Verdict=**Guilty** & poll

[SAgal]

.....
To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

Can I ask:
In your opinion - What is the truth in this case?

 

[artsy1]

Everything you have said is interesting; some of it I've heard before and some of it is new. Some of it is speculation and we may never know, such as the DNA. I would think that even if defense did not, as you say, want to take the chance the DNA would prove Logan was the father, the prosecution would come out front - urge Logan to do it to CLARIFY once and for all that he is - end of that story. The DNA evidence would greatly bolster his case, seal it, as it were, and could do nothing to hurt him. I have always puzzled as to why he just didn't do it.

The issues with Logan's specific participation or lack of in Gabriel's care aren't really relevant to the charges. As of December 17 he was awarded his custody. What happened PRIOR to that we only partially know, and it wasn't discussed at trial. It wasn't put into evidence. We know as he admitted he was in and out of jail and even news commentators have questioned why he kept going back to Elizabeth following her violent outbursts and her neglect of the baby...I must say I wondered why somebody wasn't more vigilant, knowing about what he states was her unstable personality and violent tendencies.

When I stated that nobody cared about the baby I was referring to the bigger picture. Elizabeth apparently never wanted to have a baby, but she had him, and he was born into a volitale relationship....it's pathetic when you think he was only 7 months old and so innocent while these 2 were going at it with the breaking up and making up and etc., left with strangers for nine days, shuttled here and there.....apparently her grandmother didn't want him and I don't see where his (Logan's) father did anything to help care for the baby when he was in jail, etc., his mother literally giving him away, I see this little guy being shoved around by a bunch of adults who all had their own agendas first. Well now the trial is over and one adult in the scenario has been convicted. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides.

Well, this is only my opinion, but it appears to me that the only people that a paternity issue is important to are Tammi and her supporters - and that's why the prosecution didn't put it out there right up front. Logan doesn't have to prove anything to anyone about his paternity. And I have to wonder, if nothing had been said behind the scenes about the paternity between the two sides, why didn't Tammi just say something to the effect of "I believe EJ that Logan is not the father" or "I have reason to believe that Logan is not the father" or "I have proof that Logan is not the father" - anything to make it an issue at trial. That would have forced the prosecution to present something to dispute the claim. Since both sides and the judge were very lenient in letting Tammi talk while she was on the stand, she could have taken the opportunity to make it an issue herself. Since she didn't, I have to speculate that something was said behind the scenes about the validity of Logan's paternity, that she isn't telling her followers.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that EJ's grandmother didn't want Gabriel. Det. Ramirez testified that when they spoke to her, she was shocked at what happened and said she would have raised Gabriel herself. So I'm not sure how that says that she didn't want him.

Tammi also had testified that she believed the reason EJ was in Boston (when they first met) was that EJ and her grandmother were trying to adopt out Gabriel. She also said the reason it didn't happen, was that Logan needed to sign the papers, but wouldn't. IF there was another potential father of Gabriel, I would think that EJ would have just told her grandmother, if that story was true, and that grandmother would have paid for the paternity test. Then if Logan wasn't the father, it wouldn't matter if he signed the papers or not.

And if the only reason that EJ allowed the custody judge grant Logan the legal paternity of Gabriel was that she couldn't afford a paternity test, I would think that EJ's grandfather (who lives locally to them) or even EJ's grandmother (who has now probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on EJ's attorneys) would have gladly given her the money to make the issue go away.

IMHO, the only reason EJ balked at getting the test, is that she knows that Logan is the father - and didn't think she'd be made to back up any claims that he wasn't.

And I don't know Logan's family, so I don't know what they did or did not do to help take care of Gabriel while Logan was in jail. All we know is what Tammi claims EJ told her about their involvement. We do know, from trial, that there was involvement, since both Logan and his father testified that EJ claimed that Logan's father kidnapped Gabriel from daycare the night that the landlord had EJ arrested. But they also testified that Logan's extended family was very close to Gabriel, which to me suggests that there was involvement with him from that side of the family.

I think we are both set in our own opinions about this case. I am making statements based on what was said or not said during the trial (except my assumption about a DNA test). We can agree to disagree, since that still doesn't lead to the return of Gabriel Johnson.

 

[OneLove]

Everything you have said is interesting; some of it I've heard before and some of it is new. Some of it is speculation and we may never know, such as the DNA. I would think that even if defense did not, as you say, want to take the chance the DNA would prove Logan was the father, the prosecution would come out front - urge Logan to do it to CLARIFY once and for all that he is - end of that story. The DNA evidence would greatly bolster his case, seal it, as it were, and could do nothing to hurt him. I have always puzzled as to why he just didn't do it.

The issues with Logan's specific participation or lack of in Gabriel's care aren't really relevant to the charges. As of December 17 he was awarded his custody. What happened PRIOR to that we only partially know, and it wasn't discussed at trial. It wasn't put into evidence. We know as he admitted he was in and out of jail and even news commentators have questioned why he kept going back to Elizabeth following her violent outbursts and her neglect of the baby...I must say I wondered why somebody wasn't more vigilant, knowing about what he states was her unstable personality and violent tendencies.

When I stated that nobody cared about the baby I was referring to the bigger picture. Elizabeth apparently never wanted to have a baby, but she had him, and he was born into a volitale relationship....it's pathetic when you think he was only 7 months old and so innocent while these 2 were going at it with the breaking up and making up and etc., left with strangers for nine days, shuttled here and there.....apparently her grandmother didn't want him and I don't see where his (Logan's) father did anything to help care for the baby when he was in jail, etc., his mother literally giving him away, I see this little guy being shoved around by a bunch of adults who all had their own agendas first. Well now the trial is over and one adult in the scenario has been convicted. We will have to wait and see what the judge decides.

