CN2Souls
A MEMBER FROM LONG AGO
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,862
- Reaction score
- 15
Potential DT Witness Sally Karioth
- Thread starter ynotdivein
- Start date
I did not follow this case before the trial aside from news summaries 3 years ago. I have watched and heard pretty much everything the jury has.
It's hard not to notice that 99% of everything written in this forum is colored from the point of view that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder and her attorneys are unethical clowns. I also think most of the media commentary feeds this opinion and vice versa. Maybe I would share this viewpoint if I had been closely following the case for 3 years (?) who knows...
I think the State's case is strong in some respects, especially with the decomp in the car, but I think its questionable at best in others: motive, method.
I do think RK is hiding something, but I don't think what he is hiding has overall significant importance to the case (cause and circumstances of death) - I think it would go to his character.
Anyhow, I think Dr. SK was a good witness for the defense case. She was qualified as an expert by the judge, and opined that ICA's behavior in the "31 days" was not unheard of and in fact a more common reaction to trauma than is commonly believed. The fact that she was unfamiliar with the nuances of the case also works in favor of her credibility. She did not come across to me as arrogant or self-promoting. Once this trial is done, don't be surprised to hear from the jury that this was an powerful witness. Remember - her testimony strikes to a pillar of the State's case: that ICA's behavior and state of mind after her child went "missing" reveals the true story.
Yes, JA pointed out that there was no behavior which could not be construed as grieving - I got that...but if true that statement still undercuts the State's case as well. SK did point out that she "plots" and analyzes behavior to form a more specific opinion (not done of course with ICA) - the point though is that although in any behavior can be a result of grieving (in general of the entire population), there are certain behaviors/flags that fit together to form a complete picture for any individual.
If anything, I can see some jurors tossing out her party-life behavior in the "31 days" and instread focusing (or forcing those jurors who do not give weight to SK testimony to focus on) on the rest of the testimony and evidence. The net effect will likely be that no one in the jury room can say "but what about those 31 days" to pull NGs over to G.
It's hard not to notice that 99% of everything written in this forum is colored from the point of view that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder and her attorneys are unethical clowns. I also think most of the media commentary feeds this opinion and vice versa. Maybe I would share this viewpoint if I had been closely following the case for 3 years (?) who knows...
I think the State's case is strong in some respects, especially with the decomp in the car, but I think its questionable at best in others: motive, method.
I do think RK is hiding something, but I don't think what he is hiding has overall significant importance to the case (cause and circumstances of death) - I think it would go to his character.
Anyhow, I think Dr. SK was a good witness for the defense case. She was qualified as an expert by the judge, and opined that ICA's behavior in the "31 days" was not unheard of and in fact a more common reaction to trauma than is commonly believed. The fact that she was unfamiliar with the nuances of the case also works in favor of her credibility. She did not come across to me as arrogant or self-promoting. Once this trial is done, don't be surprised to hear from the jury that this was an powerful witness. Remember - her testimony strikes to a pillar of the State's case: that ICA's behavior and state of mind after her child went "missing" reveals the true story.
Yes, JA pointed out that there was no behavior which could not be construed as grieving - I got that...but if true that statement still undercuts the State's case as well. SK did point out that she "plots" and analyzes behavior to form a more specific opinion (not done of course with ICA) - the point though is that although in any behavior can be a result of grieving (in general of the entire population), there are certain behaviors/flags that fit together to form a complete picture for any individual.
If anything, I can see some jurors tossing out her party-life behavior in the "31 days" and instread focusing (or forcing those jurors who do not give weight to SK testimony to focus on) on the rest of the testimony and evidence. The net effect will likely be that no one in the jury room can say "but what about those 31 days" to pull NGs over to G.
Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
It's so odd that the DT seemed to think this would be some sort of powerful game-changing testimony. Is this the best that Mason and Simms can come up with? I thought these folks were supposed to be the elites? The whole defense has been disjointed, inconsistent, and hopelessly incoherent. If they could have had SOME rhyme or reason to their presentation it would have helped. We go from one unrelated topic to the next, witnesses are called numerous times...it's a mess.
