Oral Arguments Tammi Smith Motions 6/18/12

[ChickenPants]

If you mean the Judges decision that it was a single act...well, I'm disappointed as I'm sure many others are as well. Poor baby Gabriel...there will never be justice for this lil' boy and Tammi will probably get probation and continue to help other young mother's like EJ....what a shame.

I am wondering if the judge tended toward leniency today because he's already leaning toward a jail sentence, and is today giving her a couple of more weeks out before putting her away. If he's leaning toward jail, it will be a matter of for how long from min. to max. One would hope she would curtail some of her "interfering-type" of activities in the meantime...but based on her history, and the fact that she is still convinced she is totally innocent...I don't think so.

 

[STEADFAST]

I am wondering if the judge tended toward leniency today because he's already leaning toward a jail sentence, and is today giving her a couple of more weeks out before putting her away. If he's leaning toward jail, it will be a matter of for how long from min. to max. One would hope she would curtail some of her "interfering-type" of activities in the meantime...but based on her history, and the fact that she is still convinced she is totally innocent...I don't think so.

We wish! I bet his being lenient now (and at the end of the trial) means he's going to be lenient later, too. Who is she, Lindsey Lohan?!

 

[Troubled]

I think TS is getting off easy. It doesn't surprise me. I am definitely disappointed but not surprised. It seems to be the way the court system is set up.
I wonder if they would have found Baby Gabriel dead (not that I want that) if it would cause the judges decision to be different?.?.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Darn, I was hoping jail was going to happen for sure. If she only gets probation, I'm betting on 5 years. It should be 10.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I'm wondering if this doesn't also apply to Elizabeth. I'd love to hear what her attorney thinks about this.

I wonder if this will have any impact on EJ's case. The judge is being a bit too lenient with this child thief.

 

[Marigold]

I have heard that the Governor of Arizona is a "friend" on her FB and possibly support page, both of which were always available to just about anybody as she has wanted to demonstrate to the world that she is INNOCENT and also to pray for anybody who doubts that.

So if the Gov. is monitoring that, makes sense Judge, prosecution and everybody else is, too.

Right now, Gov. Jan Brewer has about 5000 fb friends, so I don't think there's anything of import between her and TS. I assume that a member of the governor's staff auto-accepts any friendship, especially anyone from Arizona.

 

[ChickenPants]

I mentioned earlier that I would post if I had any information about what occurred in the hearing today.

My sources have told me the following:

Persons attending this hearing included Detective Ramirez, who sat at the prosecution table. Both of Tammi's attorneys were present and sat with her at the defense table. Also attending was Jason Berry from KPHO.

When the hearing began, attorneys were in chambers with the judge. Next, oral arguments were presented.

Apparently the prosecution changed something significant during oral argument. The forgery had been based on the evidence that it referenced the questionable paternity of Gabriel, and Logan was the "victim". Today, Angela argued that the forgery was against the state and the court, and stated that there "...could be multiple victims". The dates of custodial interference (according to prosecution indictment) being December 8 - 28.

The Judge appeared to be unhappy with this sudden change of (as evidenced by his demeanor and facial expressions) and source says he "questioned her"; finally, he ruled that Logan did not technically have custodial rights until December 18, and that there were not two separate acts, but "one long-standing conspiracy"; the only victim is Logan McQueary", he said.

There were no other prior acts brought out at the trial.

The Judge told Tammi there were three possible outcomes at sentencing: Probation, jail or prison. The judge informed Tammi that she would need to get ready for whatever he decides.

My sources could not see Tammi clearly and do not know how she reacted. There was no conversation with the defendant or any of the others involved in today's proceedings.

Hope this gives you all some insight.

 

[momtective]

Respectfully snipped for space and BBM

he ruled that Logan did not technically have custodial rights until December 18, and that there were not two separate acts, but "one long-standing conspiracy"; the only victim is Logan McQueary", he said.

So what about Gabriel, is he not a victim?

TY CP for posting this information.

 

[Aghast]

Thank you ChickenPants,
I was hoping to get some details. I appreciate it.

Wish we could have had a live stream. Sigh

 

[ChickenPants]

Respectfully snipped for space and BBM



So what about Gabriel, is he not a victim?

