Trial Thread: May 14, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Should she have been shown the papers before?? I didn't think they had to in a handwriting test. Don't understand the importance to the jurors.
 
My guess it would be evidence of intent? If she knew what so and so's handwriting looked like?

Of all the questions they could have asked...why that question? I gotta say it, I'm worried here. The question was asked by a man on the jury and I just don't understand why that question.
 
She also addressed the Juror by #8 when asked the question. The Judge admonished her for that and told her to address the whole jury.
 
Of all the questions they could have asked...why that question? I gotta say it, I'm worried here. The question was asked by a man on the jury and I just don't understand why that question.

I'm not too worried, she has been caught in alot of deception and I think the Prosecution wanted to leave the lasting memory of all her drama last week. They didn't want that to fall on deaf ears by another day of the same ole same ole.

Also, it was pretty funny when Vinnie said she was stepping off the stand. At first I heard stage lol.
 
The sample Tammi gave did match the handwriting on the "Craig Cherry" portion of the document, so it's hard to know what the juror was trying to clear up. I don't see it as a good sign that this is the only question -- are they paying any attention??? But it might be that if they are sure she falsely wrote "Craig Cherry," then she falsified the document and therefore tried to interfere with custody.
 
What is that relevant to? Does anyone know what the jury is trying to figure out? Does it show what they are concerned about?


I think they are trying to set the timeline as to when Tammi finally admitted writing it....
 
Wow - Schutt took a seminar on adoption law - that makes him qualified to act as an adoption attorney?
 
The sample Tammi gave did match the handwriting on the "Craig Cherry" portion of the document, so it's hard to know what the juror was trying to clear up. I don't see it as a good sign that this is the only question -- are they paying any attention??? But it might be that if they are sure she falsely wrote "Craig Cherry," then she falsified the document and therefore tried to interfere with custody.


So the sample Tammi gave did match the handwriting on the Craig portion of the document.
That proves she forged the document, one of the chargers against her.

Beth Karas was in the courtroom last week wednesday, she said at the end of the day jurors started looking around the courtroom, not listening to Tammi anymore, as if they could not hear it anymore.
 
So he didn't know about TPS and Rachel meeting at JIB?
 
His explanation of the 5 day business is soooooooooooooooo different than TPS's. He said he referred to getting guardianship papers signed - she claimed adoption.
 
What is that relevant to? Does anyone know what the jury is trying to figure out? Does it show what they are concerned about?

who signed what papers i guess and this was my understanding that the paper Tammi signed is what the state is claiming is a crime. It did not sound like that to me and this entire case looks really shaky for the state. Like I said over and over and got bashed for it, I think the cops thought Tammi had some knowledge of the whereabouts of the baby and why they used their LONG ARM of the Law to ruff her up and get info out of her. When they discovered she did not do anything but try to help and be a bit of a buttinsky they should have dropped the charges. Just my opinion but I voted NG Friday after trial and I still say NG
 
Wow - Schutt took a seminar on adoption law - that makes him qualified to act as an adoption attorney?

I know that sounds weird, but really, that's sometimes all we need to delve into a new area of the law. The seminars are intensive and adoptions are actually pretty simple and form driven.
 
So if he was out of commission due to surgery for a few weeks after Dec 15, how did he supposedly get involved in the phony adoption papers?



ETA: AND, he would have been unavailable while EJ was in TX, so all this stuff TPS was telling EJ that he said to her was ca-ca....
 
Wow - Schutt took a seminar on adoption law - that makes him qualified to act as an adoption attorney?

inorite???? I want to take one pole dancing 2 hour class. Would that qualify me as a.... oops, never mind... :blushing:
 
who signed what papers i guess and this was my understanding that the paper Tammi signed is what the state is claiming is a crime. It did not sound like that to me and this entire case looks really shaky for the state. Like I said over and over and got bashed for it, I think the cops thought Tammi had some knowledge of the whereabouts of the baby and why they used their LONG ARM of the Law to ruff her up and get info out of her. When they discovered she did not do anything but try to help and be a bit of a buttinsky they should have dropped the charges. Just my opinion but I voted NG Friday after trial and I still say NG

I think I get it now. They are trying to figure out if she altered her handwriting in the handwriting sample they gave her, because she realized they were trying to pin her for forgery, or, they are trying to find out if she knew they were looking at her for potential forgery, to see if that's what finally prompted her to tell the truth about the Craig Cherry sig.

That is forgery, what she did, though, if she put that name down as if the person named did it instead.
 
OOOHHHH, he told her he would NOT represent EJ at the emergency hearing!
 
He's really helping the prosecution - wonder why defense called him???
 
I have never seen such short trial testrimony and breaks galore LOL I guess they got plenty of time and money in Arizona
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
1,909
Total visitors
1,982

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,940
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top