ChickenPants, I read your last two paragraphs here and insert Tammi Smith's name instead of Elizabeth, concerning her OWN children back when she still had custody of them. The violent outbursts, the neglect of not one but THREE babies, why wasn't someone more vigilant (well, he tried but she kidnapped them and ran). She 'apparently' never wanted to have these babies, they were born into a volatile relationship, it's pathetic when you think when they were only 7 months old and what they were going through, the breaking up and making up, shuttled here and there, Tammi being a criminal convicted of crimes, refusing to take her medications, refusing to care for her children, physically abusing them according to her OWN oldest daughter who was left as a child to raise her younger neglected siblings. -- in looking at the accusations leveled against Elizabeth, and then what is KNOWN about Tammi Smith's own criminal, neglectful, volatile, abusive past with her own three birth children, well, REALLY????? Who in their right mind would think any children were somehow better off with TS???? In looking at the history and the TRUTH of Tammi Smith, it seems that pointing fingers at Elizabeth and Logan was just one big SICK PROJECTION and self loathing. The sick obsession with purging factors in also, in my opinion and in the opinion of MANY, both professional mental health providers and the general public.

So, go back and reread what you have written, and remember that every time it is mentioned that Logan had a conviction, everyone that has a brain in their head is reminded that Tammi Smith had convictions also. And every time Logan and Elizabeth's parental flaws are mentioned, everyone is reminded that neither of them EVER lost custody of their only child while Tammi lost custody of THREE CHILDREN.

In my opinion, Tammi Smith's camp only highlights her own egregious failings even MORE when they/she point the finger at Elizabeth and Logan. -IMO

ETA: But of course, I'm sure Gabriel and Logan don't think it is a joke at all. At least Tammi Smith's own birth children SURVIVED and have apparently thrived after being removed from her custody.

 

[OneLove]

I have not posted until today in this trial. It's my belief that the defense was "inefficient" because they did not believe in Tammi's innocence. As a "juror", trying to keep an open mind, I did not hear anything from the defense to rebut that Tammi's actions were deliberately criminal. Because Tammi did not enter insanity plea, the Judge ordered that no inferences of mental pathology could be allowed in and she was not allowed medical experts to testify to her so-called "abusive childhood", and etc. HOWEVER, and in spite of that ruling, the prosecution came out of the gate with words like "obsessed", Rachel Hunter was allowed to testify and if you think about it, she had no connection to the charges. They wrapped up their closing argument with the entire focus on criminal intent. The defense had every opportunity to voice objections or ask the judge to strike testimony but they did not. Tammi's lead attorney, Anne Phillips, stated that she agreed Tammi "talked too much" and made comments such as "you don't have to like her", but presented absolutely no evidence or witnesses to indicate that Tammi did not have a criminal intent. It will be interesting to see what evidence of good character, if any, is presented in the upcoming hearing.

To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

In your third line in the post above, you refer to the defense not rebutting that Tammi Smith's actions were "deliberately" criminal. I'm confused. For instance, a person might commit a crime then claim "I didn't deliberately commit this crime"?? As if the judge or jurors are going to say "ok dear, since you didn't MEAN to do what you actually DID in fact do, we'll just call you a good God-fearing Christian and let you go. Maybe you can go counsel the REAL criminals who actually MEANT to do what they did"???

Tammi confessed to the actions that were deemed to be criminal. Whether it was deliberate or not seems to be an infantile argument. It would sound like a two-year old, IMO, and a sign of a not very well balanced mentality coming from the mouth of the actual criminal. Coming from the mouth of a trained and licensed attorney?? Just not gonna happen, iMO. So if Tammi Smith had "expected" this as a defense from her attorney, I'm guessing the attorney would have fought her own gag reaction and worked hard to maintain a straight face in Tammi's presence. And probably taken an extra long shower that night. And taken steps to be sure her own children weren't growing up to be personality disordered. IMO

You do mention that maybe her attorney didn't like her. I think Tammi could probably go through every attorney on the face of the earth and still never find one who "likes" her. Such is life for defense attorneys. But they do their jobs and work with what they have. We all saw what this attorney had to work with. I don't think, even with a retrial granted, that Tammi's serious mental issues will resolve overnight and the FACTS of the case will still remain the facts. "Deliberate" or not, moot point.

I wish the woman would get some help. If she had done that years and years ago before she lost custody of her three birth children, she might never have been in this situation. I see her complete lack of remorse as being an oppositional defiance issue that fits with years and years and years of oppositional history.

Well, at least the two children she managed to "steal" under radar are being cared for by a nanny. That gives me some small comfort.

 

[ChickenPants]

Well, this is only my opinion, but it appears to me that the only people that a paternity issue is important to are Tammi and her supporters - and that's why the prosecution didn't put it out there right up front. Logan doesn't have to prove anything to anyone about his paternity. And I have to wonder, if nothing had been said behind the scenes about the paternity between the two sides, why didn't Tammi just say something to the effect of "I believe EJ that Logan is not the father" or "I have reason to believe that Logan is not the father" or "I have proof that Logan is not the father" - anything to make it an issue at trial. That would have forced the prosecution to present something to dispute the claim. Since both sides and the judge were very lenient in letting Tammi talk while she was on the stand, she could have taken the opportunity to make it an issue herself. Since she didn't, I have to speculate that something was said behind the scenes about the validity of Logan's paternity, that she isn't telling her followers.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that EJ's grandmother didn't want Gabriel. Det. Ramirez testified that when they spoke to her, she was shocked at what happened and said she would have raised Gabriel herself. So I'm not sure how that says that she didn't want him.

