Trial Thread: May 14, 2012

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
artsy1 said:
Shake those puppies, Chiquita.... :blushing: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

O/T my 70 year old mom works at the election site on election day. You should have seen my coworkers face when I said my mom was "working the polls" today. LOL
 
How could a home study pass TS for an adoption, based on her criminal background and how she gave up her kids/lost custody? And why was her background never brought up by the state? I hope they do it in rebuttal because while it may not hinder a private adoption, it would prevent her, I think, from a public adoption and/or via a reputable agency. Which is the whole reason she worked so hard to pressure young moms to give up their babies, or wanted to go the surrogacy route, etc. They better paint this picture. The defense opened the door for that and they need to walk through it.
 
gitana1 said:
How could a home study pass TS for an adoption, based on her criminal background and how she gave up her kids/lost custody? And why was her background never brought up by the state? I hope they do it in rebuttal because while it may not hinder a private adoption, it would prevent her, I think, from a public adoption and/or via a reputable agency. Which is the whole reason she worked so hard to pressure young moms to give up their babies, or wanted to go the surrogacy route, etc. They better paint this picture. The defense opened the door for that and they need to walk through it.
Click to expand...

So the judge said they will discuss jury instructions TODAY. Does that mean the state will have ONE rebuttal witness? :banghead:
 
Ok, so I want to know where all this evidence is that Tammi claimed she had that would prove her innocence, since the defense will rest after lunch?

Logan's criminal record, Gabriel's birth certificate, Gabriel's shot record, EJ's WIC records, etc. have nothing to do with proving Tammi's innocence in the case.

So, "where's the beef?" :waiting: :websleuther:
 
gitana1 said:
How could a home study pass TS for an adoption, based on her criminal background and how she gave up her kids/lost custody? And why was her background never brought up by the state? I hope they do it in rebuttal because while it may not hinder a private adoption, it would prevent her, I think, from a public adoption and/or via a reputable agency. Which is the whole reason she worked so hard to pressure young moms to give up their babies, or wanted to go the surrogacy route, etc. They better paint this picture. The defense opened the door for that and they need to walk through it.
Click to expand...

Also, didn't she mention earlier in her testimony that she knew nothing about having a home study for this adoption? Strange.
 
Honestly, I don't know how you all keep this stuff straight. Granted, I haven't been following the case from the beginning but you must have memories like elephants,terrific notes, or I'm just getting old. lol

But I'm grateful that you do!
 
seattlechiquita said:
So the judge said they will discuss jury instructions TODAY. Does that mean the state will have ONE rebuttal witness? :banghead:
Click to expand...

Sounds like it. And really, the only way they could get her background in was through her. So they missed the boat on that and that's bad.

In the casey anthony trial, one thing I noticed that really troubled me, which I kept commenting on, was that the state failed to show that Tony told casey that he didn't really want Caylee around his house, as it was inappropriate, that he didn't want kids, but if he did have one, it would be a boy, not a girl and that as a result, since the parents wouldn't sit for Caylee that often, casey was unable to spend much time over night with Tony, until Caylee disappeared. Basically, they failed to show the motivation - that Caylee was, like the PR trip, one more obstacle to casey getting what she wanted and having fun. I was very worried about that but still felt she would be found guilty.

Here, it looks like the state is making the same mistake - failing to paint the picture that TS was manic in her quest to get a child, that she was likely making up for her ruined relationship with her kids, but that due to her background, the usual means for getting a kid were difficult. So, she had to pressure young, possibly troubled mothers, commit forgery, lie, whatever, to get a baby. That's what this is all about and they are not proving that. I have learned - don't prove motive well enough (even though they are not required to) and the defendant could easily walk.
 
Dang I missed everything so far today. Can someone give me some highlights? Did they bust TS in yet another lie? Did her attorney Schultz (or whoever he is) help or hurt her? And are they on lunch break or just a break?
 
seattlechiquita said:
So the judge said they will discuss jury instructions TODAY. Does that mean the state will have ONE rebuttal witness? :banghead:
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the defense calling Schutt to the stand will be more than enough testimony to convict.

So, apparently he didn't tell TPS to get "phony" adoption papers signed.

So, he didn't tell TPS that he would represent EJ at the emergency hearing.

