express purpose of inquiring about what had happened to him while he was on the field trip at Ripley’s. Ex. D at 49:19-51:7. She had already concluded before her questioning that something traumatic had happened to him on the field trip based on her conversations with John Doe I Ex. D at 51: -13. Ms. Sammons admitted in her deposition that she did not research proper forensic examination techniques prior to her meeting with John Doe II, and she had never questioned a child about alleged sexual abuse prior to her meeting with John Doe II. Ex. D at 49:2 11; Ex. B at 13:6-22. She also admitted in her deposition that if she had known that her conversation with John Doe II would be so important to a potential lawsuit, she would have conducted the questioning differently. Ex. D at 53:12-54:4. Ms. Sammons also admitted in her deposition that she made no efforts to determine alternate causes for the statements he made to her, either at the time he made his initial outcry or when he made later statements about Alex Anderson or comments that she interpreted to be references to Alex Anderson. Ex. D at 57:14 -80:8. In addition, as shown by her report, she discounted the direct statements made by John Doe II in actual Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 6 6 of 134 forensic interviews based on her view that he was questioned improperly. Ex. C at 24 Ms. Sammons admitted in her deposition that visual cues are necessary to elicit correct responses from John Doe II Ex. D at 37:9-38:8. But to know whether a response from him is right or wrong requires the questioner to know what response is appropriate before the question is even asked. Or put another way, Ms. Sammons admitted and acknowledged that he could be led to a correct answer based on the method of questioning. Ex. D at 40:2-41:14. She further admitted that his answers may be right or wrong depending on his attention level. Ex. D at 60:17 -32:4. But the only way to really know whether his answers are accurate is to know the answer or intended range of answers before the question, and to use the form of the question to elicit t correct answer. As a result, in questioning John Doe II during the alleged outcry meeting, Ms. Sammons had to necessarily assume a conclusion before she began questioning; otherwise, there was no way for her to know the meaning any of his answers. In addition, she supplied him with information in the forms of the questions, all of which were perjorative toward Alex Anderson Ex. C at pp. 9-10. When he supplied answers that did not support the predetermined conclusion of sexual assault, Ms. Sammons asked him follow up questions that did support that conclusion. And when he responded to questions that supported an allegation of sexual assault, she provided positive reinforcement to him and concluded the interview. Ex. C at p. 10. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 7 7 of 134 One additional key component to Ms. Sammons’s methodology that renders her opinions unreliable is her subjective concern for John Doe II and her role as his advocate. In her deposition, Ms. Sammons admitted that her memory of events surrounding the days after October 31, 2014 are now “jumbled” because she was very emotional during that time; “this was very close to home.” Ex. B at 216:4 -12. Ms. Sammons admitted that she herself was a child victim of sexual abuse. Ex. B at 22. Ms. Sammons also admitted that she is not aware of or familiar with the ethical rules for behavioral analysts and psychologists that prohibit therapists from also acting as investigators. Ex. D at 24:24-25:9 Consequently, Ms. Sammons’s ‘expert’ opinions cannot be reliable as evidence to assist the trier of fact. Arguments and Authorities Charlotte Sammons is not qualified to give expert opinions on the topics about which she has been designated to provide expert testimony. The party offering an expert witness’s testimony bears the burden to prove the witness is qualified to give such opinions under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148, 151-52 (Tex. 1996). Under the plain language The ethics codes for Behavior Analysts and Psychologists prohibit such therapists from maintaining multiple relationships with their clients. See, http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ (psychologists) and http://bacb.com/wp content/uploads/2016/03/160321 compliance code english.pdf (behavioral analysts). The ethics codes would therefore prohibit, for example, a therapist from assuming the role as both a therapist and an investigator. Admittedly Ms. Sammons is not certified as either a psychologist or behavior analyst, but the point is that experts in these fields are ethically prohibited from maintaining multiple relationships with their clients that would impact their objectivity and effectiveness, and Ms. Sammons has demonstrated that she does maintain multiple relationships with John Doe II (tutor, yoga instructor, sound healer, school aide, abuse investigator, etc) but does not maintain objectivity. Ex. B at 38:23 40:12, 164:7 12; Ex. C at 3 Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 8 8 of 134 of the rule, the expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in such a manner that his testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in iss . Tex. R. Evid. 702. “That a witness has knowledge, skill, expertise or training does not necessarily mean that the witness can assist the trier fact. Expert testimony assists the trier fact when the expert’s knowledge and experience on a relevant issue are beyond that of the average juror and the testimony helps the trier fact understand the evidence or determine a fact issue.