Tammi also had testified that she believed the reason EJ was in Boston (when they first met) was that EJ and her grandmother were trying to adopt out Gabriel. She also said the reason it didn't happen, was that Logan needed to sign the papers, but wouldn't. IF there was another potential father of Gabriel, I would think that EJ would have just told her grandmother, if that story was true, and that grandmother would have paid for the paternity test. Then if Logan wasn't the father, it wouldn't matter if he signed the papers or not.

And if the only reason that EJ allowed the custody judge grant Logan the legal paternity of Gabriel was that she couldn't afford a paternity test, I would think that EJ's grandfather (who lives locally to them) or even EJ's grandmother (who has now probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on EJ's attorneys) would have gladly given her the money to make the issue go away.

IMHO, the only reason EJ balked at getting the test, is that she knows that Logan is the father - and didn't think she'd be made to back up any claims that he wasn't.

And I don't know Logan's family, so I don't know what they did or did not do to help take care of Gabriel while Logan was in jail. All we know is what Tammi claims EJ told her about their involvement. We do know, from trial, that there was involvement, since both Logan and his father testified that EJ claimed that Logan's father kidnapped Gabriel from daycare the night that the landlord had EJ arrested. But they also testified that Logan's extended family was very close to Gabriel, which to me suggests that there was involvement with him from that side of the family.

I think we are both set in our own opinions about this case. I am making statements based on what was said or not said during the trial (except my assumption about a DNA test). We can agree to disagree, since that still doesn't lead to the return of Gabriel Johnson.

Those are all excellent points. I go back and say what you did about making judgments based on what was said at trial, because no matter what has or has not been said - before or after, or by anybody - outside of trial is not relevant to the verdict. Fundamentally so much is he said/she said and in my case I sit and listen, try to match what is said up to the actions of an individual (based on evidence)....even if I was made aware of every single thing that people on places like WS have labored to uncover, if it's not in evidence, I can't consider it for the purposes of the trial and verdict....

....then you've got the attorneys and their legal arguments, you've got the fact that nowadays people (Cindy Anthony comes to mind) who knowingly get up and perjure themselves and except in rare instances face no consequences from that. Reminding myself that I was not there, I do not know these people, there are things they did and motives they had I will never know, but I go by the old saying 'A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUIT', and what keeps coming up for me is that this particular tree (defense) did not produce any fruit. Maybe I'm not being clear enough. You made such GREAT points here, how is it that the defense failed to consider them or bring them forward?

You are absolutely correct that Logan ddn't have to prove anything to anyone about his paternity, especially since EJ went ahead and said he was the father....but I still think why not just do it and put it into evidence? Another great point is why Tammi did NOT bring this up when she testified, etc., and the only reason I can think of is that it wasn't brought forward by the attorneys as an issue, it wasn't in evidence, she wouldnt have been allowed...? But as everyone knows, she rambled on and on in a totally self-serving fashion, without any discretion, so you'd think she would have blurted something out about it. IMO if she had started in on that subject we would have heard OBJECTION! by that vigilant prosecutor. That's one of the points I am trying to put out there that what is NOT said always informs my opinions as much as, if not more, than what is said. Bottom line is I don't totally trust or believe anything anybody says without hard facts to back it up. I'll add that in this case we have two people (EJ and Tammi) who are not credible, have bizarre behaviors, and who I doubt even know themselves what is the real truth because each has her own interests and self-preservation at the forefront.

I wonder: If EJ had not fled, called Logan and told him she had killed the baby...how long would this tug of war have gone on and what more damage would have been done to this little one, would she have eventually harmed him or even killed him, anyway?

As far as Grandma saying she would have taken care of a baby, IMO everybody always says what the would have done after the fact. She put EJ on a plane out of there, that's all I know. Frankly I DON'T CARE about Tammi, EJ or even Logan....THE BABY HAD NO CHOICES. He was totally vulnerable to the whims and inconsistencies of the so-called adults. Every single one of them had THEIR own interests at heart first and foremost, not his! SOMEBODY SHOULD TAKE CONSEQUENCES FOR THAT! It will be interesting to me to see how the judge rules. And what, if any, impact his ruling has on the upcoming EJ trial.

Thanks for letting me have my say.

 

[ChickenPants]

In your third line in the post above, you refer to the defense not rebutting that Tammi Smith's actions were "deliberately" criminal. I'm confused. For instance, a person might commit a crime then claim "I didn't deliberately commit this crime"?? As if the judge or jurors are going to say "ok dear, since you didn't MEAN to do what you actually DID in fact do, we'll just call you a good God-fearing Christian and let you go. Maybe you can go counsel the REAL criminals who actually MEANT to do what they did"???

Tammi confessed to the actions that were deemed to be criminal. Whether it was deliberate or not seems to be an infantile argument. It would sound like a two-year old, IMO, and a sign of a not very well balanced mentality coming from the mouth of the actual criminal. Coming from the mouth of a trained and licensed attorney?? Just not gonna happen, iMO. So if Tammi Smith had "expected" this as a defense from her attorney, I'm guessing the attorney would have fought her own gag reaction and worked hard to maintain a straight face in Tammi's presence. And probably taken an extra long shower that night. And taken steps to be sure her own children weren't growing up to be personality disordered. IMO

You do mention that maybe her attorney didn't like her. I think Tammi could probably go through every attorney on the face of the earth and still never find one who "likes" her. Such is life for defense attorneys. But they do their jobs and work with what they have. We all saw what this attorney had to work with. I don't think, even with a retrial granted, that Tammi's serious mental issues will resolve overnight and the FACTS of the case will still remain the facts. "Deliberate" or not, moot point.

