I have witnessed first hand the damage of Wendy Dutton. There are literally hundreds of innocent men she has helped to put behind bars in the state of Arizona.  With the information on this web site anyone who had her testify at their trial should be able to obtain a new trial for the prejudicial testimony she presented based on junk science and voodoo psychology! That's why this web site was created. To get the message out.

She is well known for her little bag of tricks such as Tanner Staging which is a technique for determining the age of a minor by the appearance of the body. Tanner Staging is identified as a flawed and unreliable method of determining the age of a child from a photo by it's own creator. Yet this didn't stop Wendy Dutton from introducing it as part of her "expert testimony" in State of Arizona vs. Bradley Kennedy, CR 2003-031405-001 SE or another flawed psychological hypothesis called Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. She waltzes into a courtroom with her traveling snake oil and voodoo psychology show and the jury eats it up because it's so sensational.  The following is an excerpt from a motion filed in CR-20051393 and was accurate at the time of it's creation.  A public document - which is now a whole lot more public.

Dutton's "specialty" is conducting forensic interviews. She has worked exclusively in that field since 1992. Prior to that she worked for five years with juvenile offenders by using aversive therapy including the plethysmograph, a device used by attaching wires to the genitals of male children. The program was shut down when the techniques being used on the children came under intense scrutiny. Thus, Dutton's professional and academic background in no way qualify her as an "expert."

Rule 26. 1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, provides, in pertinent part:

Prompt disclosure of information.

(a) Duty to disclose, scope. Within the time set forth in subdivision (b), each party shall disclose in writing to every other party: (6) The name and address of each person whom the disclosing party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds for each opinion, the qualifications of the witness and the name and address of the custodian of copies of any reports prepared by the expert.

A party who chooses to present expert testimony in civil cases is required to disclose explicit and detailed testimony of that expert. In a criminal case involving the liberty of a party it is inconceivable that the standards for disclosure of expert testimony would be less than the standard in a case involving simply money.

DUTTON HAS EMBELLISHED, MISLEAD, AND BEEN DECEPTIVE ABOUT HER ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

The testimony of an expert witness often carries great weight in litigation. The background, both academic and professional, of the expert is of paramount importance. The more academic credentials, or relevant work experience, possessed by an expert the more credible that expert is to a jury. The State's proposed expert in this case, Wendy Dutton, is a fraud. She has repeatedly misled attorneys and juries about her professional experience and her academic credentials.

Dutton is a master's level counselor. She received her master's degree in counseling from the University of  Arizona in 1985. She moved to  Phoenix and enrolled in a Ph.D. program at  Arizona State University. She says she is studying for a Ph.D. in justice studies. Dutton is unclear as to the year she enrolled. Under oath she testified she was accepted into the program in 1993. (See attached Exhibit B, transcript of Dutton testimony in State v. Arciaga, p. 32) She has also testified in October 2004 that she has been in the Ph.D. program for "probably ten years." (See attached Exhibit C, transcript of Dutton interview in State v. Rodriguez, 10/29/04, p. 3-4) And, more recently, she claims to have entered the Ph.D. program in 1992. (See attached Exhibit D, p. 8, transcript of interview, 3/23/06)

Of greater importance than Dutton's imprecise se memory as to her entry into the Ph.D. program is her outright deception as to her progress toward her degree. In 1998, Dutton stated in a witness interview she "prayed" she would have her Ph.D. "within the next year." (See attached Exhibit E, transcript of interview of Dutton, State v. Perez, 12/17/98,p.2) Nearly six years later she used virtually the same words when she claimed she hoped to complete the Ph.D. "within the next year." (See attached Exhibit C, p.3) In fact, Dutton is even today nowhere rear completion of her Ph.D. Such programs have strict requirements for academic progress. (See attached Exhibit F, ASU catalog regarding Doctor of Philosophy)

Comprehensive examinations are a requirement in the Ph.D. program to be taken upon completion of coursework. Dutton claims she finished her coursework although she is vague as to the year it was completed. (See attached Exhibit B, transcript of Dutton testimony, State v. Arciaga, 8/5/04, p. 32) Nonetheless she has not even taken her comprehensive exams. (See Exhibit D, p.10) Moreover, she has not received approval for the subject and title of her dissertation which must come from her dissertation committee. (See exhibit D, p. 10) In fact, she does not now even have a committee. She has not had a committee since 1998. (See Exhibit D, p. I I ) Thus, her claim in 2004 that she hoped to finish her Ph.D. within a year was made despite not having a committee, not having taken or passing her comprehensive exams, not having approval for a subject and title for her dissertation, and not having written and defended the dissertation. The statement, in other words, was a lie. Two years later she still does not have a committee. (See Exhibit D, p. I I -12)

