Potential DT Witness Sally Karioth

[Mohabi]

She reminds me of a Nurse Practitioner that I used to see. It didn't matter what I came in for, she took up the majority of my visit with anecdotal reasons why I was feeling like I was. At one visit I was there for some meds for an allergy and what should have been a quick visit turned into an added 15 mins so that she could tell me about her son and how ins stinks because they won't approve his stop smoking meds... The last time I saw her was when her anecdotal dx almost killed me. She told me the type of cyst that I had on my ovary was the type that goes away. She backed this up with, of course, a story about her daughter in law and how her cyst disapeard. "No worries". 8 cm's later I was on an operating room table because mine was a fast growing cyst and was at the point of rupturing.

This witness said that all patients and situations are different. Yet, she continued time and time again to use anecdotal info that lumped people together.

I am also disapointed in her behavior in court. Gum Chewing?? In a Courtroom? Someone could very possibly lose their life, she should have a bit of reverence for our court and our process. When there was a sidebar she looked at the jury as if she was trying to get them on her side. She looked at each and every one of them. It was a blantant display and I was disgusted..Say what you will, most of the witnesses have conducted themselves with respect for the court. Perhaps she is hoping Barnes and Noble will cut her a deal if she is talked about by the jury after the trial is over.

The witness today was as anecdotal as they get. She had nothing to add. What I saw was a wei:waitasec:red sort of self promotion. I am still scratching my head over this witness.:waitasec:

TC, Robin

I totally agree with your post and would like to add that we here, as a group, have more experience in handling and overcoming grief and life changing traumas than that grief expert will ever have in her life. How has she "learned" what she speaks of? By reading and studying it, or by living it?

The woman was not told that ICA was a liar and thief way before her poor daughter's death. She was not told that her actions AFTER the death mimicked quite closely her actions BEFORE the death.

ICA lied, deceived, stole, partied, and bed-hopped just as much before as after Caylee "died". How can anyone be asked to give an expert opinion on "general grieving" when NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE IS GENERAL AT ALL.

 

[Kateyes]

IMO, I think SK choosing to testify in this trial, when she admittedly knows nothing about the case, goes to a lack of professionalism. Anyone who hitches their wagon to this DT has some sort of agenda. I had never heard of SK before (some have), but now I have. As millions of others who had never heard of her. It's AL again, but a different sort of expert. AL wrote a book, timed IMO, w/ this case. I would not be surprised if we hear a lot more about SK and a book is released within the next six months.

The other thing that really bugged me was her jovial attitude and putting her chin (almost coquettishly) on her hands while looking at the jury. Totally inappropriate, IMO. Based on her appearance today, I can't imagine seeking out this woman for any sort of counseling. There is something patronizing and smug about her.

Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. I found her very affected, such as the chin in her hand, and actually patronizing when answering questions. She was especially patronizing, IMO, to JA. She showed obvious irritation during sidebars, and seemed pretty puffed up about herself in general. She seemed evasive when JA was asking her about peer review, and her answers to the peer review question were not appropriate. I am an RN, and I know many RNs in different areas of nursing, including nurse practitioners. I surely hope no one thinks she is the norm!

 

[RR473]

Do you have a link to her testimony ? All I could find was this little gem.

That's so funny. Hahaha

 

[Melanie]

Do you have a link to her testimony ? All I could find was this little gem.

Thanks for that little gem -- too cute.

Here is the testimony with the dancing hands. I noticed Jeff Ashton tends to get animated too, but more often than not he controls it by putting his hands in his pockets.

http://www.wftv.com/video/28401220/index.html

Mel

eta: start at the 4:15 mark. She also talks about "magical thinking"

 

[itsyourworld]

Sally Karioth is a nut.

 

[SuziQ]

Okay being new to this trial like the jury; I have to admit this is one time I DO NOT like how the state is handling this lady. She is knowledgeable! Grief is clearly her passion, and the years she's been involved in studying grief is amazing. She also seems to want to always help people in need! The states needs to handle this woman a lot more gracefully. The state could also use her knowledge to help them. UGH! She reminds me of the cool eccentric worldly professor that everyone loves!! Let her be! Just my opinion!