I wish the woman would get some help. If she had done that years and years ago before she lost custody of her three birth children, she might never have been in this situation. I see her complete lack of remorse as being an oppositional defiance issue that fits with years and years and years of oppositional history.

Well, at least the two children she managed to "steal" under radar are being cared for by a nanny. That gives me some small comfort.

Agreed, agreed, agreed....hm, maybe, not sure....lol....

Lest I get in over my head, I offer the same comments as previously, I stick to what I know AT TRIAL....like a juror. In murder cases, for instance, you have first degree vs. manslaughter, the difference being premeditation or "accident". So I've been applying the same principal to so-called criminal intent. Taking into consideration the timeline of events, the fact that EJ literally handed off the baby and Tammi having had him for 9 days without anybody interfering I had to conclude that this was going forward and for reasons unknown to me or not understood by me, nobody was on board to get the baby away from these 2 women. The only piece of evidence at trial that pointed to deliberate criminal intent was that forged document. We have the elephant in the room, which is a custody battle between Logan and EJ which seems to have been resolved at the last minute by a Judge who wouldn't listen to the father and IMO just wanted the matter out of his court room. Add him onto the list of people who let the baby down.

All I can say is it is any attorney's job to get up and fight for their client. I worked for a defense attorney once and was disgusted with some of his cases, I asked him pretty much how he could stomach what he did and he stated "the more heinous the crime, the more the person must have a strong defense" (or something like that); it's the law here in the USA, to the degree that judges are supposed to exercise the higher degree of leniency in their sentencing. The more I see this, the sicker it makes me. Seems like our judicial system is turned upside down in favor of criminals, I apologize for such an infantile statement but I don't know how else to say it.

Your great point about Tammi''s "serious mental issues" and whether or not they will be resolved merits a comment. It seems that she does have a history of problems, bad choices, and outrageous actions. But in that regard, why didn't the attorney fight harder either to get that on record or at least produce some objection to or argument against the prosecution as to Tammi's so-called motives? "Mental issues" were never part of the trial. So as a defender, it would be my job to present a strong argument against my client having a personal motive for an accused crime and from what I saw, the only defense presented was that Tammi wanted to help EJ and love the baby. That wasn't strong enough to overcome the prosecution's theory that EJ and Gabriel were just one example of the many unwary babies and mothers Tammi stalks, and they bolstered this with Rachel Hunter - though Hunter had nothing to do with the specific crimes alleged. You on WS know about everything else that has been going on which was not presented at trial...

I disagree that "deliberate" is a moot point. I think "deliberate" will be a large consideration in the judge's decisions at the penalty phase. Any judge is going to have to weigh not only how much the defendant's actions impacted others, but what is the likelihood that the defendant will be a problem to society and decide whether or not he thinks this merits incarceration.

Finally your interesting point about Tammi's lack of remorse being oppositional. Let's look at this from the perspective of if she wants to go for a retrial or an appeal. If she says she is remorseful, she is admitting that she is guilty. That's from a purely legal perspective. She may be confident enough to get up on the stand and weave whatever parenthetical statements will qualify her as a good person, but I don't think she has what it takes to issue a statement of remorse that won't shoot herself in the foot. I'd put money on her smiling and saying it's all in God's will, though.

 

[ChickenPants]

ChickenPants, I read your last two paragraphs here and insert Tammi Smith's name instead of Elizabeth, concerning her OWN children back when she still had custody of them. The violent outbursts, the neglect of not one but THREE babies, why wasn't someone more vigilant (well, he tried but she kidnapped them and ran). She 'apparently' never wanted to have these babies, they were born into a volatile relationship, it's pathetic when you think when they were only 7 months old and what they were going through, the breaking up and making up, shuttled here and there, Tammi being a criminal convicted of crimes, refusing to take her medications, refusing to care for her children, physically abusing them according to her OWN oldest daughter who was left as a child to raise her younger neglected siblings. -- in looking at the accusations leveled against Elizabeth, and then what is KNOWN about Tammi Smith's own criminal, neglectful, volatile, abusive past with her own three birth children, well, REALLY????? Who in their right mind would think any children were somehow better off with TS???? In looking at the history and the TRUTH of Tammi Smith, it seems that pointing fingers at Elizabeth and Logan was just one big SICK PROJECTION and self loathing. The sick obsession with purging factors in also, in my opinion and in the opinion of MANY, both professional mental health providers and the general public.

So, go back and reread what you have written, and remember that every time it is mentioned that Logan had a conviction, everyone that has a brain in their head is reminded that Tammi Smith had convictions also. And every time Logan and Elizabeth's parental flaws are mentioned, everyone is reminded that neither of them EVER lost custody of their only child while Tammi lost custody of THREE CHILDREN.

In my opinion, Tammi Smith's camp only highlights her own egregious failings even MORE when they/she point the finger at Elizabeth and Logan. -IMO

ETA: But of course, I'm sure Gabriel and Logan don't think it is a joke at all. At least Tammi Smith's own birth children SURVIVED and have apparently thrived after being removed from her custody.

All very true....problem is, it wasn't in evidence at the trial. And I do wish people would quit accusing me of being in "Tammi's Camp". I don't do camping when it comes to trials. If I am in any camp it is the jury room. IMO regarding these trials and The Truth: There's her truth, his truth, their truth, my truth and your truth, and the real truth is hiding someplace ... and my philosophy is that the best people with the best intentions still have a grain of SELF in everything they do. As I said to someone recently, all mushrooms look appetizing, and the only way you can tell which ones are poison are by how many people have eaten them and gotten sick or died. :ufo:

In Arizona vs. Smith, the victims of the hallucongenic mushroom variety were not entered into evidence, KNWIM? Now we have to take it where it lays. The verdict is in. Where do they go from here?

