Potential DT Witness Sally Karioth

[suzihawk]

As I posted elsewhere here about Dr. K., the self professed 'traumatologist', it would be a gross understatement to say that I didn't much care for her. She is certainly no Elizabeth Kubler Ross and EKR must be spinning in her grave knowing her teachings have been turned into the circus act that is Dr. K.

I've read and studied many of EKR's writings and studies. She's THE pioneer and expert on death and dying and wrote several books devoted to the death of children. Dr. K. is an insult to EKR and to every mother that has lost a child. I'm personally offended.

The only thing she said that had any merit at all was that a mother's bond with their child NEVER breaks. Other than that, she is just one big 'magical thinker'.

JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

As I posted elsewhere here about Dr. K., the self professed 'traumatologist', it would be a gross understatement to say that I didn't much care for her. She is certainly no Elizabeth Kubler Ross and EKR must be spinning in her grave knowing her teachings have been turned into the circus act that is Dr. K.

I've read and studied many of EKR's writings and studies. She's THE pioneer and expert on death and dying and wrote several books devoted to the death of children. Dr. K. is an insult to EKR and to every mother that has lost a child. I'm personally offended.

The only thing she said that had any merit at all was that a mother's bond with their child NEVER breaks. Other than that, she is just one big 'magical thinker'.

JMO

Even her claim that "What I call magical thinking' is fake- it's not her expression, she plagiarised that one.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

What specific examples of magical thinking in Casey's behavior are you thinking about?

IMO the witness didn't make it very clear what parts of Casey's behavior were supposed to be magical thinking. Her anecdotes didn't apply to ICA's situation as far as I could see.
(If it's true that she knows nothing about her case it is possibly quite an expected outcome. Most people have experienced being way off base when they're talking about something they know nothing about.)

Casey's fantastic stories appear more like lies to cover her posterior parts than magical thinking to me. The way she picked and chose which story to tell which people and changed her story in an instant when confronted about them seems to indicate that the stories were something she didn't believe in personally and used them to get Cindy off her back and make something up when people were asking about Caylee's whereabouts.

I am still bothered about the hypothetical manner of questioning for a number of reasons. It was assuming a lot of things not in evidence, the attorney was testifying for Casey without Casey having to open her mouth, and DS was offering up a psychological or a psychiatric testimony without getting an actual expert to confirm any of it was feasible in this case. They didn't call any of their psych experts who actually met Casey so it tells me something.

It was also very leading Basically DS was asking her the question "Assume someone with a loving bond with her child has an abnormal grief reaction when grieving the death of her child because she's from a dysfunctional family. Do you think that her behavior is consistent with a loving grief stricken mom from a dysfunctional family having an abnormal grief reaction?" What the witness was asked was already answered in the assumptions she had to make.

 

[DawnTCB]

What specific examples of magical thinking in Casey's behavior are you thinking about?

IMO the witness didn't make it very clear what parts of Casey's behavior were supposed to be magical thinking. Her anecdotes didn't apply to ICA's situation as far as I could see....(snipped for space)

Casey's fantastic stories appear more like lies to cover her posterior parts than magical thinking to me. The way she picked and chose which story to tell which people and changed her story in an instant when confronted about them seems to indicate that the stories were something she didn't believe in personally and used them to get Cindy off her back and make something up when people were asking about Caylee's whereabouts.

I agree that I don't think they made it very clear what specific examples of magical thinking they think this proved. But I do think she exhibited magical thinking behaviors after June 16 for whatever reason, at least as far as I understand the term.

My little elementary school aged nephew used to tell us about a party we were all invited to at his house "next weekend". He would explain that he and his mom were going to clean the grill, buy some steaks, and hose off the deck. Occasionally he would throw in some additional details like his mom was going to buy an ice cream cake, or that he was planning to invite some school friends. As it turns out, inevitably there was no party planned whatsoever, and in fact he had not even informed his mom about the party he was planning to hold there. In my mind this is magical thinking... I think he believed if he said it enough, with enough details, it would magically come true.

