If Jessie is 'retarded', then why wouldn't he qualify for disability social security instead of having to go get a job and not have electricity?
If he were tested back in 1992 to 1994 wouldn't he have been given an adult version of the test in 2008 when Derning tested him?
I did notice on the appeal from 1996 that the original doctor was not qualified to even do the testing from the opinion:
*it's towards the bottom of the page
https://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html
The appellant also presented the testimony of a psychologist, Dr. William Wilkins, for the purpose of showing that his confession was the product of coercion. Dr. Wilkins offered his opinion that the appellant was "quite suggestible." The doctor had administered a suggestibility test to the appellant based upon the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale. The court held a hearing on the admissibility of the test results. Dr. Wilkins admitted he had never administered the test before. The state called another psychologist, Dr. Vaughn Rickert, to testify that he had never heard of the test and, based on what he had just been informed, he had serious concerns about its validity. The court refused to allow evidence of the test results, citing its unreliability and Dr. Wilkins' lack of experience in administering it.
There was even testimony about his qualifications here in this document and they allowed him to testify anyway. He was a defense witness:
*at top of the page
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html
The Court is of the opinion that the test regarding suggestibility is flawed in that it does not meet a scientific standard upon which the profession generally relies. Secondly, that Doctor Wilkins’ absence of experience, training and education in the utilization of the test would fatally flaw any results that he might conclude from such test. I will, however, allow Doctor Wilkins to continue his testimony;
If he were tested back in 1992 to 1994 wouldn't he have been given an adult version of the test in 2008 when Derning tested him?
I did notice on the appeal from 1996 that the original doctor was not qualified to even do the testing from the opinion:
*it's towards the bottom of the page
https://courts.arkansas.gov/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html
The appellant also presented the testimony of a psychologist, Dr. William Wilkins, for the purpose of showing that his confession was the product of coercion. Dr. Wilkins offered his opinion that the appellant was "quite suggestible." The doctor had administered a suggestibility test to the appellant based upon the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale. The court held a hearing on the admissibility of the test results. Dr. Wilkins admitted he had never administered the test before. The state called another psychologist, Dr. Vaughn Rickert, to testify that he had never heard of the test and, based on what he had just been informed, he had serious concerns about its validity. The court refused to allow evidence of the test results, citing its unreliability and Dr. Wilkins' lack of experience in administering it.
There was even testimony about his qualifications here in this document and they allowed him to testify anyway. He was a defense witness:
*at top of the page
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/wwilkins2.html
The Court is of the opinion that the test regarding suggestibility is flawed in that it does not meet a scientific standard upon which the profession generally relies. Secondly, that Doctor Wilkins’ absence of experience, training and education in the utilization of the test would fatally flaw any results that he might conclude from such test. I will, however, allow Doctor Wilkins to continue his testimony;
