• News Ticker alerts

A woman who has accused two caregivers of mistreating her autistic son was asked today to explain video showing her younger son putting his disabled brother into a choke-hold.

Mrs. Kim Oakley stated, “He’s definitely in the process of trying to control his brother,” when a defense attorney played the video clip for a jury today, April 9, 2013.

In the video, a teenager identified as Mike Oakley got behind his disabled brother Jamey, 23, and put his forearm over Jamey’s neck while he pulled one of Jamey’s arms behind his back, and then both men advanced outside the range of the camera.

Mrs. Oakley testified that her younger son Mike was one of seven paid caregivers for her severely autistic son Jamey.

A different caregiver, 62-year-old Michael Dale Garritson, is on trial this week, charged with seven felonies. He is accused of abusing the 23-year-old autistic man in his care last summer, while the mother was gone for a month. Garritson has been a Registered Nurse for 30 years, and has fourteen children of his own.

Mrs. Oakley said her younger son Mike Oakley has no formal training as a nurse or caregiver.

Kim Oakley was in the witness box for another long day today, the second day of trial. Yesterday she told the jury that she could “clearly” see Garritson “hair-pulling” and “slam-to-the-ground” and “shove” her son Jamey; she described brief video clips as they were shown to the jury. But some observers in the courtroom wondered aloud as to what could actually be seen in the grainy clips.

And the way Garritson touched his patient, stopping the severely autistic man from striking himself, appeared much gentler and milder than the way brother Mike took hold of Jamey.

Mrs. Oakley testified that her husband installed a new video camera in Jamey’s room late in July 2012, shortly before she left for Europe. On August 29, a week after her return, Mrs. Oakley said she started reviewing the video, and that is when she claimed to see abuse of her son by Garritson and another paid caregiver named Matthew McDuffie.

Public defender Michael Washington suggests that a computer technician was able to recover certain videos on Mrs. Oakley’s computer that had been in a location titled “Recycle.” The defender seems to imply that Mrs. Oakley has removed or misplaced video and “nursing notes” that illustrate her younger son’s “caregiving” for his brother.

Trial will resume tomorrow morning, April 10, 2013, before the Honorable Judge Blaine K. Bowman.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Realitychek123 April 9, 2013 @ 9:52 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

1

Realitychek123 April 9, 2013 @ 9:59 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Realitychek123 April 9, 2013 @ 10:34 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

honeybadger April 10, 2013 @ 12:39 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 9, 2013 @ 10:56 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

1

Realitychek123 April 10, 2013 @ 8:37 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 8:43 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 8:49 a.m.

Also makes me wonder what sort of videos you destroyed showing Mike Oakley abusing his autistic brother. If you had nothing to hide, there would be no reason you'd destroy the evidence. If just one file was recovered and showed your son Mike Oakely abusing his brother, I would gather that there were many more vile things that this brother did.

I pray that this whole Oakley family is investigated. Using a autistic kid to profit from and having relatives abuse him is beyond a crime. Any passive reader can tell it.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 9:05 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

honeybadger April 9, 2013 @ 11:42 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

2

honeybadger April 10, 2013 @ 12:07 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 8:36 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

bighammer April 10, 2013 @ 12:24 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

1

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 8:54 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Realitychek123 April 11, 2013 @ 10:30 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

1

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 9:56 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 10:26 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 10:31 a.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 12:56 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 3:14 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 3:17 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OCnurse April 10, 2013 @ 4:25 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justiceprevails April 10, 2013 @ 5:09 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

bighammer April 10, 2013 @ 9:04 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

honeybadger April 10, 2013 @ 10:04 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Realitychek123 April 10, 2013 @ 10:19 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

honeybadger April 10, 2013 @ 10:53 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Visduh April 11, 2013 @ 1:22 p.m.

Although there is apparently no gag order in this case, judges usually caution the parties to a trial to avoid "trying the case in the media." The self-identified family members of the victim are doing exactly that here, and one wonders why. The "intelligence" of the jury is what will make the determination in this case, that is unless all this invective results in the judge declaring a mistrial.

BTW, based on a couple photos of the defendant, Garriston, I'd say he isn't a very sympathetic figure. He'd be well advised to get a haircut and shed that middle-aged Fabio look he's affecting.

1

bighammer April 12, 2013 @ 6:20 p.m.

The reader should remove their comments as well and turn all the comments over to the court may e the Reader has autism.

0

Sign in to comment