SK's testimony was a sad statement on the lack of critical thinking in our society. She should not have been able to make such a name for herself on such a flimsy foundation. She seems to use her credentials to validate her irrelevant opinions.
SK's testimony was a sad statement on the lack of critical thinking in our society. She should not have been able to make such a name for herself on such a flimsy foundation. She seems to use her credentials to validate her irrelevant opinions.
I Din Doot
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 1
This expert, like others, was "Ashtonized". I believe that ICA is guilty of something but I'm still not sure what (after following closely for a long time). Its a shame that so many people, family, friends, and experts got smeared because of the circumstances that ICA created.
Mamabear1963
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 6
I am going to save this woman's testimony to my hard drive. And watch it when I need something to distract me from reality.
I think she is a fantastic therapist...I wouldn't say she is an expert...but I totally understand why HHJP allowed her in...she wouldn't hurt the PT theory..
and I think she actually helped it.
She reminded me of that uniform maker on the Incredibles...
I think she is a fantastic therapist...I wouldn't say she is an expert...but I totally understand why HHJP allowed her in...she wouldn't hurt the PT theory..
and I think she actually helped it.
She reminded me of that uniform maker on the Incredibles...
Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
She's not a therapist though. She just makes things up based on her experiences and uses them to try to help people.
MissJames
a yellowflutterby changed my life : )
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 6,658
- Reaction score
- 1,304
BBM
I am willing to bet the 99% you are referring to HAVE been following this case for the last 3 years ,reading the documents,the transcripts,watching the hearings and all the recorded LE interviews and depos.
So,yeah,I agree ,everything I say is colored by what I know .She's guilty as sin.
It was all those doggies wrapped in blankets/towels/black bags/duct tape. I'm not sure if the A's have a pet cemetary in their back yard, or if Casey learned this behaviour from her parents and did the same thing to Caylee. I also have to wonder with the abundance of dead pets, if Casey had a bit of practice. I think the little doggie who was sleepy all the time was the next victim. Wonder how he/she is doing now. I bet its not sleepy anymore!
MOO
Mel
burbqueen
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 17
Say what you will about the good doctor, but personally, I feel better forearmed to deal with the grief of other, thanks to her edifying explanation:
[/QUO
BWAAAAAAAAAAA! lol!
That chart pretty much covers every range of emotion. So if you are grieving you feel emotions? wow, dont know what to say about that. I guess I need to get a new job! I could be a motivational speaker and "counselor".
Marple
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 58
Right. Like Matt Foley, Motivational Speaker.
sappysoul
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 0
bbm
I respect your right to whatever opinion you may have but I have to say this. As someone who has worked in the mental health field for many years I find this concerning. I'm not sure if people now just expect less from the mental health experts or if they just allow more latitude for them because it is a "soft" science. I find it hard to believe an expert in most fields would have been qualified with such a lack of credentials and I VERY seriously doubt anyone would have taken them seriously after they presented such worthless testimony. Basically what she said is everything is in and everything is out. She admitted to no knowledge of the case and no examination of the defendant. This is the best the mental health field had to offer this case? Absolutely ridiculous, and offensive.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 187
Okay, I finally finished listening to Dr. Karioth's testimony. I will admit, I find motivational speakers (ala talks such as her TED talk) to be a put off, so I began with the bias that her testimony would be a complete joke. I was wrong.
That is, wrt the last half of Dr. Kariot's testimony. Or rather, the actual expert witness testimony portion. While the introduction came across as flippant, the gum chewing unseemingly, and the rambling stories painful to listen to, when she finally got down to business wrt to discussing grief and trauma, I think she did fine. Though, I wish the defense would have explored the trauma angle a bit more. As, both promiscuity and magical thinking tend to be hallmarks when it comes to traumatic events. And it certainly could explain the striking affect issues and fantastic stories.
As for the so-called telltale manifestations of grief? There are none. Telltale manifestations of trauma are, otoh, another story altogether.