 

[ChickenPants]

Sorry for my multiple posts, everybody (especially since I'm a latecomer here). But I wanted to answer everyone who was kind enough to answer me.

Now I'd like to throw out a question.

It's probable that the Judge knows about some, most, of Tammi's activities that were quashed for one reason or another - not brought out at trial. Except for Rachel Hunter and Deanna's testimonies...

Here I refer to what seems to be a bizarre compulsion (there's that psychological word) to involve herself with mothers, babies, adoptions, surrogacies, inseminations, etc., etc., etc., etc.....and we still have the Stones of Grace out there as an example.

How much, if any of this, can enter into his personal deliberation in sentencing? On the premise of "propensity" toward certain behaviors is he able to consider that defendant may not have (for lack of better term) "learned a lesson" from the verdict? Will he give her probation based on the premise of leniency or will he factor in that if she is not given prison time she will more than likely pick up where she left off?

I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

[ChickenPants]

Can I ask:
In your opinion - What is the truth in this case?

I almost missed this one.

"My" TRUTH in this situation is that GOD has been most disgracefully used. I am relieved that GOD was not discussed at the trial, because it would have ended up a debate about Tammi's insistence that GOD has informed all of her activities. Poor God....people claim to get messages from him all of the time, when in most cases it is their own selves who are giving them messages that are going to benefit them. What bothers me the most is that in the final analysis this is just one more instance where anybody who was sitting on the fence about Christianity is going to run in the opposite direction.

So God did not get put on trial. Thank God.

 

[momtective]

I love spirited, intelligent conversation! :loveyou:

 

[Wishbone]

I have not posted until today in this trial. It's my belief that the defense was "inefficient" because they did not believe in Tammi's innocence. As a "juror", trying to keep an open mind, I did not hear anything from the defense to rebut that Tammi's actions were deliberately criminal. Because Tammi did not enter insanity plea, the Judge ordered that no inferences of mental pathology could be allowed in and she was not allowed medical experts to testify to her so-called "abusive childhood", and etc. HOWEVER, and in spite of that ruling, the prosecution came out of the gate with words like "obsessed", Rachel Hunter was allowed to testify and if you think about it, she had no connection to the charges. They wrapped up their closing argument with the entire focus on criminal intent. The defense had every opportunity to voice objections or ask the judge to strike testimony but they did not. Tammi's lead attorney, Anne Phillips, stated that she agreed Tammi "talked too much" and made comments such as "you don't have to like her", but presented absolutely no evidence or witnesses to indicate that Tammi did not have a criminal intent. It will be interesting to see what evidence of good character, if any, is presented in the upcoming hearing.

To me, sometimes what is not said is as important as what IS said at a trial. And in this case, the silence of the defense, their watery cross-examinations and their lame closing argument spoke volumes about the truth.

IMO good character and the name Tammi Smith should never be used in the same sentence.

 

[ChickenPants]

IMO good character and the name Tammi Smith should never be used in the same sentence.

You make a great point! Now that I think of it, her defense never once used good character in the same sentence with her! That is to my recollection, and I don't have transcripts nor do I claim to remember everything, lol.

 

[saba]

You make a great point! Now that I think of it, her defense never once used good character in the same sentence with her!

Morning Chicken. Here's my take on the lack of character witnesses/testimony. The prosecution is not allowed to introduce evidence of bad character of a defendant to prove guilt of a crime. If the defense introduces the issue, then the prosecution is free to rebut that evidence with details and facts that would otherwise be excluded. In this case, for starters, the jury would have learned of Tammi's prior forgery and assault charges out of Louisiana. And that's just for starters. Character evidence is great until the prosecution trots out your past. If Tammi's character had been put in issue by the defense, I think the jury would have been back with guilty verdicts in half the time.

my opinion of course.

 

[ChickenPants]

Morning Chicken. Here's my take on the lack of character witnesses/testimony. The prosecution is not allowed to introduce evidence of bad character of a defendant to prove guilt of a crime. If the defense introduces the issue, then the prosecution is free to rebut that evidence with details and facts that would otherwise be excluded. In this case, for starters, the jury would have learned of Tammi's prior forgery and assault charges out of Louisiana. And that's just for starters. Character evidence is great until the prosecution trots out your past. If Tammi's character had been put in issue by the defense, I think the jury would have been back with guilty verdicts in half the time.

my opinion of course.

Great food for thought. As a matter of fact, your second sentence is EXACTLY the wording of the prosecutorial misconduct portion of the retrial motion. Defense is accusing prosecution of doing that, especially in closing argument. They state that prosecutors attacked Tammi personally all the way through and especially when they accused her of sending cough signals. My answer to that is, if you submit that happened, why didn't you object to it during the trial? If I am the judge, I am saying....sorry...too late.

What really interests me is the fact that so many things about her past have been uncovered that do relate specifically to that propensity toward young women and babies. Even the fact that the Stones of Grace is still up and she's still promoting that as a viable entity. I wondered why prosecutors didn't find a way to get that in....it's relevant insofar as it apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) existed during the crimes perpetrated and the fact that it still exists clearly proves that she still has the same so-called "obsessions", KNWIM? The old saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome"....might be applied to ANY behavior whether deemed "insane" or not. Prosecutors could have asked Jack about that when he was on the stand, even if it was objected to (which I doubt would have happened) it would be out there. In the jury's conscioiusness.

Armchair attorneys have all these answers, I guess, lol. I confess to being one of them, lol.