ICA did this when she described her future home with Caylee... when she told AH that her parents were divorcing and moving out so she could have the house and AH could move in, or she needed to go to IKEA for furniture for her new place, or when she described the live-in nanny she and her friend were going to share when they moved in together. She did it again when she tried to wish Caylee back to life... when she told her parents she could "feel" that Caylee was fine and that she would be back just like she was, or when she told the tattoo parlor guy she would be bringing Caylee in the next weekend with her.

To me, this does not sound as much like grief as immaturity. It is somewhat endearing when my little nephew adds a new layer of fun to his imaginary party. It is not endearing at all when it is a grown woman who needs to be grounded enough to care for her child.

 

[shadowraiths]

What specific examples of magical thinking in Casey's behavior are you thinking about?

IMO the witness didn't make it very clear what parts of Casey's behavior were supposed to be magical thinking. Her anecdotes didn't apply to ICA's situation as far as I could see.
(If it's true that she knows nothing about her case it is possibly quite an expected outcome. Most people have experienced being way off base when they're talking about something they know nothing about.)

And she should be off base. That is, her anecdotes should only reflect examples of, in this case, magical thinking, or other behaviors as they might relate to grieving and/or trauma. In other words, as a "topical" expert witness, her job was to inform on behaviors as they relate to grief and trauma. It is then up to the trial atty, in this case, the defense team, to explain to the jury how her testimony might relate to KC's behavior. The primary idea here is to open the door to plausible alternatives wrt KC behavior.

Wrt to your question about magical thinking. Imho, the defense could argue that KC was not lying. That she instead, constructed a make-believe world that included leaving her child with the make-believe nanny while she went to her make-believe job. And that this was obviously a case of magical thinking bc she even tried to take the investigators to her make-believe job... to show them where she worked. I would proffer that they would then support this argument by noting her flat affect and how it demonstrates she is entrenched in Elisabeth Kübler-Ross' denial stage of grieving. I would finish it off with the proposal that KC learned this behavior, and then proceed to note how the Anthony's did not even realize she was pregnant, as an example of how this sort of thinking was common in that household.

That said, while I, personally, think KC straight up lied, my opinion does not matter. What matters is whether the jury buys the alternative explanation as plausible, and if so, whether that is enough to cast reasonable doubt on the state's case. I think it's a *very* long shot. However, I think it's the best shot they have. Moreover, iirc, there are at least three jurors, who, through their professional experience, would have encountered individuals who engaged in magical thinking, and in fact, exhibited flat affect in the face of extreme loss. So, they might be banking on them finding the alternative argument plausible. After all, this "expert witness" was called in at the last minute.

 

[Donjeta]

Where was Caylee when she was supposed to be with the make believe nanny and what was Casey doing all that time she was supposed to be at her make believe job? That's something I've not figured out yet. The answer to the question might affect the plausibility of magical thinking as an argument. Did she believe that talking about the the dream job it would magically make it come true, or did she lie to impress people, or to explain where the stolen money came from, or because she was ashamed to admit she wasn't working, or because she wanted an excuse to hand Caylee over to somebody else?

I think JA had a good point when he spoke about bereaved people in denial insisting that Daddy is not dead, he's in Europe and that's why he's not here, with us today, but he's okay. The Caylee is with the nanny at the beach story could have been an example of that. But when she added that she and Caylee and Zanny were all in Tampa together it was clearly just an excuse, because if you miss someone who is deceased and need to convince yourself of a good reason for them to be gone you're not likely to magically-think that the reason the other person is not there with you is because you're both somewhere else together. It just doesn't make any sense.

And the bit about Zanny having a serious car accident, why would she have imagined that if she desperately needed to pretend everything was always all right due to her dysfunctional upbringing?