TY CP for posting this information.

As we know, the little Angel Gabriel - the REAL victim - was lost in the drama a long time ago....hardly if ever mentioned at the trial, referred to as "the baby" like he is a Wal-Mart doll that got misplaced in shipping...

I find it bizarre that this whole trial went on with Logan put front and center as THE VICTIM - based on the interference being of his custodial rights, when technically, as the judge has reiterated, those rights did not come into effect until December 18. All I am saying is that the law does not have "feelings" - but cold, hard facts, names, dates, places, who was where and when. So this was established with great vigor by the prosecution.

I do NOT understand why the shift went from Logan to The State and The Court with "other possible victims" at this last minute. It seems that they wanted the 703 hearing to go against the defendant and have her punished by jail. I feel almost as if they "shot themselves in the foot". It would put a whole new spin on the whole trial. I would think they would have come out and stated this at the beginning.

As I understand it, AZ law states that multiple victims must be alleged for purposes of the 703, but again, I am surprised that the prosecution would not have known this in advance and have been prepared with more case law (apparently they only cited one supportive precedent). A prosecutor would have all of these ducks lined up and picked them off one at a time. Why this drastic change all of a sudden? Perhaps someone on here can give me some insight.

As an added tidbit, I am told the defendant wore a feminine, frilly, sleeveless beige top with her hair swept behind one ear and fastened with a large, colorful flower. I forgot to ask if there was a cross or if it was resting on any exposed cleavage.

I will look forward to your opinions.
:rollercoaster:

 

[LadyL]

she better not get probation :maddening:

 

[momtective]

As we know, the little Angel Gabriel - the REAL victim - was lost in the drama a long time ago....hardly if ever mentioned at the trial, referred to as "the baby" like he is a Wal-Mart doll that got misplaced in shipping...

I find it bizarre that this whole trial went on with Logan put front and center as THE VICTIM - based on the interference being of his custodial rights, when technically, as the judge has reiterated, those rights did not come into effect until December 18. All I am saying is that the law does not have "feelings" - but cold, hard facts, names, dates, places, who was where and when. So this was established with great vigor by the prosecution.

I do NOT understand why the shift went from Logan to The State and The Court with "other possible victims" at this last minute. It seems that they wanted the 703 hearing to go against the defendant and have her punished by jail. I feel almost as if they "shot themselves in the foot". It would put a whole new spin on the whole trial. I would think they would have come out and stated this at the beginning.

As I understand it, AZ law states that multiple victims must be alleged for purposes of the 703, but again, I am surprised that the prosecution would not have known this in advance and have been prepared with more case law (apparently they only cited one supportive precedent). A prosecutor would have all of these ducks lined up and picked them off one at a time. Why this drastic change all of a sudden? Perhaps someone on here can give me some insight.

As an added tidbit, I am told the defendant wore a feminine, frilly, sleeveless beige top with her hair swept behind one ear and fastened with a large, colorful flower. I forgot to ask if there was a cross or if it was resting on any exposed cleavage.

I will look forward to your opinions.
:rollercoaster:

My opinion is simply this; we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system where justice is rarely served. In this particular case there will never be justice for Gabriel, never! His identity has been stolen from him, his birth right has been stolen from him, and his family has been stolen from him.

If Gabriel is never found Logan will live the rest of his life with a huge whole in his life and Gabriel will grow up living a lie that only the cruelest of humanity would perpetrate against an innocent child, an entire life based on lies and deception. It makes me want to tell every blonde haired, blue eyed, 3 year old boy in the world "your real name might be Gabriel Johnson McQueary!" :banghead:

 

[saba]

As we know, the little Angel Gabriel - the REAL victim - was lost in the drama a long time ago....hardly if ever mentioned at the trial, referred to as "the baby" like he is a Wal-Mart doll that got misplaced in shipping...

I find it bizarre that this whole trial went on with Logan put front and center as THE VICTIM - based on the interference being of his custodial rights, when technically, as the judge has reiterated, those rights did not come into effect until December 18. All I am saying is that the law does not have "feelings" - but cold, hard facts, names, dates, places, who was where and when. So this was established with great vigor by the prosecution.