Dutton's prevarications about her progress towards her degree are magnified by explicit questions about her dissertation. A Ph.D. candidate must have approval from his or her committee for the research topic, subject and title of the dissertation before beginning. (See Exhibit F) Dutton has no committee. She is therefore unable to begin to write her dissertation. She has admitted this lack of approval. (See Exhibit D, p. 11-12) That has not stopped her in the past from claiming the opposite. Dutton testified under oath as follows:

"I'm working on my dissertation now." (See attached Exhibit B, p. 32) She stated in a witness interview that same year that "I am working on my dissertation right now. But it is not completed yet." (See attached Exhibit C, p. 3) Dutton's claim that her dissertation is not "complete" and she is "working on it" is obfuscation of the highest order. The implication she portrays is absolutely false: she has not even received approval for a topic. She never even hinted in her testimony or statement that "working" on her dissertation meant gathering information so she could receive approval for a topic. Dutton's answers regarding her dissertation show her to possess either a remarkable lack of candor or to be a liar.

But Dutton does not limit her puffery or misdirection regarding her education to her Ph.D. program. She received her bachelors of science degree in 1983. Her major or was psychology. But Dutton's desire to inflate her academic credentials meant testifying that her B.S. degree was "largely neuropsychology." (See Exhibit G, interview of Dutton, State v. Long, 6/3/05, p. 9) Neuropsychology, of course, is a more scientifically-oriented sub-specialty of psychology. To claim specialization in neuropsychology obviously is an attempt to bolster her scientific credentials. In fact, Dutton's degree was not "largely neuropsychology." She took two courses in neuropsychology while she was an undergraduate, all that was offered, (See Exhibit D, p. 25) She has yet again exaggerated and distorted her academic record.

Dutton's distortion of her academic record is compounded by her inability to tell the truth about her professional career. She has, since 1992, worked for  St. Joseph 's Hospital where her job has been to conduct forensic interviews. Since 1992 she has also acted as an expert witness on child sex abuse issues despite her lack of a Ph.D. and despite the narrow range of her job. When specifically asked on March 23, 2006 whether she had treated any children since 1992 she replied that she had not. (See Exhibit D, p. 40) Under oath, however, in a trial where a defendant's liberty was at stake, Dutton sought to bolster her own credibility as a child expert. She stated:

"Since I started at St. Joseph's Hospital in 1992 I've interviewed over 4000 children who have ever witnessed or alleged abuse, and I've treated approximately 200 victims of abuse and approximately 400 sex offenders. (emphasis added) (See Exhibit H, transcript of testimony of Wendy Dutton, State v. Miller, 5/14/03, p. 13) Thus, under oath, in order to make herself appear more qualified, Dutton claimed an expanded role that did not exist in her work with children.

Dutton also is unable to be consistent in her expert opinions. For instance, when asked how many abused children show symptoms she stated under oath in 2003 that half show no symptoms. (See Exhibit I, State v. Leon, 9/24/03, p. 411) This statement is a far cry from her testimony under oath in State v. Excobar-Mendez on October 6, 1997: "As I said, most victims of sexual abuse would show no symptoms." (See Exhibit J, testimony of Wendy Dutton, p. 44) Then, in an interview on May 17, 2004, Dutton told the attorney questioning her what she had said in Leon : "half of children are asymptomatic." (See Exhibit K, interview of Wendy Dutton, State v. Dempsey, p. 5.) In other words, Dutton tailors her response to the case. Sometimes the number of asymptomatic children is half, and sometimes it is "most." In summary, Dutton has been either directly dishonest or deliberately not forthcoming in multiple areas including her prior academic experience, her current academic progress and her professional experience. She is a witness who cannot and should not be trusted. A witness who would repeatedly embellish is biased, a zealous advocate, and not a dispassionate, objective observer. The term "expert witness" does not anticipate such a lack of objectivity nor does it anticipate the bias inherent in a witness who would make a career of distorting her record in order to impress the trier of fact. She should not be allowed to testify.

Which brings to mind a very deep and troubling question. Why would Wendy Dutton make a career of this kind for herself and conduct herself in the manner she has? Does she possess a deep seated hatred of men? One thing is for certain, her obvious bias has no place in a fact finding court of law.

For proof of the claims above click here:

Wendy Dutton.pdf

 For more interesting true stories of
a similar nature Click Here

Send mail to apachebobten@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.