 

[ChickenPants]

The other thing I would have jumped on as a prosecutor would have been statements Tammi made about being "A Christian". What an opening. I would have asked her to describe in her own words what that means. She would have said that God put Elizabeth and the baby out there for her. Then see what defense says on cross-examination about that. When she mentioned "forgiveness" I would have asked her if, as a Christian, she was hoping her misdeeds would be forgiven by the victim and the jury. "In your philosophy, does confession precede forgiveness?" Does forgiveness entitle a Christian to repeat acts presuming she will be forgiven? Interesting stuff like that. The whole Chrstian vs. Criminal intent thing fascinates me. As a juror, I might have asked her that.

 

[artsy1]

I'm not going to add "quotes" from what other people have said, because I think this post will be long enough on it's own. LOL

I think the prosecution did more to prove Tammi's "obsession" with getting a baby that just using DeeAnn and Rachel for testimony. Tammi's ads for a surrogate, insemination of one of her clients that didn't take, and Tammi's own MS posts, asking a stranger if she wants to give her baby up to Tammi for adoption, IMHO shows "obsession" (I mean, really, who just sends messages to strangers they see on MS asking them if they want to give away their baby?) for getting a baby - any baby. Tammi's own words, in her own voice, speaking freely to LE, played at trial, adds to that. IMHO, they also show the criminal intent to commit custodial interference.

1) When asked about trying to change jurisdictions & send EJ and Gabriel to TN, Tammi replied that she wanted to make it harder for Logan to fight for custody so that he would just give up and sign away his rights.

2) When asked how Tammi had planned to get Logan to sign the papers, she said she was planning on using her attorney to stress (Tammi's words) Logan out for past child support (which he didn't owe - as Ms. Andrews stated in closing), set up all kinds of rules, regarding visitation, and if he violated any of them in the least, she would have him arrested and thrown back in jail. She also stated that she thought Logan would get so stressed out that he would sign the papers.

Who, if they aren't obsessed with getting a child, would go to such extremes for a baby who isn't related to them, IMHO?

I believe the only reason that prosecutors didn't bring up Stones of Grace is that they didn't know about it. WSers didn't find out about it until the jury was out for deliberation or just before (I don't want to look back and see exactly when it was - I'm still working on my first cup of coffee LOL). The domain was created in 2011, but the Stones of Grace website went up around May 11, 2012 IIRC. The whois info is posted early here on this thread that shows the dates. I suspect we will hear about SOG at the sentencing phase.

As far as Grandma putting EJ on a plane out of Boston, Logan testified that EJ had run to Grandma's after a fight, and then called him 3 days later, asking to come home. He didn't have the money, so EJ's family paid for the first class ticket to come back. There was no other testimony given about why EJ had gone to Boston or come home - other than what Tammi testified about, which I take with a grain of salt since she wasn't in Boston to have first hand knowledge of what really took place.

I do make a correction to one of my posts from yesterday. When I said that LE didn't do anything to help Logan when he first called after he realized that EJ and Gabriel were gone, I actually meant San Antonio LE. Tempe PD went to Tammi's house (the first time) to see if Gabriel was there and talk to the Smiths. Det. Ramirez testified that she contacted SAPD to have them issue an Amber alert, but they wouldn't because it was a custody dispute.

But what is interesting, and this all comes straight from testimony at trial, is that while LE (Det. Aguilara - and I think I'm spelling his name wrong, and the other guy, sorry the name escapes me for the moment) were at the Smith's house, and Tammi was aware that Logan had called them because EJ and Gabriel were missing, Tammi was sending and receiving text messages from EJ, as well as sending texts to Logan, telling him that EJ would return if he would just sign the papers. Yet she didn't say anything to LE about EJ's contact at that moment. It's possible the whole thing could have ended right there if Tammi had just said something to Det. Aguilara right then and there, and allowed his experience as a negotiator to control the conversation. And then when Tammi emailed the texts from her phone to Det. Aguilara the next day, she deliberately didn't include any texts sent and received while they were in her house.

I'm no lawyer, but if I were on that jury, I would have said loudly CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE after hearing that. Not only was Tammi trying to hide what she was doing that night from LE, she also was conspiring with EJ to get Logan to sign the papers. And that took place after Dec 17, after the Smiths gave Gabriel back to EJ, and after EJ was already in San Antonio. Any other acts she committed to try to keep Logan and Gabriel apart after Dec 17 were just gravy.

And let's also not forget that she lied to EJ and although told her to come back to AZ for the hearing, lied when she claimed her attorney would attend the custody hearing for EJ. Tammi's own attorney testified that he told Tammi he would NOT represent EJ - and was not working due to medical issues. IMHO, Tammi's attorney taking the stand did more to hurt Tammi than help her - such as showing that the Guardianship papers he sent to Tammi for Rachel Hoover to sign was NOT the same one that Tammi had EJ sign - even though Tammi claimed it was the form Mr. Schutt sent to her.

 

[saba]

Great food for thought. As a matter of fact, your second sentence is EXACTLY the wording of the prosecutorial misconduct portion of the retrial motion. Defense is accusing prosecution of doing that, especially in closing argument. They state that prosecutors attacked Tammi personally all the way through and especially when they accused her of sending cough signals. My answer to that is, if you submit that happened, why didn't you object to it during the trial? If I am the judge, I am saying....sorry...too late.

What really interests me is the fact that so many things about her past have been uncovered that do relate specifically to that propensity toward young women and babies. Even the fact that the Stones of Grace is still up and she's still promoting that as a viable entity. I wondered why prosecutors didn't find a way to get that in....it's relevant insofar as it apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) existed during the crimes perpetrated and the fact that it still exists clearly proves that she still has the same so-called "obsessions", KNWIM? The old saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome"....might be applied to ANY behavior whether deemed "insane" or not. Prosecutors could have asked Jack about that when he was on the stand, even if it was objected to (which I doubt would have happened) it would be out there. In the jury's conscioiusness.