Well, evidently she's now moved on to helping people who murder their children. I don't like this lady. What legitimate expert is going to offer an opinion with no facts of the case to make an opinion? She's personally helped 30 to 40 thousand people she claims? Do the math. Do the math. Sounds sketchy of you ask me. Let her be? She chose to put herself into this position.

 

[Sharai]

Well, now I have read the thread and from what is linked regarding Ms. Karioth is there anywhere to know if she would have expertise in "finding a body." And how people would react/behave? It does not seem so. :dunno:

The judge said this motion was subject to the same requirements as any other motion and the judge really couldn't rule one way or another until he had a report and a deposition. JA said they will depose Ms. Karioth as soon as they get a report. Now, all Jose as to do is get a report from Ms. Karioth. :waiting: ullhair:

Even if he does get a report, and Ms. Karioth is deposed: she is still subject to HHJP's ruling on the matter, is my understanding.

The way Jose got so upset at Jeff Ashton calling him out on his being disingenuous- that Jose had just thought of calling such a witness today, makes me think he has a personality disorder. I am not being snarky. The same as I say for ICA, Jose's behavior is outrageous, IMHO. I cannot imagine such a blatant example of being disingenuous being a part of job. I have come to understand it is the job of the defense team to defend their client. Taking that understanding into consideration, I understand Jose getting in the motion/expert testimony if he can-I understand his "acting" like he didn't know anything about it(for a few minutes while CM exclaimed he had an alibi and it couldn't be him) but how can Jose get so personally offended when he is called out fairly for playing his game?

IMHO Jose acts like Casey. He is outraged that Mr. Ashton would even suggest such a thing! He acts truly offended and in his outrage is telling us it is Mr Ashton who has done wrong. When in fact, all Mr. Ashton did was state the facts. Jose did not have that kind of real emotion during the "key" moments of his opening statements.

I am :waiting: to hear but I cannot imagine this behavior exhibited by Jose at the end of the day today, can be explained by his job title, responsibility? TIA.

:cow:

Interesting, I too, had serious thoughts today regarding the mental health of JB, not being snarky either. His behavior is suspect. Something odd, some sort of disconnect. Note: " Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscient as "antisocial personality disorder,' a noncorrectable disfigure ment of character that is now thought to be present in about 4% of the population--that is to say, one in twenty-five people." The Sociopath Next Door, Martha, Stout, Phd.

 

[Macushla]

I am so glad to see a number of people saying that 'something' seemed to be wrong with Dr. SK today. I commented to my DH more than once while watching her testimony that I thought she had way too much to drink before taking the stand and he agreed. I assume that while she was waiting to testify or as she came into the courthouse, she saw the rules that are posted about what is not allowed. Yet she was chewing gum while she was testifying! I thought she looked and sounded superior and condescending the whole time. I could see her acting background in the way she moved and spoke while on the stand, in my opinion she was performing.

I have to say one more thing: I applaud her for the compassion she showed in accompanying a grieving mother to the cemetery. whatever negatives I came away with after watching her testify - I am sure she does help people who are grieving to come to terms with their loss.

 

[SuziQ]

I looked for it, too, Robin, and I read that Judge Strickland sealed the tape because he said it was very damaging to the defendant.

Personally, I'd like to see the video.

Keep your fingers crossed. Word is that after the trial and sentencing everything will be unsealed and released to the public.

 

[Melanie]

Well, evidently she's now moved on to helping people who murder their children. I don't like this lady. What legitimate expert is going to offer an opinion with no facts of the case to make an opinion? She's personally helped 30 to 40 thousand people she claims? Do the math. Do the math. Sounds sketchy of you ask me. Let her be? She chose to put herself into this position.

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

 

[sappysoul]

Does anyone know why this grief lady witness did not interview ICA? Sorry if this has been asked and answered already

The DT did have some experts examine Casey but would have had to allow the state's expert to examine her as well. They did not want to do that so they chose not to use the experts who had examined Casey. That was the understanding I had.

 

[Sharai]

I gave her a perfect score for the beautiful backflip she did and her perfect landing on the Prosecutions side of the mat. Gold medal performance IMHO.

This photo of Cayley disturbs me, she look so sad, I don't know why but I can't help but think she has the "look" of an abused child.

 

[RR473]

I have to say one more thing: I applaud her for the compassion she showed in accompanying a grieving mother to the cemetery.

That's the part I'm sure is a lie. Lecturers and alike usually have a bunch of very emotional fake stories to affect the audience.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Interesting, I too, had serious thoughts today regarding the mental health of JB, not being snarky either. His behavior is suspect. Something odd, some sort of disconnect. Note: " Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscient as "antisocial personality disorder,' a noncorrectable disfigure ment of character that is now thought to be present in about 4% of the population--that is to say, one in twenty-five people." The Sociopath Next Door, Martha, Stout, Phd.

Perhaps. But, whatever happened to just being a jerk?

 

[3doglady]

She should have testified the same day as Dr. Spitz. They would have made a good team.:crazy:

 

[Cassata11]

Per the rules, I cannot post what I really feel about this witness. However, I did notice some similarities to people I know in real life.

1. A person like this has an "legitimate answer" to every scenario. It doesn't matter the question. Jeff could have asked her what if she was abducted by aliens, and Sally would have the answer.

2. My "acquaintance" that she reminded me of, has major mental health, and memory issues. She has found a way to deal with her own grief, by "figuring out", how to excuse others to be in denial.

3. IMHO, people that fall into this category do not mean to cause harm, or ill will. In their minds and hearts, they feel that by accepting denial, and spreading the "denial" coping skill, they justify their own coping skills.

The person I know also has substance/pain killer abuse issues that she ignores completely. I almost thought this was the person I knew, with a fresh bleach job.

It was sad, and frustrating for me to watch. I do not believe this witness is of her right mind.

 

[Studio_Medic]

I went a little nuts when she took the stand, and stood up to shake my fist when Simms went into her "assumes," but ultimately, she couldn't have done better for the defense! The image the jury was left with of the distraught mother sitting vigil on her child's grave, well-- a most powerful contrast to what befell Caylee's little body.

Yep, another witness for the prosecution. mo

BBM... That image absolutely broke my heart; that truly is anguish.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

That's the part I'm sure is a lie. Lecturers and alike usually have a bunch of very emotional fake stories to affect the audience.

Yeah this woman bases everything on emotion, not evidence based practice. She seriously has NO business counseling anyone on anything. She should be before a board of inquiry imo.

 

[sorrell skye]

Hahaha I think I get it! She wrote a book, Barnes & Noble sells it, and on their website people review the book - hence, she has written a "peer reviewed" publication!

 

[sorrell skye]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=sally+karioth&hl=fi&as_sdt=0

Link to google scholar listings for Sally Karioth.
There is one co-authored article from this century that appeared in an online journal that says it's peer reviewed but is not published any longer according to their site. I'm not sure if she got the journal name right in her testimony. The topic is not grief reactions per se but nurses responses to having to empathize all the time.

The other mentions are older.

A couple of books that do not appear to be peer reviewed, from the 1980's and the 1990's.

A study from 1977. Her thesis possibly? It's published by the University of Florida and does not appear to have anything to do with grieving based on the title.

Something from 1973 that deals with adult education in Great Britain, not sure if this is hers.

Many of these listings are publications from the University of Florida in which she's been mentioned as a committee member, not as an author.

Some do not appear to be related to her.

---

http://nursing.fsu.edu/Faculty-and-Administration/Faculty-and-Staff/Sally-Karioth-PhD-RN

lists some publications not available in Google scholar. There is a Barnes & Noble book that sounds like the one she was talking about in her testimony but it's a Child Magazine guide, not the Parents magazine as she said in her testimony.
Amazon.com: Feeling Safe: Talking to Children About War and Terrorism (Child Magazine Guides) (9780760746813): Editors of Child: Books



A PubMed search for Karioth yields three results for Karioth, S or SP and one for SJ (has she used that initial?)
An article called Things I've learned along the way sounds more like a conversational piece or a column than original research to me and the others have to do with assertiveness and the world revolving around you, which, while intriguing, does not seem to deal with grief reactions.



I can't find any peer reviewed research on grief reactions. Still looking.

Thank You, Donjeta, for all your research on this witness.

When I was listening to her testify, I thought she didn't know what a peer-reviewed journal is. But then I realized that since she's a professor, she most certainly knows what a peer-reviewed journal is.

My opinion: She had no business testifying in court as an expert on grief. Her testimony was based on anecdotal experience at best.