I do NOT understand why the shift went from Logan to The State and The Court with "other possible victims" at this last minute. It seems that they wanted the 703 hearing to go against the defendant and have her punished by jail. I feel almost as if they "shot themselves in the foot". It would put a whole new spin on the whole trial. I would think they would have come out and stated this at the beginning.

As I understand it, AZ law states that multiple victims must be alleged for purposes of the 703, but again, I am surprised that the prosecution would not have known this in advance and have been prepared with more case law (apparently they only cited one supportive precedent). A prosecutor would have all of these ducks lined up and picked them off one at a time. Why this drastic change all of a sudden? Perhaps someone on here can give me some insight.

As an added tidbit, I am told the defendant wore a feminine, frilly, sleeveless beige top with her hair swept behind one ear and fastened with a large, colorful flower. I forgot to ask if there was a cross or if it was resting on any exposed cleavage.

I will look forward to your opinions.
:rollercoaster:

Logan is a victim. Gabriel is a victim. A particular law may recognize one and
not the other, but that is only part of what we as a people and a community understand as basic human truths. I think the jury's decison was informed by those truths-and as you stated in another post- they came to a just decision.

I am pleased that you bring up the overuse of the term "baby" when talking about Gabriel. It grates on my nerves. Just yesterday I read a post on another thread that never mentioned Gabe by name but went on about how "the baby's life" would be important in EJ's trial, the "baby's" timeline would be explored, the "baby's stay" with the Smiths...on and on. I gotta say by the end of it all, I was gritting my teeth. So thanks for reminding all of us how important it is to acknowledge Gabriel's personhood by using his name.

And yes, that was your post.



moo

 

[ChickenPants]

Logan is a victim. Gabriel is a victim. A particular law may recognize one and
not the other, but that is only part of what we as a people and a community understand as basic human truths. I think the jury's decison was informed by those truths-and as you stated in another post- they came to a just decision.

I am pleased that you bring up the overuse of the term "baby" when talking about Gabriel. It grates on my nerves. Just yesterday I read a post on another thread that never mentioned Gabe by name but went on about how "the baby's life" would be important in EJ's trial, the "baby's" timeline would be explored, the "baby's stay" with the Smiths...on and on. I gotta say by the end of it all, I was gritting my teeth. So thanks for reminding all of us how important it is to acknowledge Gabriel's personhood by using his name.

And yes, that was your post.



moo

I have thought of "baby" as Gabriel every day so I am duly embarassed for having done that. I will say, though, I am not the prosecutor or defense and I HOPE I would have fought to make everybody remember him at the trial. It seems at trials people get do get depersonalized and I do see this happened to Gabriel. So I apologize for any posts where I've failed to make that clear.

My point is, the prosecution's strategy seemed to have been to make sure this was not going to happen to Logan by reminding the jury of the very specific ways in which he was victimized, and etc. They never mentioned other victims.

The thing that puzzles me is the sudden change, and at the last minute. It was State vs. Tammi all along but what I'm saying is proseuction laid all of their EMPHASIS on Logan, and they never once made any reference to "The State" or "The Court" or "possibly others" until yesterday.

What you've said kind of clarifies what I mean. Gabriel seemed to have been depersonalized (as "the baby"). It's puzzing to me how prosecutors suddenly shifted the victimhood off Logan and onto impersonal entitles/groups. It seems like they would have been able to add them into the trial from the outset, making reference to state, court and others throughout the trial, wrapping it up in closing argument and ending with the 703 hearing. Then in their final arguments they could have reminded the jury that it was not ONLY Logan, but (etc., etc.) who suffered the consequences.

If it has to do with the grounds for the 703, I just don't get why they weren't prepared to put it out there from the very beginning. It just seems ... odd. But maybe I am not understanding it correctly. Thanks for your input.

 

[smokey]

report on hearing yesterday from KPHO
check out Tammi Smith and the flower in her hair...not very age-appropriate IMO

http://www.kpho.com/video?clipId=7412404&autostart=true

 

[saba]

I have thought of "baby" as Gabriel every day so I am duly embarassed for having done that. I will say, though, I am not the prosecutor or defense and I HOPE I would have fought to make everybody remember him at the trial. It seems at trials people get do get depersonalized and I do see this happened to Gabriel. So I apologize for any posts where I've failed to make that clear.