Armchair attorneys have all these answers, I guess, lol. I confess to being one of them, lol.

EXACTLY? I'm charmed. I don't get the cough thing though- guess I would need to see the motion for that, but coughing in trial is not what I think of as character evidence. It's more like a comment on the defendant's demeanor in the courtroom which is fair game.

There's been a lot of discussion about facts/issues that could have been brought in by the prosecutors. When the State has a fact-rich case like this one, no need to bother with evidence that might be challenged on appeal. The prosecutors had the facts and the law. Why people think they should have done more mystifies me. They won.

I don't think I have all the answers, but have thought throughout this case that Tammi would have been much better off if certain crime junkies on fb had stayed in their armchairs and not involved themselves personally in this case. kwim?

 

[ChickenPants]

I'm not going to add "quotes" from what other people have said, because I think this post will be long enough on it's own. LOL

I think the prosecution did more to prove Tammi's "obsession" with getting a baby that just using DeeAnn and Rachel for testimony. Tammi's ads for a surrogate, insemination of one of her clients that didn't take, and Tammi's own MS posts, asking a stranger if she wants to give her baby up to Tammi for adoption, IMHO shows "obsession" (I mean, really, who just sends messages to strangers they see on MS asking them if they want to give away their baby?) for getting a baby - any baby. Tammi's own words, in her own voice, speaking freely to LE, played at trial, adds to that. IMHO, they also show the criminal intent to commit custodial interference.

1) When asked about trying to change jurisdictions & send EJ and Gabriel to TN, Tammi replied that she wanted to make it harder for Logan to fight for custody so that he would just give up and sign away his rights.

2) When asked how Tammi had planned to get Logan to sign the papers, she said she was planning on using her attorney to stress (Tammi's words) Logan out for past child support (which he didn't owe - as Ms. Andrews stated in closing), set up all kinds of rules, regarding visitation, and if he violated any of them in the least, she would have him arrested and thrown back in jail. She also stated that she thought Logan would get so stressed out that he would sign the papers.

Who, if they aren't obsessed with getting a child, would go to such extremes for a baby who isn't related to them, IMHO?

I believe the only reason that prosecutors didn't bring up Stones of Grace is that they didn't know about it. WSers didn't find out about it until the jury was out for deliberation or just before (I don't want to look back and see exactly when it was - I'm still working on my first cup of coffee LOL). The domain was created in 2011, but the Stones of Grace website went up around May 11, 2012 IIRC. The whois info is posted early here on this thread that shows the dates. I suspect we will hear about SOG at the sentencing phase.

As far as Grandma putting EJ on a plane out of Boston, Logan testified that EJ had run to Grandma's after a fight, and then called him 3 days later, asking to come home. He didn't have the money, so EJ's family paid for the first class ticket to come back. There was no other testimony given about why EJ had gone to Boston or come home - other than what Tammi testified about, which I take with a grain of salt since she wasn't in Boston to have first hand knowledge of what really took place.

I do make a correction to one of my posts from yesterday. When I said that LE didn't do anything to help Logan when he first called after he realized that EJ and Gabriel were gone, I actually meant San Antonio LE. Tempe PD went to Tammi's house (the first time) to see if Gabriel was there and talk to the Smiths. Det. Ramirez testified that she contacted SAPD to have them issue an Amber alert, but they wouldn't because it was a custody dispute.

But what is interesting, and this all comes straight from testimony at trial, is that while LE (Det. Aguilara - and I think I'm spelling his name wrong, and the other guy, sorry the name escapes me for the moment) were at the Smith's house, and Tammi was aware that Logan had called them because EJ and Gabriel were missing, Tammi was sending and receiving text messages from EJ, as well as sending texts to Logan, telling him that EJ would return if he would just sign the papers. Yet she didn't say anything to LE about EJ's contact at that moment. It's possible the whole thing could have ended right there if Tammi had just said something to Det. Aguilara right then and there, and allowed his experience as a negotiator to control the conversation. And then when Tammi emailed the texts from her phone to Det. Aguilara the next day, she deliberately didn't include any texts sent and received while they were in her house.

I'm no lawyer, but if I were on that jury, I would have said loudly CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE after hearing that. Not only was Tammi trying to hide what she was doing that night from LE, she also was conspiring with EJ to get Logan to sign the papers. And that took place after Dec 17, after the Smiths gave Gabriel back to EJ, and after EJ was already in San Antonio. Any other acts she committed to try to keep Logan and Gabriel apart after Dec 17 were just gravy.

And let's also not forget that she lied to EJ and although told her to come back to AZ for the hearing, lied when she claimed her attorney would attend the custody hearing for EJ. Tammi's own attorney testified that he told Tammi he would NOT represent EJ - and was not working due to medical issues. IMHO, Tammi's attorney taking the stand did more to hurt Tammi than help her - such as showing that the Guardianship papers he sent to Tammi for Rachel Hoover to sign was NOT the same one that Tammi had EJ sign - even though Tammi claimed it was the form Mr. Schutt sent to her.

Interesting information and you summarized it well. Re-reading it was more interesting than the prosecution closing and rebuttal. Retrospect is always better. Part of my problem following the trial was the personalities and styles of the attorneys. I didn't think Angela was that great of a prosecutor but equally or more annoying to me was Anne's "what's the use" kind of style. I still say it is an attorney's job to give any defendant the best possible representation and whether or not she had a good case or not, she did NOT represent Smith with any conviction. That said, jury took the evidence in hand, which I still think was in many ways tricky (considering everything involved) and rendered a just verdict. I'm interested in what anybody has to say about the penalty phase, what you think the Judge may decide, based on everything that has happened so far.