That is, wrt the last half of Dr. Kariot's testimony. Or rather, the actual expert witness testimony portion. While the introduction came across as flippant, the gum chewing unseemingly, and the rambling stories painful to listen to, when she finally got down to business wrt to discussing grief and trauma, I think she did fine. Though, I wish the defense would have explored the trauma angle a bit more. As, both promiscuity and magical thinking tend to be hallmarks when it comes to traumatic events. And it certainly could explain the striking affect issues and fantastic stories.
As for the so-called telltale manifestations of grief? There are none. Telltale manifestations of trauma are, otoh, another story altogether.
I've hesitated on weighing in on SK. I thought she was truly awful, a real embarrassment to academics. I'm in the humanities, but I've been in higher education for over 30 years, and I know about what is expected in nursing programs in terms of faculty research.
Here's what I think: She got her degree a long time ago and got tenure and promotion before things started getting really tough. We have some folks like that where I am, people who lack the credentials to get hired in the first place, but they've been here a long time and they're just getting by.
Her research is intellectually lightweight, and it's obvious she's gone for the pop culture approach rather than serious research. Now she's no doubt making lots of money with her speaking engagements and chicken soup books, but it's not heavy duty research.
I read her reviews at ratemyprofessor.com. I know that these reviews are questionable. Her reviews are generally good, BUT they speak volumes. They love her because she is pleasant and is not a hard grader. Several mention this very thing, but to them this is a good thing and not a warning that she is not requiring rigor in her teaching. Oh, the most telling review talked about how she had the best clothes and shoes and accessories of any other professor on campus, so that should indicate what college students are looking for in a "great" professor these days.
And the jokes she tells in that film clip? I'm pretty sure most of them are from Garrison Keillor. She just swapped Minnesota for Wisconsin.
Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
Say what you will about the good doctor, but personally, I feel better forearmed to deal with the grief of other, thanks to her edifying explanation:
Hahaha yep. "Expert" indeed!
Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
Totally agree! She wasn't even testifying in her area of expertise.
I think she helped the state more than the DT. Especially when she told JA how she helped a grieving mother protect her dead child (who had never been in the rain or cold) by going to the gravesite with a blanket and umbrella - even though the mom knew the child was gone
A mother should always have the need to protect their child -- even in death (as odd as that may sound). Caylee didn't think twice about dumping her child in the woods.
Then she wrapped it up by saying the bond between a mother and child never breaks. Wonder if ICA took that in (nah, prolly not).
So once I got past the animations and listened to what she was really saying to the state, I am confident the SA won this round.
MOO
Mel
That was classic!! Another one where JB helped the Prosecution :floorlaugh:
DawnTCB
Taking Care of Business
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 11
What I got out of her testimony: No one gives you a handbook on how to grieve, and any emotion can indicate horrible grief.
What my Mom got out of it: Finally, an explanation about how this cute pretty girl could have behaved so atrociously after her child died. My mom is college educated and very bright, and she agreed that this witness was theatrical. She said in her mind any witness who enjoyed being on the stand so much is suspicious. But she felt like jurors who are not very critical thinkers - or who are just worn out from day after day of having this weird and confusing story crammed down their throats in huge doses, are probably looking for anything, ANYTHING to make sense of this - how could she behave this way whether it was an accident or murder, it just doesn't make sense? She thinks this witness, out of all of them, gave the best case for the defense.
Just my mom's :twocents:
What my Mom got out of it: Finally, an explanation about how this cute pretty girl could have behaved so atrociously after her child died. My mom is college educated and very bright, and she agreed that this witness was theatrical. She said in her mind any witness who enjoyed being on the stand so much is suspicious. But she felt like jurors who are not very critical thinkers - or who are just worn out from day after day of having this weird and confusing story crammed down their throats in huge doses, are probably looking for anything, ANYTHING to make sense of this - how could she behave this way whether it was an accident or murder, it just doesn't make sense? She thinks this witness, out of all of them, gave the best case for the defense.
Just my mom's :twocents: