It's a puzzle how ANY data could fit the theory. What kind of dunderheads are masquerading as technical experts to that "court"?
Perhaps a version of this proposal should be adopted:
The mental "expert" problem has grown to such massive proportions that it is simultaneously outrageous and ludicrous. To make that point, New Mexico state senator Duncan Scott proposed a legislative amendment addressing the state’s licensing guidelines for psychiatrists and psychologists earlier this year. "When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing," the bill read, "the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.... [He] shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand [and] the bailiff shall dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong." While the state senate approved the amendment, it was rejected by the New Mexico House of Representatives in March, 1995.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
They can make a list of cookie recipes fit the theory if they work hard enough. The problem for them is that those statistics won't hold up against the other side's expert witnesses, although the people will believe them when they put it out in a press release.