“ In re Bohannon, 388 S.W.3d 296, 304 (Tex. 2012). Trial courts must ensure that those who purport to be experts truly have expertise concerning the actual subject about which they are offering an opinion. Id. at 305. Plaintiffs have designated Charlotte Sammons to provide expert opinions on a number of topics and issues, andthese issues can be categorized as follows: Qualities and characteristics of autistic children generally; John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means when he makes statements and communicates verbally. The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her interview with him on November 4, 2014. The meaning of John Doe II’s actions and statements during forensic examinations, and the reliability of the statements he made during the forensic examinations in light of the examination techniques used. How trauma affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 and how his behaviors prove he suffered a traumatic event on October 31, 2014. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 9 9 of 134 John Doe II’s potential to be coached to make false allegations and his tendencies regarding truthfulness. The therapeutic treatment John Doe II has undergone and will continue to undergo as a result of the traumatic event he allegedly suffered on October 31, 2014, and the cost of such past and future treatments. See, Exhibit A at p. 31-32. As explained herein, Sammons is not qualified by her knowledge, training, or experience to render expert opinions in these areas. Qualities and characteristics of autistic children in general Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render expert opinions about autistic children in general. While she states in her report that she has “worked in homes, and in private and public schools, supporting children with Autism and learning differences” for the past 10 years, she has limited educational training or background related to children with autism. She admits that she took one psychology class that tangentially discussed autism during her master’s program, she received 40 hours of training in Applied Behavior Analysis at The Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), and she worked about 5 6 months at CARD but did not complete the program Ex. B at 10:14-20, -18:8. Clearly she does not have any specialized training or education in working with children with autism. She also has no specialized training or education in working with children with autism who have undergone traumatic experiences or abuse. Furthermore, even if it is true that Ms. Sammons has worked with many children with autism during her career, such experience does not render an expert in children Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 10 of 134 with autism such that her testimony could assist the trier of fact. There is no indication in her report or in her deposition testimony that Ms. Sammons regards herself as an expert in autism and children with autism; even in her report, she relies on an autistic woman’s anecdotal accounts of her personal experiences to explain John Doe II’s thought processes. Ex. C at 6 7 (references to Temple Grandin). John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means when he makes statements and communicates verbally. Based on the substance of Ms. Sammons’s report, it appears that Plaintiffs intend to offer Ms. Sammons as an expert on John Doe II,in order to provide the jury with an expert opinion about what his mannerisms, behavior, and communications mean generally and to “translate” John Doe II’s statements, behaviors, and conduct pertaining to the alleged assault at issue. Rule 702 does not allow such expert testimony. First, if a therapist or mental health professional is offered as an expert witness to provide testimony about the meaning behind a patient’s conduct or words, such testimony should be based on the therapist or mental health professional’s knowledge, training, education and experience apart from their experiences with the patient at issue. Otherwise, any opinions that stem from the interactions with the patient alone are no different, or more ‘expert,’ than the lay opinions of parents or family friends who encounter the individual. In this case, i Ms. Sammons is being offered as an expert on the meaning behind John Doe II’s conduct and statements, her opinions must derive from her experiences with other autistic children under similar circumstances. Ms. Sammons, however, does not have those experiences Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 11 of 134 Second, because Ms. Sammons is not an expert in speech pathology, she cannot provide expert opinions to “translate” what John Doe II must have meant when he made statements to her or to others regarding the alleged events on October 31, 2014 or when he made comments generally about Alexander Anderson. Ms. Sammons herself has no training, experience, education, or specialized knowledge with respect to the speech and language disorders from which John Doe II may suffer other than her own experiences with him personally. Ex. B at 21:16-23. The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her interview with him on November 4, 2014, the meaning of John Doe II’s actions and statements during forensic examinations and the reliability of the statements he made during the forensic examinations in light of the