My point is, the prosecution's strategy seemed to have been to make sure this was not going to happen to Logan by reminding the jury of the very specific ways in which he was victimized, and etc. They never mentioned other victims.

The thing that puzzles me is the sudden change, and at the last minute. It was State vs. Tammi all along but what I'm saying is proseuction laid all of their EMPHASIS on Logan, and they never once made any reference to "The State" or "The Court" or "possibly others" until yesterday.

What you've said kind of clarifies what I mean. Gabriel seemed to have been depersonalized (as "the baby"). It's puzzing to me how prosecutors suddenly shifted the victimhood off Logan and onto impersonal entitles/groups. It seems like they would have been able to add them into the trial from the outset, making reference to state, court and others throughout the trial, wrapping it up in closing argument and ending with the 703 hearing. Then in their final arguments they could have reminded the jury that it was not ONLY Logan, but (etc., etc.) who suffered the consequences.

If it has to do with the grounds for the 703, I just don't get why they weren't prepared to put it out there from the very beginning. It just seems ... odd. But maybe I am not understanding it correctly. Thanks for your input.

I listened to most of the trial and iirc, the prosecution used Gabriel, Gabriel Johnson or Baby Gabriel. The defense called him baby. I think all that has to do with the fact that the prosecutors want to remind the jury that the missing child has a name and is a real person the jurors should care about and remember in their deliberations. The defense not so much: personalizing the victim does not help the defendant, in fact, quite the opposite. It's just tactics and strategy and goes on in trials all the time. I hate it but I have been more annoyed with the defendants in this case who use "baby" all the time and seem sometimes to have forgotten Gabriel's name altogether. Of course, I didn't know until the trial that Tammi had changed Gabe's name to Jacob so that explains some of it I guess.

Sounds like the prosecutors saw the door closing on the 703 motion and scrambled to find some alternate arguments to support their contentions. No cigar, but not in itself a huge new development or theory. The prosecutors want Tammi to go to jail. They are prosecutors after all.

my opinion as usual

 

[ChickenPants]

I listened to most of the trial and iirc, the prosecution used Gabriel, Gabriel Johnson or Baby Gabriel. The defense called him baby. I think all that has to do with the fact that the prosecutors want to remind the jury that the missing child has a name and is a real person the jurors should care about and remember in their deliberations. The defense not so much: personalizing the victim does not help the defendant, in fact, quite the opposite. It's just tactics and strategy and goes on in trials all the time. I hate it but I have been more annoyed with the defendants in this case who use "baby" all the time and seem sometimes to have forgotten Gabriel's name altogether. Of course, I didn't know until the trial that Tammi had changed Gabe's name to Jacob so that explains some of it I guess.

Sounds like the prosecutors saw the door closing on the 703 motion and scrambled to find some alternate arguments to support their contentions. No cigar, but not in itself a huge new development or theory. The prosecutors want Tammi to go to jail. They are prosecutors after all.

my opinion as usual

Makes sense to me. Thanks.

 

[Wishbone]

My opinion is simply this; we do not have a justice system, we have a legal system where justice is rarely served. In this particular case there will never be justice for Gabriel, never! His identity has been stolen from him, his birth right has been stolen from him, and his family has been stolen from him.

If Gabriel is never found Logan will live the rest of his life with a huge whole in his life and Gabriel will grow up living a lie that only the cruelest of humanity would perpetrate against an innocent child, an entire life based on lies and deception. It makes me want to tell every blonde haired, blue eyed, 3 year old boy in the world "your real name might be Gabriel Johnson McQueary!" :banghead:

I'm preparing myself for more underserving of justice when TS gets probation instead of jail time.

 

[Aghast]

She did not wear that flower on her head.
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaa.

 

[ChickenPants]

She did not wear that flower on her head.
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaa.

What I noticed was she was yammering to her attorney and the atty put her hand on the chair and swung her around away from her facing the front.