GORDON KEENE VELLA. - On Point News

Dr. Barden, “As a national expert who has reviewed this literature for decades, I am aware of no
credible research, theory, or journal articles to support Dr. Brown’s idiosyncratic and fanciful
claim to error rates. . . . It is my opinion that Dr. Brown’s method for concocting error rates is
highly unreliable and without credible scientific support.” (Id.)
As noted earlier, the point of this Motion is not to challenge the admissibility of Dr.
Brown’s testimony under Daubert. Rather, it is to expose the material misrepresentations and
omissions of Dr. Brown that infringed upon the legitimacy of the trial in this matter. Dr.
Brown’s subtle reference to an error rate for “accuracy” when asked about an error rate for the
scientific hypothesis itself is strikingly similar to the “word-smithing” that entangled the expert
in Vioxx. He may argue that his testimony was quite clear, and that the Court and the jury had no
reason to be confused about his answer – just as the expert in Vioxx insisted that his “yes”
response went to whether or not he had passed his boards. Yet that argument must be rejected in
the same manner as did the court in Vioxx.
In light of the absence of an applicable error rate for the hypothesis itself, and Dr.
Brown’s previous exclusions due to his inability to adduce an error rate as to that hypothesis, it is
more than fair to attribute a motivation to Dr. Brown to find an error rate, regardless of the
inappropriateness of his method for concocting it and then subtly attributing it to the general
hypothesis that “complete forgetting” does in fact exist.
judgment.
This basis alone is sufficient to warrant relief under Rule 60(b) and to vacate the
B. Dr. Brown Misrepresented to the Court That the Theory of “Dissociative
Amnesia” Has Been Subjected to Peer Review and Publication.
Another significant component of Dr. Brown’s testimony focused upon his representation
that the hypothesis of dissociative amnesia had, in fact, been subject to peer review and
- 13 -