Where I possibly see some magical thinking is the 31 days and the trunk and the stupidity of the lies she told, in that any reasonable person would have known that someone would miss Caylee and it would be suspicious that her mother didn't report her missing and that having a dead body in a trunk in Florida heat would eventually lead to stink and if you tell the police easily debunkable lies about people and jobs that don't exist the police will call you a liar and you'll get in trouble. But she did it anyway and magical thinking might be one reason for that. As in, "If I just ignore it this nasty thing it will go away." "If I can just stall this for one more day it'll be okay." "If I'll invent a lie now and get through this conversation maybe tomorrow I'll come up with a really good excuse that will rescue me."

 

[amickeyfan]

Elizabeth Kubler Ross never stated that people grieve by lying & living their lives the way they did prior to the loss of their loved one as iCA did. There was no change in iCA's lifestyle after 6/16 as opposed to prior to 6/16. She lied prior and after. Zanny was prior and after. So it had nothing to do with the grief process. It has all to do with the Sociopath personality. I studied Elizabeth Kubler Ross back while in collge back in the 70's. I also majored in Psych and minored in Education. I am also certified by the Crisis Prevention Institute (she is Crisis Intervention) .. maybe they could have called me.. I am local.. but I don't have 2 Masters, nor do I have a PhD, nor am I an RN... Oh, and I cannot sing and dance either.. or was it drama? I looked up this professor. She makes the circuit and is known as a motivational speaker.. hmm expert on grief.. ok. One of my daughters friends had her a professor. She said she was ok, a little dippy, but nice. You can never dx a person (or give your "expert" opinion on them) without at least interviewing them. Oh, and another FYI, she claimed she was in London and knew nothing of this case.. Bull Dinky.. my friend lives in a small town outside of London. I asked her today if it is on her news.. and yes mam, it is on her news. London is aware of the American case with Casey Anthony! .. very well aware of it.

 

[mobius99]

Ms. Karioth was not very honest when she testified she didn't know any of the facts of the case. JA kept hammering her about it too. Because how many experts (generously speaking) get calls from an attorney they don't know who asks them to appear in court (not near home)---take the stand---provide testimony in a death penalty case no less! --- and they don't ask any questions. Riiiight. [insert eye roll]

What was up with the exaggerated facial expressions during sidebars? She seemed so put out with JA's objections. Without saying any words I swear I saw her turn to the jury and say "Mr. Prosecutor over there, he doesn't understand magical thinking. Grief is all there is. All there is is grief (sigh)."

Next time I need a pick me up laugh I'll replay her testimony.

 

[shadowraiths]

Because how many experts (generously speaking) get calls from an attorney they don't know who asks them to appear in court (not near home)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/ralph/

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

I can't let go of the fact that she was allowed as an expert...I still am in disbelief that DS was allowed to throw out (LOL, 'throw up' is more like it!) their whole defense theory as a "hypothetical"...but whatcha gonna do now, LOL....

Kinda funny...
Went out to dinner with Mr. DD and his parents last night - they only started watching this case since the trial began, so it is nice to get their reactions from people who don't know the background or many of the facts, etc. - - - - - - - - - all during dinner, we were dismissing everything we said or did - EVER - in our past, due to our "grieving." Yes, it was a joke. They just couldn't believe this lady's testimony.

She's famous now, being dinnertime discussion at the Outback Restaurant :floorlaugh:

 

[pip]

I would like to know if she charged her usual exorbitant fee and if the taxpayers of Florida had to foot the bill for this nonsense. Would the JAC allow this?

 

[suzihawk]

Elizabeth Kubler Ross never stated that people grieve by lying & living their lives the way they did prior to the loss of their loved one as iCA did. There was no change in iCA's lifestyle after 6/16 as opposed to prior to 6/16. She lied prior and after. Zanny was prior and after. So it had nothing to do with the grief process. It has all to do with the Sociopath personality. I studied Elizabeth Kubler Ross back while in collge back in the 70's. I also majored in Psych and minored in Education. I am also certified by the Crisis Prevention Institute (she is Crisis Intervention) .. maybe they could have called me.. I am local.. but I don't have 2 Masters, nor do I have a PhD, nor am I an RN... Oh, and I cannot sing and dance either.. or was it drama? I looked up this professor. She makes the circuit and is known as a motivational speaker.. hmm expert on grief.. ok. One of my daughters friends had her a professor. She said she was ok, a little dippy, but nice. You can never dx a person (or give your "expert" opinion on them) without at least interviewing them. Oh, and another FYI, she claimed she was in London and knew nothing of this case.. Bull Dinky.. my friend lives in a small town outside of London. I asked her today if it is on her news.. and yes mam, it is on her news. London is aware of the American case with Casey Anthony! .. very well aware of it.

