During her June 27, 2012 deposition, Marilyn Knutsen testified that my child made one of the most serious allegations in the case directly to his dentist.
According to Knutsen, this was not a conversation she repeated to the dentist afterward. She testified that the disclosure occurred in the dental office, in front of both her and Raymond Knutsen, during a routine appointment.
If true, the dentist would have been one of the very few independent professionals who personally witnessed an alleged disclosure rather than hearing about it secondhand.
Marilyn Knutsen’s Sworn Testimony
When asked whether my child had spoken to anyone else about the allegations, Knutsen testified:
Q. Do you know if Leif spoke to anybody else?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else?
A. He spoke to his dentist.
Q. About these incidents?
A. About… he was very concerned about his mouth. He’s very concerned about his teeth. He’s concerned that when a ball is put into his mouth, and duct tape is put around, that his mother is trying to make him ugly and that it’s forcing the teeth forward.
Deposition of Marilyn Knutsen, June 27, 2012, p. 18, lines 16 through 25.
Knutsen then testified that the dentist asked my child whether he had any concerns:
A. We were there at the time. The dentist said, “Leif, do you have any concerns?” And Leif took the dentist’s hand and said, “When there’s duct tape on my mouth, this is what it feels like in the front, but it feels like this when the duct tape is behind my head.”
Deposition of Marilyn Knutsen, June 27, 2012, p. 19, lines 7 through 12.
Knutsen further testified:
“The doctor looked at us, and I thought he was going to throw up.”
Deposition of Marilyn Knutsen, June 27, 2012, p. 19, lines 13 through 14.
An Independent Witness?
If the events occurred as Knutsen described them, the dentist was not simply another person who later heard allegations from an adult. According to her testimony, the dentist personally observed the interaction and personally heard the alleged disclosure from the child.
That would have made the dentist an independent professional witness whose testimony could have either corroborated or clarified what occurred during that appointment.
Yet the Dentist Never Appears Again
Despite the significance of Knutsen’s testimony, the dentist does not appear to become part of the evidentiary record.
No dentist testified.
No dental records were introduced.
No dental chart was offered into evidence.
No deposition of the dentist appears in the public court record.
No dental professional was called to corroborate the account Knutsen described under oath.
The Record Speaks for Itself
This article does not suggest what the dentist believed, what may have been documented, or why no dental evidence was presented. Those questions cannot be answered without evidence.
What the record does establish is straightforward.
Marilyn Knutsen testified under oath that my child made a direct disclosure to his dentist during a dental appointment.
Despite identifying the dentist as an independent witness to those alleged statements, no testimony from that dentist and no dental records became part of the public court record.
Readers are left with a simple evidentiary question:
If the dentist personally witnessed the disclosure Marilyn Knutsen described under oath, why was that witness never presented to the court?
That question remains unanswered by the public record.
Skip to PDF content