examination techniques used. Ms. Sammons is not qualified to render opinions about the meaning of any of John Doe II’s statements and behaviors during her interview with him on November 4, 2014 or during the other interviews by forensic examiners. Ms. Sammons was not qualified to conduct a forensic interview when she questioned John Doe II,and she had never conducted an interview to identify suspected sexual abuse prior to that interview. Ex. B at 13:6-14:17; Ex. D at 49:2 -11. She is likewise not qualified to question the examination techniques utilized by the investigators who interviewed John Doe II during official investigations into the abuse allegations. In addition, because she had no training or experience in how to conduct such an interview, she also had no training or experience in how to interpret the answers to the questions that she chose to ask during the interview. Ex. B at 187:6-25. Ms. Sammons was not trained in discussing suspected sexual abuse with potential victims; she is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 12 of 134 therefore not qualified to offer expert opinions about how John Doe II’s responses to her questions or other conduct should be interpreted in comparison to other child sexual abuse victims. Even if Ms. Sammons has more knowledge than the interviewers about interacting with John Doe II or children with autism generally, she has no knowledge, training, education or experience that relates specifically to sexual abuse victims or trauma victims. Consequently, she cannot offer any expert opinions about whether the techniques and interview strategies utilized by her or the forensic interviewers were proper or appropriate. How trauma affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 and how his behavior prove he suffered a traumatic event on October 31, 2014. Ms. Sammons is also not qualified to provide expert opinions on how trauma allegedly affected John Doe II after October 31, 2014 or how his continued behavior after October 31, 2014 support her ‘expert’ opinion that he was sexually abused by Alex Anderson at Ripley’s. Ms. Sammons has no training or education in trauma, post traumatic stress disorder, or treating child victims of sexual abuse. Ms. Sammons is not a psychological or psychiatric therapist; she is not a social worker; she is not an abuse counselor. Rather, Ms. Sammons provides educational support for children with learning differences. Her training is in mindfulness and wellness practices, along with educational interventions. Ex. C at 3-4. But she has no knowledge, education, or training in evaluating children who have suffered trauma, other than her own personal experiences as a victim of abuse. Consequently, she cannot offer expert opinions about how the suspected abuse that allegedly occurred on October 31, 2014 affected John Doe Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 13 of 134 II, and she also cannot offer expert opinions about how John Doe II’s behaviors after October 31, 2014 are consistent with the behaviors of child abuse victims in general. John Doe II’s potential to be coached to make false allegations and his tendencies regarding truthfulness. Ms. Sammons cannot provide expert testimony on his potential to be coached to make false allegations because she is not an expert in speech pathology or autistic children. Her training and experience are in education and movement, not speech. Ex. B at 21:16-23. In addition, all of her opinions derive solely from her interactions with John Doe II, as opposed to from experience, education, or training with other similarly situated children. Consequently, she is not qualified to give expert testimony on John Doe II’s potential to be coached. The therapeutic treatment John Doe II has undergone and will continue to undergo as a result of the traumatic event he allegedly suffered on October 31, 2014, and the cost of such past and future treatments. Ms. Sammons is not qualified to offer expert opinions about the past and future therapeutic treatment John Doe II will undergo to deal with the alleged assault, and she is also not qualified to offer expert opinions about the cost of such past and future therapeutic treatments. After the incident, John Doe II was taken to another therapist for play therapy and neurological reintegration. Ex. D at 45:1-10. He has not been diagnosed with PTSD, and in light of her lack of credentials, she is not qualified to diagnose him with PTSD. Ex. D at 96:6-21. Ms. Sammons testified that she offers therapy in the form of helping John Doe II manage his emotions, which was a role she played even before the alleged October 31, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 14 of 134 2014 incident. Ex. D at 91:20-95:22. But her training, knowledge, experience and education is not in therapeutic treatments for victims of sexual abuse. She is therefore not qualified to offer opinions about what types of therapy are necessary, what types of therapy would help him, or how much such therapeutic treatments would cost. Charlotte Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable and are therefore not admissible. In addition to being qualified to render expert opinions, an expert must also offer opinions that are relevant and reliable. In assessing the reliability of an expert’s opinions, the court must look at the expert’s theory or technique while taking into account several factors, including: (1) the extent to which the theory has been or can be tested; (2) the extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the expert; (3) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or publication; (4) the technique’s potential rate of error; (5) whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community; and (6) the non judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique. In re Bohannon, 388 S.W.3d at 305. In no case may expert testimony be admitted when “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion offered.” Id., citing Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d at 727. Ms. Sammons’s expert opinions are not reliable and therefore should not be admitted into evidence as expert testimony. John Doe II’s personality, behavior, mannerisms, and what he means when he makes statements and communicates verbally. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 15 of 134 Ms. Sammons considers herself to be an expert in John Doe II, claiming that she “speaks [John Doe II],” and she often acts as his translator around other people. . C at 5-6. But Ms. Sammons will not be able to assist the trier fact even if the Court were to find that her personal experiences with John Doe II over the course of many years somehow makes her an expert in the meaning behind his conduct and statements. This is because, over the course of all of her years of treating John Doe II, she has never before been confronted with the suspicion that he was sexually abused. Due to her lack of training and experience with other child sexual abuse victims, she cannot consider his mannerisms, statements and conducts objectively, but rather must look for differences in his patterns of behavior that she then assumes to be related to the suspected sexual abuse. This methodology, however, is not reliable. In her deposition, Ms. Sammons admitted that John Doe II says things that are not true. Ex. D at 66:10 67:12. She admitted that John Doe II’s accuracy rate in response to questions depends on how questions are asked of him and what cues are given to him with the questions. Ex. D at 36:24 -21. But effectively create cues to assist in answering the questions presented, the questioner necessarily has to know either the correct answer or the desired answer; otherwise, the questioner has no frame of reference as to whether the answer supplied is accurate. In other words, because John Doe II’s accuracy rate in answering questions depends in part on how the question is asked, there is a degree of manipulation that occurs when John Doe II is questioned. As a result, Ms. Sammons’s interpretations of John Doe II’s conduct, mannerisms, and verbal communications are in part skewed by her own expectations of how he should Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 16 of 134 be reacting and responding to any questions she formulates. Because such opinions rely heavily on her own subjective interpretation, her opinions are not reliable and should not be admissible as expert opinions. hen interpreting John Doe II’s unsolicited mannerisms and statements, Ms. Sammons’s interpretations are dependent on her knowledge of outside information about John Doe II. For example, in her report on page 22, she described how John Doe II was talking about Alex and the Anderson School on March 25, 2015 and he said he wanted to send “microbots to get Alex.” Ms. Sammons then interpreted the statement to be a reference to a movie called “Bay Max.” Her interpretation of the comment incorporates her knowledge that John Doe II had recently watched a movie with microbots. An another point in her report, on page 21, Ms. Sammons describes drawings of pictures resembling large snakes and contends that his artwork had never had violence or snakes before October 31, 2014. Ms. Sammons offers no explanation for why John Doe II may have drawn snakes other than the implication that his drawings were phallic in nature and thus related to the alleged assault. But her conclusion demonstrates the problem with her methodology; when she has knowledge of a connection between his statements and some actual related event (such as a movie or TV show), she makes the connection, and when she has no such knowledge, she can interpret the behavior or comment as being related solely to Alex Anderson and the unsubstantiated events on October 31, 2014. It is just as likely that he saw actual snakes or images of actual snakes on TV or in a movie or even at Ripley’s Believe It or Not! on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Charlotte Sammons Page 17 of 134 October 31, 2014, but instead of considering the alternatives, Ms. Sammons concludes that all behavior for which she has no other explanation is related to Alex Anderson or the Anderson School or the alleged assault. Such speculation and assumptions cannot form the basis of a reliable expert opinion. The meaning of John Doe II’s statements and behavior during her interview with him on November 4, 2014. s explained above, Ms. Sammons’s methodology in forming her opinions about the meaning of John Doe II’s statements and mannerisms is based on her independent knowledge of him. She knows if what he says is accurate because she knows the answer to her questions before she asks them. Or she understands his statements and mannerisms because she has additional independent information about him specifically that informs her understanding. But with respect to exactly what happened to John Doe II on October 31, 201 Ms. Sammons had no independent knowledge prior to discussing it with him except the information provided to her by John Doe I, who wa