Thank you for this outstanding post. I'm in compete agreement except for one tiny, minor point. Yes, ICA lied before and after 6/16. But her lifestyle did change. She was footloose and carefree since she no longer had to be bothered by the nuisance of having to care for a toddler. She was free to drink, dance and screw the night away and she took full advantage of it. Life was good and she got a tat to celebrate it.

Otherwise, spot on.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

If I were a taxpayer in Florida and the school this woman works at is state funded, I would be raising all kinds of heck, writing letters to elected officials, the school, the appropriate licensing board(s). Maybe she has tenure and would be hard to fire, but, I sincerely hope she doesn't. Her stunt in this case is just too much. I hope and pray the jury sees through this kind of "expert" (one of the what was Perry thinking) and does the right thing.

 

[amickeyfan]

Thank you for this outstanding post. I'm in compete agreement except for one tiny, minor point. Yes, ICA lied before and after 6/16. But her lifestyle did change. She was footloose and carefree since she no longer had to be bothered by the nuisance of having to care for a toddler. She was free to drink, dance and screw the night away and she took full advantage of it. Life was good and she got a tat to celebrate it.

Otherwise, spot on.

You are correct, I should have worded it better.. I should have stated that while her lifestyle had not changed, she got out more often, such as every night since she no longer had to worry about a baby sitter.. Thanks for bringing that up!! :goodpost:

 

[amickeyfan]

If I were a taxpayer in Florida and the school this woman works at is state funded, I would be raising all kinds of heck, writing letters to elected officials, the school, the appropriate licensing board(s). Maybe she has tenure and would be hard to fire, but, I sincerely hope she doesn't. Her stunt in this case is just too much. I hope and pray the jury sees through this kind of "expert" (one of the what was Perry thinking) and does the right thing.

:tyou::tyou: thank you very much for that thought.. didn't even think of that. I may just email the University to let them know that I observed her behaviors on TV during the trial and felt her odd facial expressions during questioning were very troublesome to me. How could she put on those facial expressions when on a witness stand in a Capital Murder Trail. I may also ask them how they let her claim to be an expert and to testify when not knowing facts about a case or ever having met the defendant. It doesn't look very well for the University!!

here ye.. here ye.. all Floridians.. I declare this rat her out day!!!:great:

 

[amickeyfan]

I just sent my email to FSU... I let them know how I felt about her stage show on the stand. Didn't say anything about what she said, just her facial expressions and body language.. that being in a court room is not being on a Broadway Stage Show.. rolling of eyes are uncalled for while attorney's are at side bar's.. I told them to view the tapes if they had any questions. I did mention that she testified on the actions of the defendant supposedly without any knowledge on the case nor interview with defendant. I did not want them to think I was bashing her testimony, due to how I feel on Casey, but did want them to know what "type" of witness she came off as..

 

[shadowraiths]

I agree wrt to the non-verbals. She was clearly annoyed when the prosecutor kept objecting to her non-answer rambling. And, I personally, question, how many trials she's actually testified in. As seasoned expert witnesses are concise in their answers. No matter. Afaics, her nonverbal presentation was questionable and bordered on offensive. Though, imho, she did seem to become more composed and professional by the time they got to the meat of her testimony. As for testifying without knowing a thing about the case? I would hope so. Again, she was testifying as a "topical" expert. And as such, these sorts of experts *do not* evaluate the defendant.