I have to add that I worked for more than one defense attorney. The one I referenced earlier was pretty brilliant and has been a judge himself for many years now. So I had a very unique and interesting opportunity to read legal documents, research, briefs, motions, arguments and etc., which probably accounts for my continued interest to this day.

 

[ChickenPants]

EXACTLY? I'm charmed. I don't get the cough thing though- guess I would need to see the motion for that, but coughing in trial is not what I think of as character evidence. It's more like a comment on the defendant's demeanor in the courtroom which is fair game.

There's been a lot of discussion about facts/issues that could have been brought in by the prosecutors. When the State has a fact-rich case like this one, no need to bother with evidence that might be challenged on appeal. The prosecutors had the facts and the law. Why people think they should have done more mystifies me. They won.

I don't think I have all the answers, but have thought throughout this case that Tammi would have been much better off if certain crime junkies on fb had stayed in their armchairs and not involved themselves personally in this case. kwim?

I think the coughing at trial issue relates to prosecutor claiming to know what it meant, if I explained that correctly. This was stated at the end of the argument, to wrap up the whole argument about misconduct - almost like a flourish, if you know what I mean.

No, I don't KNWYM about "certain crime junkies"....it's kind of oblique. Personally I do play armchair attorney because I find the legal part of the process fascinating.

But I can't presume to KNOW about defendants. If I happen to watch a trial, I make myself resist the urge to go out there and dig up information about the defendant, since the jury is not allowed to. WHAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE? I try to look at it as if I was sequestered. Often I come up with opinions that are definitely in the minority, but it's my personal take on the issue.

Our system is a little backward, I think, in insisting on giving the defendants the benefit of the doubt....so much so that I think it backfires. IMO the victims should be given the benefit of being believed. I guess the problem is we live in such a litiginous (sp) society that anybody who sues is suspected of trying to cash in on something?

I will give every defendant the benefit of "presumed innocent" until the final verdict. Only then will I go out and find out the back stories. The back stories in this case are indeed fascinating and damning, but they weren't in evidence. Still the jury was able to convict.

 

[artsy1]

Interesting information and you summarized it well. Re-reading it was more interesting than the prosecution closing and rebuttal. Retrospect is always better. Part of my problem following the trial was the personalities and styles of the attorneys. I didn't think Angela was that great of a prosecutor but equally or more annoying to me was Anne's "what's the use" kind of style. I still say it is an attorney's job to give any defendant the best possible representation and whether or not she had a good case or not, she did NOT represent Smith with any conviction. That said, jury took the evidence in hand, which I still think was in many ways tricky (considering everything involved) and rendered a just verdict. I'm interested in what anybody has to say about the penalty phase, what you think the Judge may decide, based on everything that has happened so far.

As far as the penalty phase goes, I think much of it will depend on how much information can be brought up by the prosecution.

We had testimony at trial about how H's adoption went down - about the dad landing in jail, etc. Having heard Tammi herself tell LE about how she planned on getting Gabriel away from Logan might make the judge wonder if that was how they got H away from her father.

We had testimony about how S's adoption isn't final, and that a home study has not been done yet, nor a guardianship paper signed. If I were the judge, after hearing that they had S in their care basically since she was born and is now almost 2, yet still don't have a guardianship paper or the home study, I would wonder if there was more about the Smith family that didn't come out at trial that have to do with those 2 steps not having been done yet.

The fact that the majority of Tammi's testimony on the stand contradicts a great deal of what she had told LE over and over (again, the audio tapes), should make the judge wonder why her story has changed - all the way back to now there is a woman at the airport with EJ, when all along it's been EJ all alone crying with a baby. Tammi can say it was the "body talk" all she wants - but that should only contribute more to the original story than changing the facts all together.

And the exaggerations! Why, the very night that the search warrant was served, was Tammi talking calmly on the phone to Det. Ramirez, and Jack falling asleep, when the way she said it 2 years later on the stand, they were all being terrorized by the SWAT team with the helicopters buzzing overhead? And since the helicopters were media, who do you think called them? Does anyone really think that LE called the media to tell them they were serving a search warrant, or that Tammi called to have new information to share on Nancy Grace?

Add in the testimony that Tammi had lost custody of her biological children when they were young (because of her husband's attorney taking a case of Jim Beam in to the judge?!?!?!), yet appeared "obsessed" at getting new children? And why did she state that 2 children was "the perfect family" and that's why she wanted a sibling for H? How do you think that would have made her THREE biological children feel hearing that?

And if the prosecution brings in SOG after all that, where now she wants to have 50 single women with their children under her control, I think the judge will need help picking his jaw up off the floor.

As far as the forgery conviction, I don't think she'll get probation because "I didn't understand what my attorney meant by putting a ficticious person on the form". Well, dear, then you ASK what it means! You don't start adding real people to the form. "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." But besides that, we have Tammi's own words to LE (again, the tapes) stating that she wanted to add several men's names as possible fathers for Gabriel to slow down the process of establishing paternity. That admission to LE, IMHO, brings that charge out of the probation possibility into jail time.

Having said that, I expect there will also be jail time for the CTCCI conviction as well. Just based on what I've laid out here, I expect it will be somewhere around mid-range jail time.

However, IF the prosecution is able to add more info about Tammi's past (her criminal convictions, her still-owing child support in LA for her OWN children, the unpaid fine and cease and desist from the state of TN for running a colonics business without a license, the $56,000+ owing to the IRS for not paying income taxes for years, etc), I could see the judge throwing the book at her, IMHO.