So, the 5 day period was the length of time that a guardianship paper needed to be signed - nothing to do with the adoption papers.

So, apparently he didn't tell TPS to tell EJ that she wasn't in any trouble because she hadn't been served yet.

So, apparently he didn't tell TPS to have EJ write a John Doe on the form to force paternity - just ask the judge for paternity.

So, apparently he wasn't involved with H's adoption after all - so was hers actually an illegal adoption?

So, the home study for S hasn't been done yet.


I don't think pros needs much of a rebuttal case after the defense's own witness!
 
Troubled said:
Dang I missed everything so far today. Can someone give me some highlights? Did they bust TS in yet another lie? Did her attorney Schultz (or whoever he is) help or hurt her? And are they on lunch break or just a break?
Click to expand...

IMHO, he was more a witness for the pros rather than defense!
 
Coldpizza said:
Honestly, I don't know how you all keep this stuff straight. Granted, I haven't been following the case from the beginning but you must have memories like elephants,terrific notes, or I'm just getting old. lol

But I'm grateful that you do!
Click to expand...

LOL Some of us have been following the case faithfully from day 1. :hot:
 
WOW thanks artsy1. Are those are the questions the defense asked their own witness? Or was that prosecutions x?
 
How much do you want to bet that if TS gets away with this, she'll try for one more kid. She lost custody of 3, right? I think she wants to replace them.
 
I think if they state has been paying attention to this case they will/NEED to look into the "adoption" of the Smith's 2 children. I am wondering if they are legal at all or if the bio mom really even wanted to give up custody of the children.
 
gitana1 said:
How much do you want to bet that if TS gets away with this, she'll try for one more kid. She lost custody of 3, right? I think she wants to replace them.
Click to expand...

I think she needs to validate herself, reinvent and shape the minds of others to think she is this wonderful mother and woman that can do no wrong. She does this to carry on the facade she has lived since losing her kids and to justify her past. In her mind she made no mistakes and continues to try and persuade those around her. That was evident when her ex bff was on the stand. She was the definition of seething.

Does anyone know how old the kids are that she lost custody of?

Has her ex come forward and made any statements?
 
Coldpizza said:
I think she needs to validate herself, reinvent and shape the minds of others to think she is this wonderful mother and woman that can do no wrong. She does this to carry on the facade she has lived since losing her kids and to justify her past. In her mind she made no mistakes and continues to try and persuade those around her. That was evident when her ex bff was on the stand. She was the definition of seething.

Does anyone know how old the kids are that she lost custody of?

Has her ex come forward and made any statements?
Click to expand...


Here's an article that will answer a lot of your questions.

http://projectjason.org/forums/index.php?topic=7721.70;wap2
 
gitana1 said:
How could a home study pass TS for an adoption, based on her criminal background and how she gave up her kids/lost custody? And why was her background never brought up by the state? I hope they do it in rebuttal because while it may not hinder a private adoption, it would prevent her, I think, from a public adoption and/or via a reputable agency. Which is the whole reason she worked so hard to pressure young moms to give up their babies, or wanted to go the surrogacy route, etc. They better paint this picture. The defense opened the door for that and they need to walk through it.
Click to expand...

H is actually the birth child of Jack's daughter ,so his grandaughter. They originally took custody when protective services took H away from his daughter. It sounded like the daughter and grandaughter were living with Jack at the time and he assumed custody. I'm now wondering if TPS and Jack actually did adopt H ,or do they just have custody ? It would be the same last name.
Whatever happened ,I think Protective Services and State adoptions tend to be more lenient when family is adopting or taking custody of another family member. At least ,it was pretty lenient here in SC when I was a foster and adoptive parent. I cringed at some of the family placements some babies were going into.
I think this second child is also a grandaughter ,but I could be wrong.
 
noor said:
Here's an article that will answer a lot of your questions.

http://projectjason.org/forums/index.php?topic=7721.70;wap2
Click to expand...

From link:


Smith once worked as an exotic dancer in New Orleans, aspired to be a country music singer pursuing fortune and fame in Nashville, Tenn., and at one time was married to two men at the same time, according to police reports and court records.
​

EEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKK!!! :what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 4,038 (members: 96, guests: 3,942)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
3,942
Total visitors
4,038
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,288
Messages
17,966,724
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top